Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindewald - Review
Release date (US): November 16th, 2018
Directed By: David Yates
Rating: PG-13
Directed By: David Yates
Rating: PG-13
Starring: Eddie Redmayne, Katherine Waterston, Johnny Depp, Jude Law, Alison Sudol, Ezra Miller, Zoe Kravitz, Callum Turner, Claudia Kim, Dan Fogler
Expectations/Background: Harry Potter-craze is back, and in a big way. With the release of 2016's Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, the Wizarding World was reopened as audiences were introduced to new fan-favorites Newt Scamander and his team. And now, as with most big-budget sequels in Hollywood, the second installment conspicuously subtitled The Crimes of Grindewald, looked to step it up. Beginning with the return of Johnny Depp, a bold choice in the face of controversy and recent poor acting choice, the studio continued making choices that never fell on the line of ordinary, casting Jude Law as a young Albus Dumbledorre, as well as Claudia Kim as Nagini. Needless to say that intrigue surrounded this film and mired it in mystery as filming came and went, as did reshoots and post-productions. As the trailers came, they promised more of the excitement of the first film with a darker edge to it, placing a heavy emphasis on Johnny Depp and Jude Law as Grindewald and Dumbledore. I, personally having enjoyed the first Fantastic Beasts film amidst flaws that I saw, was extremely excited to see where this franchise would head next. And while I had trepidations that this film was simply using the moniker of "Fantastic Beasts" to tell a story of Grindewald and Dumbledore, I had no complaints with that. I felt that as long as there was a story to be told with the same characters as the first, there would be enough there to make an enjoyable movie, just as the first one was.
The Movie: As I walked out of the theater, I couldn't help but wondering one thing: what was the point of this movie?
I can best describe it as such; as a writer, I realized and have noticed that when you place too much emphasis on one singular aspect of a story that you want to tell and try to wrap a narrative around that, you end up with a convoluted, jumbled, distorted mess. For example, say I were to write a story about M and M's, and the only reason I wanted to write the story was really because I wanted to make an M and M's and Skittle's crossover film. Thus, I attempt to weave an entire narrative around the idea that at the very end of the movie, there will be a huge reveal that Skittles and M and M's exist in the same universe. What we end up with is not a good story; we end up with a meandering first, second, and partially third act that end up at a point that doesn't make sense. This is Fantastic Beasts 2.
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindewald (no spoilers) has very little substance. It's aim is to reach the end of the movie, where JK Rowling and the screenwriters attempt to pull the rug out from underneath the audience in a glorious "aha! Gotcha!" moment. And yet, in doing so, they pull the rug out from under their own film because in reality, the entire first two hours of the 134 minute runtime was a bunch of mismatched, haphazardly thrown together story elements that somehow reached the big "reveal".
This became quite evident to me at the end of the movie, in the third act climax, when we find everyone standing together. How did all of these disparate characters come to the same place at the same point in time? I honestly don't have much of an idea at all. But what I do know is that somehow, they end in the same place, despite having started the movie in completely different places, both literally and figuratively.
That is not to say this film is entirely negative. Confusing, yes, but not entirely negative. I can honestly say that I didn't have a "bad time" watching these characters reunite. Newt Scamander, though not rogueishly handsome or brilliantly eloquent, is charming enough, played by Eddie Redmayne, to carry the movie along. Jude Law, albeit not on screen for very much, makes his presence immediately known. He entirely makes up for the fact that he isn't in the movie much by the fact that he marks every scene that he is in as his own. And to Johnny Depp's credit, he puts on a show of acting, showing nuance, subtlety, and a creepy aura that is suitable for a character like this. He is captivating and terrifying at the same time (more on him later.
However, the other supporting characters, who felt much more vibrant in the last film, feel very flat and two-dimensional in this. In particular, though I loved and still enjoy Dan Fogler's Jacob Kowalski, in this film, he was rendered to the "bumbling" character who tells jokes. Katherine Waterston's Tina Goldstein is not given anything to do, and Queenie, played by Alison Sudol, is an annoyance. Her character serves no real purpose in the movie and is on screen for way too long.
New introductions and old faces like Claudia Kim and Ezra Miller serve their part. They are given a bit of screen-time and their acting is well done. The problem with those characters is that they were written very poorly. These characters, especially Claudia Kim's, don't have any idea of where their story is going, partly because their story isn't going anywhere. Ezra Miller's Credence is there to serve one purpose, and the rest of the time he's on screen, I had no idea why he was. The same can go for Zoe Kravtiz's Leta Lestrange, who appears just to do one thing towards the end of the movie.
