Genre:
Adventure, Family, Fantasy
Produced by:
David Heyman, Lionel Wigram, J.K. Rowling, Steve Kloves
Directed by:
David Yates
Written by:
J.K. Rowling
Production Company: Warner Bros. Pictures
Starring: Eddie Redmayne, Ezra Miller, Johnny Depp, Katherine Waterston, Jude Law, Zoe
Kravitz, Carmen Ejogo, Alison Sudol, Claudia Kim, Callum Turner, Dan Fogler
Runtime: 133 minutes
SYNOPSIS:
Picking up right from where Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
(2016) left off, criminal wizard Gellert Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) had just escaped custody, and it is now up to Newt
Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) and his
friends to stop Grindelwald from triggering disharmony between the real world
and the magic world.
REVIEW:
People just can’t get enough of Harry Potter, simply said. After all,
who can resist a world where everything has the word “magic” slapped all over
them? As both the Harry Potter book
and film series progressed further and further, it became inevitable that there
was more to mine from the Harry Potter
mythology besides the titular character, on both narrative and financial
standpoint. For all J.K. Rowling’s
attempt at establishing a career as an author outside the Harry Potter books, everywhere she goes always leads her back to
the boy wizard. After a short break
from writing the Harry Potter books, Rowling eventually returned to the
series, expanding the mythology to various mediums like short stories, stage
plays and even rumored encyclopedia. In the cinematic world, the Harry Potter film series ended its
seven-year long hiatus since Harry Potter
and the Deathly Hallows: Part II (2011) with another adaptation to Rowling’s Harry Potter-related book Fantastic
Beasts and Where to Find Them.
Unlike the Harry Potter movies, Fantastic
Beasts was the first movie in the Harry
Potter universe to contain an original story, since the source material is
a plot-less, creature guidebook. When it couldn’t get any more special, Fantastic Beasts was the first movie in
the series with Rowling herself receiving
screenwriting credit. At the end of the day, Fantastic Beasts didn’t exactly set the world ablaze or anything, but
it did make enough money to prove that there is still some interest with the
other side of the Harry Potter
universe. With this year’s Crimes of
Grindelwald, the second installment in the Fantastic Beasts, it is a matter of where Rowling take the Fantastic
Beasts side of the Harry Potter/
Wizarding World universe from here on out.
As far as saying goes though, there is
no place like home. Fantastic Beasts
can have all the magic spells in the world, but surely, it would never defeat
the Harry Potter movies’ long-lasting
charm. If there is a reason why the first Fantastic
Beasts movie didn’t connect to the audience the way Harry Potter did, it’s probably the seeming lack of resemblance to
the Harry Potter movies. Newt
Scamander is really the closest this series have to a figure that helps bridge
the gap between the Harry Potter and
the Fantastic Beasts movies. Even so,
Newt is only an obscure character who is mentioned briefly in the Harry Potter movies through a book cover.
So,
Crimes of Grindelwald is the answer to the masses’ rallying cries for more Harry Potter in their Fantastic Beasts movies. Out of the two Fantastic Beasts movies so far, this one
undoubtedly has the most obvious, in-your-face-type Harry Potter references. Nothing speaks Harry Potter more than having the breathtaking view of Hogwarts
towering high into the clouds as a way to sell a Fantastic Beasts movie. Visually, Crimes of Grindelwald is a pretty detailed, darker yet enchanting
recreation on several parts of the Hogwarts interior and exterior that still
feels very familiar and homey even when the faces aren’t.
On the grand scheme of things, the
Hogwarts sequence doesn’t do that much to advance the plot. It’s only used as the
setting for the government people, or within the Fantastic Beasts context the MACUSA people, to rendezvous at one
point in the movie, but beyond that, it is a scene designed for fan
purposes rather than story. Then again, any die-hard Potter Heads would not
mind a return to Hogwarts. If anyone had to choose between watching an intense
magical duel or watching people walk through Hogwarts’ Victorian-style
classrooms, hallways and the candlelit chandeliers hanging over the iconic dining
room, it is a sure bet that many would pick the latter.
As the series start to get a bit more
political with subsequent entries, Hogwarts is a reminder of the simpler times.
What makes magic, for the lack of a better word, magical is the child-like way
of seeing these strange occurrences unfolds before our very eyes. It’s that sense
of excitement in seeing something extraordinary, like it’s our first time, which
is seeping through the old, weathered walls of Hogwarts. Differentiating good
and bad is as easy as black and white, as easy as kind wizard who wants to help
people and evil wizard who wants to rule the world, without the whole government
shenanigans in the middle. For a new franchise that was its own thing in the
first movie, the fact that the second installment senses the need to return to
Hogwarts signifies Fantastic Beasts’
heavy reliance on Harry Potter
callbacks to win over the fans.
But if there is one thing the Fantastic Beasts movies can call their
own, it’s the magical creatures. Harry
Potter had its fair share of creatures, but it’s only in the Fantastic Beasts movies where they
emerged as the stars of the show. It goes without saying that the CGI team in
these movies is working wonders in making Newt’s assortment of weird creatures
come to life.
Staying true to the spirit of any
sequel, Crimes of Grindelwald
promises the return of the creatures the audience have grown to love in the first
Fantastic Beasts movies, plus bigger
creatures, and they surely fulfilled that promise. Niffler and his sly poaching
antics are once again the headline attraction as well as the movie’s source of
levity. But, with the addition of the bigger creatures, it gives the filmmakers
chance to use the creatures beyond just comedic purposes. There is more sense
of visual poetry about its bigger creatures as we’re left marveling at the
slick, beautifully animated choreography of a leafy water horse the size of a
Loch Ness monster and a cat half the size of a tall structure dancing on the
big screen.
Obviously, not all the CGI creature work
here is perfect. There are a few CGI missteps that make several creatures
appear slightly out of sync. But for most parts, they’re seamlessly integrated
into the live-action world. Look no further than the trailer-wise heavily
promoted Nagini sequence, where her transformation from its human form (Claudia Kim) to the snaky demon people
are more familiar with is rendered so flawlessly that makes the moment magical.
It’s made more amazing since the camera never cuts away from the proceedings,
allowing the audience to really sink into this moment.
As an attempt to expand the Wizarding
World universe, J.K. Rowling might
have taken things a bit too far. Rowling
has been granted the type of privilege that no other more well-established
screenwriters generally have. She signed a five-picture deal with Warner
Brothers, which directly means five Fantastic
Beasts movies. And so, it is strange that Rowling’s script for this movie acts as if this is the last time a Fantastic Beasts movie will ever see the
light of day. With such mindset, she uses this perceived “last chance saloon”
to just explode onscreen with information that ends up being like homework than
a cinematic experience. Crimes of
Grindelwald may be Fantastic Beasts 2
by name, but it also feels like Fantastic
Beasts 2 plus potential crucial plot points from Fantastic Beasts 3, 4 and 5 compressed into a meager two-hour-and-thirteen
minutes feature.
It’s not as if these plot points are bad
ideas. Separately, Rowling’s plot
points carry such impactful thematic depth to them that would have made for
some intriguing character arcs, only if she takes her time with the
storytelling. Sadly, that is not the case. In Crimes of Grindelwald, plot points get lost in the shuffle amongst
other plot points, thus not allowing them enough time and space to breathe.
As a result, the audience is left with a
movie that is unfocused. Nothing against a plot-heavy movie, having a set of
plot points that starts off unrelated but turns out to be related as the story
goes along could work if they’re comprehensible. However, Crimes of Grindelwald’s plot-heavy storytelling is presented in
such an incomprehensible manner that any trace of a so-called main plot is
indiscernible. Really, what is Crimes of
Grindelwald’s actual plot? A series of events doesn’t necessarily
constitute a plot. Same goes with a premise. A plot is how events from scene
one until the end connects. How the chain of seemingly unrelated events in the Crimes of Grindelwald connects makes no
sense. Sure, magical things happen along the way, but all those magical things
merely serve as random series of events without a clear plot to hold them
together.
With a subtitle like Crimes of Grindelwald, it is easy to
believe that the thread that help sew all the pieces together is the main villain
Gellert Grindelwald himself. The problem is he isn’t in it that much. Even when
he’s there, he’s nothing more than a cookie-cutter villain, who spends the
entire movie either walking around telling his followers to do things for him
or making dramatic speeches. And unfortunately, unlike say Voldemort, Grindelwald
is a villain that lacked any sense of villainy, considering that he never had
the chance to prove his evil in this movie’s hero’s eyes (or heroes, who
knows?), let alone share the screen together.
Also, after Grindelwald’s grand reveal
in the last Fantastic Beasts movie, the
biggest question everyone is curious about in the next movie is Grindelwald’s
origins. Who is he? What makes him who he is now? The bad news is we’ll have to
wait until maybe the third one for a concrete answer. Sure, some might point to
Grindelwald’s love-hate (some even called it romantic) relationship with Hogwarts
professor Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law) as
the reason why Grindelwald is bad. Yet, the movie doesn’t go much deeper with
this relationship arc on an emotional level, instead covering it only in one-sixth
of the runtime, through one iconic mirror scene and a few brief flashbacks that’s
told lackadaisically in a bedtime story manner.
By then, characters with half-baked
characterization unconsciously became a running theme in Rowling’s script. In a movie that is supposed to answer all the
mysteries left dangling in the previous
installment and maybe poses small hints of questions for the installments to
come, Crimes of Grindelwald does the
other way around.
Why is Credence Barebone (Ezra Miller) still relevant to the plot?
To those who had seen Crimes of
Grindelwald, you will know that Credence will be an influential character
in the biggest moment of the movie. Still, looking back to how Rowling developed Credence’s arc in
this movie, it is apparent that the character had ran its course in the first
movie. He’s only consequential in the story because of that one big moment.
Why is Nagini even in the movie? Is this
the moment where she finally turns into a snake for good? Not really. She is
there only for two reasons: first, as Credence’s plus one in his search for his
heritage, and second, as the film’s excuse to be showy with its special effect
wizardry.
