Year: 2018
Director: David Yates
Starring: Eddie Redmayne, Dan Fogler, Katherine Waterston, Alison Sudol, Johnny Depp, Jude Law, Zoe Kravitz, Ezra Miller, and Claudia Kim
Starring: Eddie Redmayne, Dan Fogler, Katherine Waterston, Alison Sudol, Johnny Depp, Jude Law, Zoe Kravitz, Ezra Miller, and Claudia Kim
Tagline: Who Will Change the Future?
Synopsis: When the dark wizard Grindelwald escapes from custody, Albus Dumbledore enlists Newt Scamander to help track him down.
Synopsis: When the dark wizard Grindelwald escapes from custody, Albus Dumbledore enlists Newt Scamander to help track him down.
Review
Seventeen years ago, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was released in theaters. I'd never read any of the books. But once I'd seen the movie, I was an immediate fan. I have been ever since. As such, I absolutely loved Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald. It was so much of what I love about the Wizarding World of J.K. Rowling.
That makes this one of the rare movies where I completely disagree with the critics. I haven't read what they had to say, but I saw the score on Rotten Tomatoes and it made me sad. Having seen the movie, I think I do understand their qualms. Crimes of Grindelwald is very much a film for the fans. It doesn't work as a standalone film. Not at all. If you didn't see the first Fantastic Beasts you'd be utterly lost. If you didn't have a basic understanding of the world of Harry Potter, you wouldn't be as excited, as stunned, or as knowing. Lacking that foundation, so much of the film would fly over your head like a snitch in a Quidditch game.
It might also be argued that the story isn't as tight as it could be. There are numerous threads running through the film. Some came from the previous film and others are new. Almost none of them find any resolution by the time the credits roll. In fact, we are left with far more questions than answers. This is part of a 5-part story arc after all.
I've also heard some complaints that this one is less fun and darker than the first one. The tone is certainly different here. And the themes are indeed much darker. Far more is at stake. In the first, it seemed to be a few lives at stake (and sometimes more than a few). But now it is the world that is at stake and war is being waged not simply for lives, but for minds and souls, which can prove far more heart-wrenching to the invested viewer.
Grindelwald is a clever fellow. Persuasive too, as can be seen by the number of followers he gathers and even by who he is able to gather. Most dangerously, he seems to be a patient villain, willing to bide his time and wait for the right moments for things rather than always trying to force his will. It makes him interesting and all the more dangerous. And he is a fitting villain for the time frame of the movie. We are in the late 1920s. Grindewald's speeches and tactics echo the rise of the Third Reich and Hitler.
While the film is certainly darker -- and perhaps not suitable for the youngest kiddos who might be frightened -- the film is not devoid of fun. I laughed numerous times throughout the film. Newt is still odd but in an endearing way. Jacob is his lovable self, though he admittedly has less to do this time around. There aren't as many beasts this time, but they are fascinating nonetheless. And I personally quite like Jude Law's take on a young Albus Dumbledore.
The film is full of little moments for the fans. There are items and names and locations that make us giddy with recognition. I thought the story was well told for what it is. And I really liked the characters, both old and new. There's so much going on and it is all exciting.
In sum, if you are a Harry Potter fan, you will likely love Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald. And you'll likely be as puzzled as everyone else by certain things and thus on the edge of your seat until the next film comes out (November 2020). J.K. Rowling certainly knows how to spin a great story.
That makes this one of the rare movies where I completely disagree with the critics. I haven't read what they had to say, but I saw the score on Rotten Tomatoes and it made me sad. Having seen the movie, I think I do understand their qualms. Crimes of Grindelwald is very much a film for the fans. It doesn't work as a standalone film. Not at all. If you didn't see the first Fantastic Beasts you'd be utterly lost. If you didn't have a basic understanding of the world of Harry Potter, you wouldn't be as excited, as stunned, or as knowing. Lacking that foundation, so much of the film would fly over your head like a snitch in a Quidditch game.
It might also be argued that the story isn't as tight as it could be. There are numerous threads running through the film. Some came from the previous film and others are new. Almost none of them find any resolution by the time the credits roll. In fact, we are left with far more questions than answers. This is part of a 5-part story arc after all.