A lot of the movie is told through exposition as well - there is a lot of characters saying "This is where I came from, these were my parents". Exposition is a necessary tool that writers use, yet when in excess, it becomes tricky to navigate, and by the end, I felt that I had watched two hours of exposition + action, and nothing more.
There are a couple key moments of fan service that were revealed in the trailer, but were regardless warranted. They fit into the story well and when they appeared onscreen, caused an audience reaction. I enjoyed them, though I think I didn't enjoy them nearly as much as the filmmakers thought I would.
But, and I stick to this principle for nearly every film, the most important part of a film is story. You can have a two hour movie with my favorite characters and actors in it, doing their best work, but the fact of the matter is that if there isn't a good story around them, it's all for naught. JK Rowling made a pivotal mistake in writing this movie. As an author, she was so used to the idea of having thousands of subplots that she could begin, carry over, and resolve in a 1000 page novel. But in a feature length film, she does not have the luxury, and thus we have a prioritization problem. She acts as if though every single B and C-plot from the first film needs to be carried, when in reality it does not. I find it incredible that I am able to count the number of characters that I DIDN'T need to see return. If this really was going to be called "The Crimes of Grindewald", they should have focused their entire A-plot on Grindewald. Instead, he is relegated to popping in and out and then being the "big boss" at the end of the film. I'm not even quite sure that there is an A-plot in this film at all.
I feel that for a movie that had so much potential, so much to offer for this franchise and a whole world to explore, the filmmakers and Rowling brushed over all of it just to set up a future "Grindewald versus Dumbledore". That's really what this film felt like. And while when that happens, it should be worth the wait, the fact of the matter is that this film does barely anything to set it up.
The Villains: Let's be very clear. Just because the character of Gellert Grindewald had little to nothing to do in the movie, that's not to say I disliked him as a villain. As a matter of fact, Johnny Depp's performance was easily (in my opinion) the strongest out of everyone. Kudos to the makeup and costume design team for pulling off a design that perfectly matches his character. It's fascinating to watch and look at him onscreen, and when he is allowed to fully go for it in future films, I have no doubt that we will be impressed by the magnitude of both his acting and his character. The problem is that in this movie, he isn't given anything to do, partly because this film is just another set up to get to another point in the timeline on its way to the 1945 Grindewald vs. Dumbledore duel.
The Music/Score: While the other parts of the film may have been lackluster, the score for the film works extremely well. If you are a true Harry Potter fan (Potterhead) you will recognize many motifs that occur throughout the film. They bring back memories that work very well with the scenes that they're in. And for what its worth, what truly made the final climax ascend past the first two hours of mediocrity was the music; the music hit the beats right along with the spells and swelled perfectly with the rest of the scenes.
I can best describe it as such; as a writer, I realized and have noticed that when you place too much emphasis on one singular aspect of a story that you want to tell and try to wrap a narrative around that, you end up with a convoluted, jumbled, distorted mess. For example, say I were to write a story about M and M's, and the only reason I wanted to write the story was really because I wanted to make an M and M's and Skittle's crossover film. Thus, I attempt to weave an entire narrative around the idea that at the very end of the movie, there will be a huge reveal that Skittles and M and M's exist in the same universe. What we end up with is not a good story; we end up with a meandering first, second, and partially third act that end up at a point that doesn't make sense. This is Fantastic Beasts 2.
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindewald (no spoilers) has very little substance. It's aim is to reach the end of the movie, where JK Rowling and the screenwriters attempt to pull the rug out from underneath the audience in a glorious "aha! Gotcha!" moment. And yet, in doing so, they pull the rug out from under their own film because in reality, the entire first two hours of the 134 minute runtime was a bunch of mismatched, haphazardly thrown together story elements that somehow reached the big "reveal".
This became quite evident to me at the end of the movie, in the third act climax, when we find everyone standing together. How did all of these disparate characters come to the same place at the same point in time? I honestly don't have much of an idea at all. But what I do know is that somehow, they end in the same place, despite having started the movie in completely different places, both literally and figuratively.
That is not to say this film is entirely negative. Confusing, yes, but not entirely negative. I can honestly say that I didn't have a "bad time" watching these characters reunite. Newt Scamander, though not rogueishly handsome or brilliantly eloquent, is charming enough, played by Eddie Redmayne, to carry the movie along. Jude Law, albeit not on screen for very much, makes his presence immediately known. He entirely makes up for the fact that he isn't in the movie much by the fact that he marks every scene that he is in as his own. And to Johnny Depp's credit, he puts on a show of acting, showing nuance, subtlety, and a creepy aura that is suitable for a character like this. He is captivating and terrifying at the same time (more on him later.
