thechoctopfilmblog

I was confused about the purpose of this film, and sadly, I was still confused after watching the film. All the elements of this new version of King Kong have been recycled. Taking parts of the originals/remakes and hastily gluing them together again in a different way doesn't mean it is going to create an inventive artwork.

And I knew they would put a scene where Kong saves a pretty lady in his palm, I just knew it. All that's improved from the previous films is Kong's appearance. He is fluffier, angrier and more realistic. Some points must be given to the stunning visual effects.

The characters' names and faces have also changed, but their nature and characteristics are half dimensional and predictable. It is stereotypes upon stereotypes. It is a major waste of talent with Tom Hiddleston, Samuel L Jackson and Academy Award winner Brie Larson ("Room") struggling in the muddled chaos. You could see and feel the disappointment. Even Kong seems confused. The performances are half- hearted and there is just no substance for them to work with. I bet all they were thinking of while filming was 'get me out of here' – literally.

For the majority of the film, everyone says very few words to each other. The conversations are forced and laughable. It wouldn't have made a difference if they were just silent. It's so predictable that you would know exactly what the next line would be.

I thought while watching this, was this meant to be an exaggerated satire of King Kong? Or was it meant to be taken seriously? Even the execution of the film presents the same questions. At one point, it would be slow and mystic, and minutes later, overly upbeat music would hit your ears, and we are treated to magnified slow-motion action. It feels it is trying too hard to get our attention. And once it does, it doesn't know how to sustain it.

And finally, there are so many extreme close-ups of Samuel L. Jackson's face, it probably took up half the film. They did it to match Kong's face, so you can imagine how gigantic it was.

Maybe if Director Jordan Vogt-Roberts figured out from the beginning what type and style of film this would be, it would have been a better film. It seems like he had an idea but is unconvicted towards it, and instead keeps changing his mind to offer more 'fun'. The result that it is a jumble of various pieces that don't belong in the same puzzle.

I remember feeling very sad when the last Harry Potter film hit the theatres. It was the end of something I deeply loved growing up. Now, JK Rowling's wizarding world is given another chance to be showcased on the big screen. Not only that, the magic moves beyond Hogwarts and London, making its way all the way to 1920s New York.

Instead of Harry Potter, our new hero is Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne), a magical creatures enthusiast, who famously wrote 'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them' - a text book that Harry and his friends would study 70 years later. Donning a fine blue coat and carrying a briefcase filled with magical creatures, Newt arrives in New York with the intention of reaching Arizona to send Thunderbird back to its natural habitat. However, upon the escape of his most adorable, yet incredibly astute Niffler (who also has an insatiable desire for shiny things), Newt meets Jacob (Dan Fogler), a No-Mag (US equivalent of 'Muggle', which essentially means non- magical folk), who accidentally lets some of his creatures loose in the city.

As it turns out, there couldn't be a more terrible time for this to happen. New York is currently ravaged by a mysterious, destructive dark force, and Newt's creatures quickly became suspects by the members of the MCUSA (Magical Congress of USA). One of them is Tina (Katherine Waterson), a disgraced Auror, who quickly grew a liking for Newt but felt compelled to do her duty to report Newt to the Congress in order to keep the magical community safe.

As expected from JK Rowling, the magical world depicted in this film brimmed with wonder and charm. Fans of Harry Potter would be pleasantly surprised at the re-appearance of the familiar spells such as 'Obliviate' and 'Alohamora'. The audience is also introduced to new magical concepts, including the 'Obscurus', an uncontrollable, sinister force that appears inside children when they try to suppress their magical powers and the 'Legilimens' – mind- reading art. We see for the first time, the extravagant, majestic interiors of the MCUSA and the riveting world of fascinating magical creatures inside Newt's briefcase. I felt I was in the shoes of Jacob, gawking as I discover all this for the first time.

All the characters in the film are delightfully likable, particularly Newt and Jacob. Naturally introverted, Redmayne portrays Newt's shyness and innocence magically. His love for his creatures is contagious and we really connect with his passions. Fogler as his unlikely friend is equally brilliant, giving us most of the laughs in the film. The lovely ladies of the film - Waterson and Alison Sudol as her sister Queenie, their beauty and authenticity shines. The relationships they form with Newt and Jacob begins delicately, but we find that they're actually very compatible with each other. Colin Farrell shows his versatility as the villain Percival Graves. It was a little odd seeing him waving a wand instead of a gun, but he was nevertheless believable.

Fantastic Beasts is extravagantly produced, especially in terms of its production and costume design. This, along with masterful CGI to bring the magical creatures to life and a vibrant score (James Newton Howard), the end product is a film that is visually enchanting. It also has plenty of heart, about love and friendships that could form at the most unexpected times. No matter how old you are, or whether or not you're a Harry Potter fan previously, it is a film that would bring joy and warmth to your heart.

A film of spontaneous, colourful magic and charm, La La Land captivates us from the very first scene. Visually, it is spectacular. All the elements sing in harmony and coalesce together to form a beautiful artwork. It was director Damian Chazelle ('Whiplash')'s dream for many years to get this film made, and what a passionate, special film he has created. It is a treat for your eyes and ears, and especially your heart.

But let's talk about that opening scene. A hundred dancers, enthusiastically and joyously dancing and singing during a traffic jam on a freeway. Chazelle doesn't wait, he gives us the best from the very start. As the audience, we are immediately enchanted by a symphony of joy and delightful music. I won't spoil the entire scene, but it is done with such incredible craft and skill, it will be remembered for a long time to come.

On that freeway, our protagonists, Mia (Emma Stone) and Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) are introduced. Both are struggling artists, trying to find their way in LA. Mia is an aspiring actress and Sebastian is a talented pianist, determined to revive and preserve traditional jazz music. Through a series of chance meetings, the two eventually fall for each other, and pursue their dreams, with one another by their side. The chemistry between and Stone and Gosling is undeniably instantaneous. The fiery intensity of their connection reminded me of the classic Hollywood couples we admired and loved, like Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall.

A city of dreams, there is no better place than LA to tell this story. On the surface, to those of us unfamiliar with the true essence and identity of the city, we can easily be mesmerised by its allure and its potential for achieving our romanticised ideals. Chazelle wanted to re-create the classic and nostalgic look of the city during the 1950s, and he has successfully captured not just the aesthetic, but also the timeless feeling the city exudes, with a tinge of novelty. To Chazelle, the sound of LA is jazz. Justin Hurwitz's score is a blend of pure extravagance and subtlety. With its jazz influences and undertones, each note tells a story of its own. The trumpet gave the film its life and energy, while the piano touched our hearts and soothed our soul.

I was particularly awestruck at the daedal use of light and the camera-work in this film. Each shot must have been planned meticulously, and yet, they appear very natural. The dance sequences are flawless, effortlessly blending in with the story itself. The hilltop dance between Stone and Gosling - I can imagine just how much effort was invested to get it perfect. As it is taken in one shot, one mistake meant that they would have to start again.

The characters of Mia and Sebastian essentially embody our hopes for romance and our passions. Their journey begins with zealous optimism and as the story progresses, the harsh realities begin to emerge and unveil themselves as they navigate through the challenges. Each one is extremely relatable. In this respect, La La Land is essentially a realistic fairy-tale. In the first half, we are overwhelmed by its elegance and beauty, and in the latter half, we get opportunities to rest our eyes a little, and that is when our hearts start to feel. Beneath the dazzling facade, the story waits for us to discover that warm, but painfully real dynamic that exists between Mia and Sebastian. The music gave this film its rhythm, but it is the love story between these characters that gave La La Land its heartbeat.

Each frame of La La Land could be paused, and turned into an exquisite photograph. I am very glad for the success of Whiplash, otherwise this film may not have been made the way it did. It is creative, refreshing, and daringly speaks to our emotions. The songs, the dances, the story and the characters are immensely addictive. The ending of La La left me stunned. It took a while for me to process what has just happened. But this is why this film is so great. The audience is incredibly invested into these characters and when we get results that we didn't expect, we understand it. It would just take a little while for our hearts to mend.