Let's get the obvious out of the way first - I'm a Harry Potter fan, much like the billions of other people all over the world. When the final book was released and when the final movie was released, yes I yearned for more. That always happens when a series goes out at the right time. We want more. It's only after it goes on too long and has worn out its welcome and some of the actors have already left and it's bleeding the source material dry do we actually WANT it to end. So, when Rowling started kind of a spin-off of the series with Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them it was exciting because we got more of that Harry Potter world that we yearned so much for. But, it wasn't Harry Potter. It wasn't even close. Yeah, Newt Scamander is a decent hero. Yeah, there are some fun, quirky side characters. But the movie was lackluster and all I could keep thinking while watching it was that I wanted to go and watch Harry Potter again. Much like Better Call Saul makes you really just yearn for Breaking Bad (though Better Call Saul is actually a superior spinoff). I think Rowling really took this to heart because while The Crimes of Grindelwald is a better film than its predecessor, the only thing it really accomplishes is making the audience really just want to go back and re-read and re-watch the Harry Potter series. She knows this - because she crams as many Potter nods into this script as she does new ideas.
I enjoyed The Crimes of Grindelwald. I did. But there wasn't much of a story and what there was of a story is extremely problematic. Basically it all revolves around Credence (Ezra Miller), the Obscurial from the first film, who apparently lived after almost vaporizing New York. How did he live? Reasons. He's now in Paris, traveling with a circus and the female human version of Nagini. He's trying to find his birth mother so he can understand who he is and where his "curse" comes from. Newt (Eddie Redmanyne) is summoned by Dumbledore (Jude Law) to go to Paris and find Credence before Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) does and uses him to do his evil deeds. There's also a bunch of side plots including Leta LeStrange (Zoe Kravitz) and her long-lost half-brother she assumes is dead, but may not actually be. Then there's Queenie and Jacob joining Newt on their quest to get married (but a pure blood and a muggle marriage is forbidden). Jacob remembers the events of the first movie also because reasons. Finally, Tina shows up to do nothing and ruin every moment she's in just like the first movie. Essentially, everything comes to a head at the end. There's some strange revelations and twists which all leads up to the actual identity of Credence, which I won't spoil here.
The problem with the film is that it's a middle film setting up for more sequels and absolutely nothing happens in this movie. There's almost nothing that drives the story and Grindelwald doesn't actually commit that many crimes. In fact, I couldn't really tell what exactly Grindelwald wanted that differs from what Voldemort wanted, except for the fact that apparently Grindelwald doesn't want to wipe out all muggles. He even tells his cronies this in private, and reiterates it when he holds his
The other big thing I took issue with in the story is that I was confused as hell all the way through. We're in JK Rowling's world, so she gets to control everything. She knows the ins and outs of every character, storyline, backstory, and all the in betweens. But if there was something confusing in the Harry Potter movies, there was always a book to be read to clear up any confusion. But in Fantastic Beasts there is no book. It's just from the mind of Rowling. So if shit isn't explicitly spelled out for the audience, we're left sitting there wondering what the hell is going on. And I felt that way for most of the movie. Why did Credence survive? Why didn't the memory spell work on Jacob? What are Grindelwald's crimes? Why did a certain character sacrifice him/herself at the end for no reason whatsoever? Who was the evil-looking lady in the hall of records? Why do Newt and his brother have weird beef? And that twist - um what??? Where did that come from? Again, not going to spoil anything but is Rowling just making shit up and disregarding everything else from the book or is it just a misdirect we'll find out about in three more years when the next one comes out? Too many questions to keep me invested in the story, which, again, there wasn't much of. In fact, all of the important info could've been summed up for the viewer in a prologue of a much better and satisfying movie. I trust Rowling, but I also believe she KNOWS the answers to all of these questions in her head, she just wasn't able to get them all out for it to make sense to us. So, in actuality, she's kinda George Lucas-ing these prequels.
A lot of the characters are fun in the film. I personally believe Newt is slowly, but surely transitioning into a pretty great protagonist, even though I know he's kind of a polarizing character - you either love him or hate him. I actually dig him. I like Queenie and Jacob more in the first movie, but at least they mattered to the plot of this one. Tina is awful. She was awful in the first film and she's even more awful/useless in this one. She's a boring, one-dimensional character that no one really roots for. When Newt is kinda going back and forth over Leta vs. Tina... we're all questioning Newt for thinking Tina is the superior being because let's be real... she's fucking not. I really hate to say this - but Johnny Depp brought the Grindelwald goods. He's been phoning it in a lot lately with his performances, especially in the last Pirates entry, but he genuinely makes this movie and the character more watchable than anyone else. Jude Law is the same way and it's going to be a badass movie when the two of them actually go toe-to-toe against one another. While I completely disagree with everything Johnny Depp has stood for and done in the past few years (namely the alleged spousal abuse) and I truly believe he should've absolutely lost the role... I can't deny that he was terrific in this film.
Really, there's just too much going on in the movie with such a lack of plot that if you think too hard about what you just watched... none of it is going to make sense. It's also very evident how long they're planning on stretching these movies out for. I thought we'd get a couple of them, maybe even a trilogy, but it looks like it's going to be a lot more than that. Hell, this movie takes place in 1923 and according to the books, Dumbledore and Grindelwald don't even have their dual until 1945. We got a lot of ground to cover and an infinite amount of movies to do it in. I think Rowling should stray from the "beasts" elements of the film since they really don't contribute to much anymore, they're there for the sake of the name. There were some cool Potter nods in the movie, but some were just a little too on the nose. If you're going to sacrifice plot for Harry Potter recognition moments, then just make another Harry Potter movie. But it is enjoyable. Redmayne, Depp, and Law all save the movie from being too mediocre, but you have to watch it with your brain turned off. Otherwise, there's just too many questions, too many inconsistencies, too many moments you just want to shake your head at. But the end of the movie will be the same for everyone - you're just going to go home and watch/read Harry Potter again.
B-
No comments:
Post a Comment