However, the other supporting characters, who felt much more vibrant in the last film, feel very flat and two-dimensional in this. In particular, though I loved and still enjoy Dan Fogler's Jacob Kowalski, in this film, he was rendered to the "bumbling" character who tells jokes. Katherine Waterston's Tina Goldstein is not given anything to do, and Queenie, played by Alison Sudol, is an annoyance. Her character serves no real purpose in the movie and is on screen for way too long.
New introductions and old faces like Claudia Kim and Ezra Miller serve their part. They are given a bit of screen-time and their acting is well done. The problem with those characters is that they were written very poorly. These characters, especially Claudia Kim's, don't have any idea of where their story is going, partly because their story isn't going anywhere. Ezra Miller's Credence is there to serve one purpose, and the rest of the time he's on screen, I had no idea why he was. The same can go for Zoe Kravtiz's Leta Lestrange, who appears just to do one thing towards the end of the movie.
A lot of the movie is told through exposition as well - there is a lot of characters saying "This is where I came from, these were my parents". Exposition is a necessary tool that writers use, yet when in excess, it becomes tricky to navigate, and by the end, I felt that I had watched two hours of exposition + action, and nothing more.
There are a couple key moments of fan service that were revealed in the trailer, but were regardless warranted. They fit into the story well and when they appeared onscreen, caused an audience reaction. I enjoyed them, though I think I didn't enjoy them nearly as much as the filmmakers thought I would.
But, and I stick to this principle for nearly every film, the most important part of a film is story. You can have a two hour movie with my favorite characters and actors in it, doing their best work, but the fact of the matter is that if there isn't a good story around them, it's all for naught. JK Rowling made a pivotal mistake in writing this movie. As an author, she was so used to the idea of having thousands of subplots that she could begin, carry over, and resolve in a 1000 page novel. But in a feature length film, she does not have the luxury, and thus we have a prioritization problem. She acts as if though every single B and C-plot from the first film needs to be carried, when in reality it does not. I find it incredible that I am able to count the number of characters that I DIDN'T need to see return. If this really was going to be called "The Crimes of Grindewald", they should have focused their entire A-plot on Grindewald. Instead, he is relegated to popping in and out and then being the "big boss" at the end of the film. I'm not even quite sure that there is an A-plot in this film at all.
I feel that for a movie that had so much potential, so much to offer for this franchise and a whole world to explore, the filmmakers and Rowling brushed over all of it just to set up a future "Grindewald versus Dumbledore". That's really what this film felt like. And while when that happens, it should be worth the wait, the fact of the matter is that this film does barely anything to set it up.
The Villains: Let's be very clear. Just because the character of Gellert Grindewald had little to nothing to do in the movie, that's not to say I disliked him as a villain. As a matter of fact, Johnny Depp's performance was easily (in my opinion) the strongest out of everyone. Kudos to the makeup and costume design team for pulling off a design that perfectly matches his character. It's fascinating to watch and look at him onscreen, and when he is allowed to fully go for it in future films, I have no doubt that we will be impressed by the magnitude of both his acting and his character. The problem is that in this movie, he isn't given anything to do, partly because this film is just another set up to get to another point in the timeline on its way to the 1945 Grindewald vs. Dumbledore duel.
The Music/Score: While the other parts of the film may have been lackluster, the score for the film works extremely well. If you are a true Harry Potter fan (Potterhead) you will recognize many motifs that occur throughout the film. They bring back memories that work very well with the scenes that they're in. And for what its worth, what truly made the final climax ascend past the first two hours of mediocrity was the music; the music hit the beats right along with the spells and swelled perfectly with the rest of the scenes.
In Conclusion: As disappointed as I am with the film, that's not to say you won't enjoy it. Especially if you're deep into the lore of the films and books, there are reveals and lore in the movie that you may find amusing. But what disappointed me most about the second installment is that this was a placeholder through and through. There was hardly any reason for this movie to exist other than to get the characters from A-B and to reveal something at the very end. The writing is all over the place, as is the focus. Which ultimately makes for a film that, while charming in certain parts, has no idea where it's ultimately going.
**DISCLAIMER**: This is a subjective, opinionated article that does not have, nor should have any affect on your opinion on the given material. As such, my opinion is entitled to change over time and whatever is written here at this given point in time may not and should not be held to me in the future. You are not meant to agree with me 100 percent of the time, because the nature of subjectivity is we see everything differently. Please keep this in mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment