‘Fantastic Beasts’ An Excellent Expansion of the ‘Harry Potter’ Universe

Photo: Bohm Theatre

When I first heard that “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them” was becoming a theatrical spinoff of that scar-faced boy wizard series, I rolled my eyes and groaned. I interpreted as many folks did, a cash grab that would be thrown together clumsily and without regard to artistic quality. All that mattered was the bottom line, and association with the biggest cultural juggernaut of the 2000s would mean that to meet the monetary expectations, little effort would be needed.

Rest assured, I referred to the “Harry Potter” franchise as I did in the first sentence in ironic jest. Like many of my generation, J.K Rowling gave me some of the fondest memories of my childhood and adolescence. I’ve read each book at least half-a-dozen times and I see the eight films, decent at worst (“Goblet of Fire”) and a masterpiece at best (“Prisoner of Azkaban”), are the standard bearer for serialized, long form cinematic storytelling. The scene in “Boyhood” where Ellar Coltrane and Lorelai Linklater attend the midnight release of the “The Half-Blood Prince” in costume gave me the biggest nostalgiagasm I can remember.

And to potentially besmirch all of that with “Fantastic Beasts,” which was subsequently announced to be a five-film series even before the first was released, is like if Da Vinci decided to do another portrait of the Mona Lisa when she was in her mid-80s, her beauty ransacked by time and age.

‘Doctor Strange’ Actually Quite Ordinary, And Not All That Good

Photo: comicbook.com

Imagine eating a rich, dark, brick of the finest artisan fudge. The first bite you take from it is almost overpowering with flavor. The second is, while not quite as profound, still immensely satisfying. As you continue to chomp away at the fudge in rapid succession, you notice that by your seventh or eighth mouthful that much of the flavor has diminished, and that you’re chewing on a piece of creamy, masterfully crafted plaster. “Doctor Strange,” the newest entry into the increasingly omnipresent Marvel cinematic universe, is that eighth bite of fudge, a victim of overindulgence.

Review: ‘The Hateful Eight’

Photo: redcarpertcrash.com

Quentin Tarantino is becoming the new Alfred Hitchcock. Not in the sense of the man, but the name. If one is unfamiliar with “Rope” or “The Birds,” before sitting down to watch it, you can simply say “it’s a Hitchcock,” and they’ll gather a basic cloud of expectation.

Both directors leave such a vivid fingerprint of themselves on their work, their filmographies gain a reputation, and you can never review their films without speaking heavily of the men themselves.

Review: ‘Star Wars: The Force Awakens’ (Spoiler Free)

Photo: Huffington Post

Foreword: When I say that this review is spoiler free, I mean that I won’t be giving away anything gasp-worthy, or what the trolls have been surreptitiously placing on random Reddit posts. However, I will be giving away background details, as much that’s revealed within the first act, which is my standard policy for reviews. But this is also being published after “The Force Awakens'” opening weekend, so let’s be real, you’ve seen it. I don’t you know why you would be reading this if you hadn’t. But if you are, thanks for the attention.

If the nearly quarter-billion in earnings from the opening weekend doesn’t prove that the release “Star Wars: the Force Awakens” isn’t the most anticipated event in 2015, then our standards of proof need to be re-measured.

I will admit that I chose not to ride the “Star Wars” hype-wing. My distrust of director J.J. Abrams following, at least what I saw, as a butchering of the “Star Trek” reboot quelled my expectations.  And although I was in first grade when it came out, I hadn’t forgotten what happened the world lost their minds for the new first chapter in a “Star Wars” trilogy.

Crushing Fresh Tomatoes: ‘Gravity’

Photo: impawards.com

I have a general rule when it comes to film quality that I have yet to find an exception to. A movie can feature bad acting and still be great, like “Night of the Living Dead.” It can have laughable effects and still be rousing, see “Total Recall.” It can even have a worthless hack director and have all the other elements come together quite nicely, see “Rush Hour.”

But if the writing sucks, the movie sucks. And boy oh boy does “Gravity” have a terrible screenplay.

Tomm Moore: The Newest Pioneer In Animated Cinema

Photo: ctnanimationexpo.com

The genre of animation in relation to film has long been defined by several visionaries, each with a dignified era of supremacy where they expanded and reinvented the stylistic criterion of hand-drawn, and now computer-drawn, storytelling.

Walt Disney, of course, was the original titan.  While “Snow White and the Seven Dwarves” wasn’t the first feature length animated feature, he forever changed public perception of the medium, and his production company had a near monopoly on it for forty years. His works and those like it were no longer called cartoons, the moniker they had been slapped with since their inception.

Crushing Fresh Tomatoes: ‘Howl’s Moving Castle’

Photo: impawards.com

Let me make something abundantly clear: I adore Hayao Miyazaki. Within and beyond the realm of animation, cinema has never known a more imaginative storyteller.

While he is universally praised for the grandeur and beauty of his animation, detailed down to the shadows left by trees in the background; Miyazaki’s greatest strength is actually his approach to conflict and character.

Crushing Fresh Tomatoes: ‘Under The Skin’

Photo: mountain.com

(This piece contains spoilers)

Here is a basic summary of my experience watching “Under The Skin:”

What the hell is going on here? Oh wait, I think I’ve figured it out… nope, never mind.

There are cryptic movies, there are non-descript movies, and then there is the opaque purgatorial fog that is “Under The Skin.”

Crushing Fresh Tomatoes: ‘American Sniper’

Photo: The Hollywood Press

There are two spheres of criticism for this film.

The first is for what are not-too-unfairly labeled as the cynical liberal reasons. Those being: the film’s negligence to attest to the darker, more sadistic elements of Chris Kyle’s personality, a one-dimensional view of a war that stands as the single greatest mistake made by the American government since the Japanese internment camps, and expressing a sense of nationalism so strong that it crosses the line separating gratitude and glorification in regards to the U.S. military.

I would be lying if I said I disagreed with the above sentiments, but that’s not what I’m here to talk about, nor are they why I dislike “American Sniper.” This brings me to the second, more traditional, sphere of criticism. It just does not tell its story well.