And probably the most heart wrenching, why
is the first movie’s core four (Newt, Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler), Tina Goldstein (Katherine
Waterston) and Queenie (Alison Sudol))
separated throughout this movie? Despite the Harry Potter title, what makes the Harry Potter movies are exciting are Harry’s (Daniel Radcliffe) relationship with Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) and Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint). There is rarely a single
installment where the core three is ever separated.
Crimes
of Grindelwald
lost a bit of the whimsy, fun and magic from its predecessors because of the
lack of screen time with these characters as the core four. The first movie
proves that the core four is part of its strength. It’s their interaction,
argument and the overall aspect of their relationship that help bring the
whimsy, fun and magic of their adventure into life. Restricting these moments in
any shape or form mean literally killing these movies. And what’s more sad, the
additional characters further relegate the core four to mere side characters. The
first movie feels magical because the audience gets to see a lot of these
strange occurrences through Jacob’s childlike innocent eyes. Jacob’s presence
in this movie is here and there, which makes the experience this time around more
here and there.
Just as the story could not get any more
crowded, there are also other subplots to deal with involving Newt’s ex Leta
Lestrange (Zoe Kravitz) and Newt’s dysfunctional
brother in the ministry Theseus Scamander (Callum
Turner), meant to set up an unnecessary love triangle, and also a mysterious
foreigner called Yusuf Kama (William
Nadylam) who is there to afford a stumbling block in Credence’s quest. But
wait, there is more as it puts the characters in a series of mindboggling
revelations and twists and turns, where characters suddenly become different
people for no reason and characters reveal back stories that possibly retcons
everything from the main Harry Potter
universe. As a television series, this would not have been an issue. As a movie
though, there are so many stories going on at once that is too much to process
in a single watch.
As is the case with many sequels, they
are about the return of characters that the audience has grown to appreciate
from the first installment. As mentioned before, Harry Potter movies had the core three and the Fantastic Beasts movies had the core four. There’s just a sense of realness
in their chemistry that makes us not mind taking a breather from the action and
spend time knowing them as a person. Still, as individuals, each actor in that
first movie give solid performances, which they continue with Crimes of Grindelwald.
Eddie
Redmayne
gently mixes fun, angst and insecurity to further solidify why Newt Scamander
is such an engaging main character. Redmayne’s
interpretation of the magizoologist rests on his relationship with the magical
creatures, and his overall body language sells every physical interaction and
emotional attachment he had with them. Dan
Fogler is always a comedic ray of sunshine as Jacob Kowalski, providing this
series with the type of humility, humor and childlike eyes that is reminiscent
of the Harry Potter movies. His
scenes with the old, crinkly Nicholas Flamel here are probably the movie’s
highlights.
Katherine
Waterston’s
by-the-book uptightness as Tina Goldstein serves as the perfect foil to Newt’s
rebellious demeanor. It’s their constant affection and bickering that makes
their on-again-off-again relationship spark. Alison Sudol is another ray of sunshine in the foursome as the
quirky mind-reader Queenie Goldstein. Her effervescence is infectious whenever she’s
in frame, and part of the reason why her romantic chemistry with Jacob feels as
magical as the world around her.
Four different personalities, and yet it’s
the difference that makes their team-up work. Sadly, this movie doesn’t have as
much of their chemistry, and it’s really the script to blame than the actors
themselves.
Crimes
of Grindelwald
also features some additions that are new to the Fantastic Beasts universe, but old in the sense that they’re
already well-established characters in the Harry
Potter universe.
Jude
Law
is probably the actor with most of the public’s high anticipation on his
shoulder, since he is playing the younger version of the iconic Albus
Dumbledore. The world had seen two wonderful interpretations of the character,
from the wisdom of the late Richard
Harris to the flamboyance of Michael
Gambon. Law combines the best of
both interpretations, and adds a bit of slick, suave quality to the character
to make this Dumbledore a similarly entertaining presence. Law’s swagger and charm helps embody Dumbledore’s magical aura,
without even having to cast as much spell as he did in previous incarnations. Future
Fantastic Beasts installment can use
a bit more of Law’s Dumbledore,
albeit in a bigger role than what he had here.
Johnny
Depp
does not share the same luck. Depp
plays the movie’s big baddie Gellert Grindelwald, yet his performance typifies
an actor who couldn’t quite move past his Pirates
of the Caribbean heydays. Grindelwald here is basically a radicalized
version of Jack Sparrow. That means a character with odd antics and rambling
way of speaking, which is something Depp
can master in his sleep. At the same time, that also makes his evil more
cartoonish than genuine. In theory, Depp
would look more convincing with the weird albino make-up than Colin Farrell. But at least Farrell doesn’t need make-up to exude
evil, which Depp couldn’t quite
manage. In other words, Grindelwald comes off as crazy, but not crazy enough to
be evil.
CONCLUSION:
Fantastic
Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald has such a spellbinding universe and
crowd-pleasing winks to past Harry Potter
films, but still, it is one huge magic trick that’s spoiled by a series of
convoluted back stories and expositions that feels more like information
overload than a coherent narrative.
Score: 6/10
No comments:
Post a Comment