I've also heard some complaints that this one is less fun and darker than the first one. The tone is certainly different here. And the themes are indeed much darker. Far more is at stake. In the first, it seemed to be a few lives at stake (and sometimes more than a few). But now it is the world that is at stake and war is being waged not simply for lives, but for minds and souls, which can prove far more heart-wrenching to the invested viewer.
Grindelwald is a clever fellow. Persuasive too, as can be seen by the number of followers he gathers and even by who he is able to gather. Most dangerously, he seems to be a patient villain, willing to bide his time and wait for the right moments for things rather than always trying to force his will. It makes him interesting and all the more dangerous. And he is a fitting villain for the time frame of the movie. We are in the late 1920s. Grindewald's speeches and tactics echo the rise of the Third Reich and Hitler.
While the film is certainly darker -- and perhaps not suitable for the youngest kiddos who might be frightened -- the film is not devoid of fun. I laughed numerous times throughout the film. Newt is still odd but in an endearing way. Jacob is his lovable self, though he admittedly has less to do this time around. There aren't as many beasts this time, but they are fascinating nonetheless. And I personally quite like Jude Law's take on a young Albus Dumbledore.
The film is full of little moments for the fans. There are items and names and locations that make us giddy with recognition. I thought the story was well told for what it is. And I really liked the characters, both old and new. There's so much going on and it is all exciting.
In sum, if you are a Harry Potter fan, you will likely love Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald. And you'll likely be as puzzled as everyone else by certain things and thus on the edge of your seat until the next film comes out (November 2020). J.K. Rowling certainly knows how to spin a great story.
Quotable Quotes
- "Do you get motion sickness?" "I don't do well on boats." "You'll be fine." -- Newt and Jacob
- "Don't say 'salamandar.'" -- Jacob to Newt
- "Accio Niffler!" -- Newt
- "Follow the feather." -- Newt
- "You never met a monster you couldn't love." -- Leta to Newt
*** Spoiler Section ***
Have you seen the film yet? Because if you haven't, you shouldn't be down here. Seriously, stop reading and go see the movie first.
OK, where to start.
I really wanted to take a closer look at that Lestrange family tree. I'm still confused as to how Leta is related to Bellatrix (or rather to her husband). I really liked Leta's character by the way. I thought she was a good character for the film and had a fitting story arc.
Speaking of the Lestranges. So is that Senegalese Yusuf fellow actually free of his Unbreakable Vow? The person he was supposed to kill is long since dead. Now what happens? Since he lived, I guess we'll have to wait and see.
I'm still not sure I'm ready to believe that Nagini the maledictus in this movie is the same Nagini the snake that is the loyal and murderous pet of Lord Voldemort. This Nagini seems decent and good. Even when she had the opportunity to kill the cruel circus master who kept her in a cage, she didn't. And she chose not to believe Grindelwald's lies and follow him. Granted, she has three more movies to go.
And then there's Queenie. I wasn't too surprised by her choice at the end. When we first see her she is already feeling desperate and using unethical means to try and get what she wants. But there's nothing malicious about her. I can't believe she would follow Grindelwald once she saw the truth. And where she is a legilimens, that's going to be interesting. I think Grindelwald either has her under the Imperio curse or has cast some other sort of spell on her. That or he is highly skilled in occlumency to keep her from knowing what he's really thinking.
I almost think the film should have been named the Lies of Grindelwald. He is an expert at them. And I fully believe his reveal to Credence at the end is simply another one. How would Grindelwald even know who Credence really is? Undoubtedly Dumbledore told Grindelwald in their chummy days the story/legend that Grindelwald then tells Credence. And what better way to get Credence to do what he wants. Whether as Graves or as Grindelwald, he has done nothing but lie to Credence and has never fully understood who Credence is.
From a logistic standpoint. The timeline simply doesn't work. If Credence is 19 (he was said to be 18 in the first movie), then he is far to young to be the son of Albus' parents. Albus' mother would have been dead and his father would have been in Azkaban. And with all the dirt Rita Skeeter later dug up on Albus, how would she have possibly missed this? Also, when Dumbledore is being fully open with Harry, why would he confess about Ariana and skip over another sibling? It doesn't add up.
I think it is a clever lie by Grindelwald and a clever hook/misdirect by J.K. Rowling. We'll have to wait and see.
ISFS
No comments:
Post a Comment