By: James Southworth
Rating: 2/5 Stars
There is no denying that the "Harry Potter" franchise is one of the most beloved parts of our society. Both the seven book series and eight movies are held in high regard by many. I would include myself in that mix as well (excluding "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2", which needs a whole separate post to discuss my problems with it... that'll be coming soon in a special review series I'm planning). In fact, I would still consider myself a super fan of everything to do with Harry Potter. I went to the book release of the Deathly Hallows dressed as the titular character, I've been to the Universal Studios theme park, I've seen the Harry Potter studios in England, and I have seen every HP movie and read every HP book countless times. I was a little apprehensive about "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" when trailers came out. It looked like it would be a bit of a mindless CGI fest and cash grab. I went in with low expectations, and came out feeling very happy. The movie retained much of the Potter magic, and had a charming cast of characters. It had its problems (such as sudden shifts in tone and a few forgettable plot threads), but overall I really liked it. So, I was actually getting excited for the sequel "Crimes of Grindelwald". And then the trailers came out and gave me the exact same feeling the first movie did. There were some questionable decisions revealed in the trailers: young Dumbledore, Nagini is apparently a human now, there is a new Lestrange in the mix. However, I still went into this move hopeful. Afterall, the first one surpassed my expectations. Sadly, the same can't be said for this one. This is easily the most worst Potter-based film to date. Most of the signature magic and wonder is drained thin due to way too many poor (and often idiotic) writing choices, performances that lack passion, and some problematic twists that threaten to shake the foundations of the original series.
Let's talk about what works in this movie. Despite all the craziness of the plot that Rowling has written out, David Yates still proves to be a confident director. He was the one who really injected the Harry Potter movies with the magic it's known for today, in my opinion. Though the other directors of the HP movies were all good in their own right, it was really Yates who knew how to make the books come to life. Even though Rowling's writing can be rather bad in this film, Yates still is able to make a lot of stuff bounce off the page. This is especially apparent in the exciting beginning of the movie where Grindelwald makes a grand escape. There are quite a few impressive shots in this movie, many that look beautiful. Yates really does his best at trying not to tangle plot threads together too much, making them as comprehensible as possible. Even though it doesn't entirely work, I still commend him for trying his best with what he was given. Another part of this movie that works is Eddie Redmayne's performance as Newt. He was really great in the first film, and he's just as good in this one. Newt is a very different protagonist to Harry: whereas Harry had a constant darkness digging at him, Newt seems just essentially good and nice. He isn't tough like Harry; rather, his heroism comes in the compassion he has for people and animals alike. I find that pretty compelling, and the way Redmayne presents that compassion is often touching. Newt is the only character in this film who has a good character arc. He is the only character who legitimately changes by the end, and his change was not what I was expecting it to be. I also loved Jude Law as Dumbledore. I had very conflicting feelings about a young Dumbledore being in this movie: my issue with it was it just seemed like unnecessary fan service, but I also had some hope because I really like Law as an actor. Thankfully he delivers, and Rowling really seems to know what she wanted to do with him more than most characters here. We get to see some insecurities of Dumbledore we hadn't before. (Mild Spoiler Alert Ahead) Something that made me smile was when Dumbledore talked briefly about an important part of his past that was entirely passed over in the "Deathly Hallows: Part 2" film. I honestly wish that this part wasn't overshadowed by all the idiocy in this film, because it might be one of the best moments in any HP film. (End Spoiler) I also found Zoe Kravitz and Katherine Waterson great in their respective roles of Leta and Tina, even if they didn't have the best material to work with. Some of the new creatures in this movie are interesting, though they are in sadly small quantity for a movie with "beasts" in its title.
Now it's time to get to my problems with this film, and unfortunately there is a lot to discuss. I'll try to keep it short, because it's not really worth my time to talk about this movie for ages on end. My main problems with this movie lie in J.K. Rowling's writing. I never thought that I would have to utter that sentence at any point in my life. Now granted, Rowling's prose has never been entirely flawless. People have pointed out that her original Harry Potter series can have unnecessary plot points and feel overly bloated. I can see this being apparent in books like "The Goblet of Fire" and "The Order of the Phoenix" especially. I appreciate the directors of the movie adaptations for bringing the essentials of those books out while still keeping Rowling's spirit in tact. But even with her minor writing problems, I still felt that Rowling always knew to keep what was important at the center of the story: the struggle between Harry and Voldemort. That was always the main point of the books, along with Harry's relationships to Ron, Hermione, Dumbledore, and Snape. In "The Crimes of Grindelwald", it feels like Rowling has no clue what she wants to focus on. Is it Newt's desires to protect his beasts? Is it Dumbledore giving Newt a mission to defeat Grindelwald? Is it Leta Lestrange trying to escape her past? Or is it Credence trying to discover the truth of his lineage? Or is it Grindelwald trying to convince people of his beliefs about freeing the world of Muggles? Rowling is trying to balance WAY too many plot threads, here. It almost seems like she was trying to make all her characters in this movie have equal weight. There's no real protagonist here, as everyone gets equal screen time. This choice doesn't work. Besides Newt, there's not really a character we can attach to. Most of these characters are new, or we just don't care about them. Leta isn't given enough time to develop, save a brief flashback. This flashback doesn't give us a compelling reason to care for her. Credence could be interesting, but once again, we aren't given much reason to see why it's so important he know his lineage. Grindelwald is a highly generic villain. There's no menace that exudes from him, and unlike Voldemort, his reason for his ultimate plan is not intriguing or frightening.
Because of the many plots going on in this movie, I was often left feeling confused. Even though Yates tries his best to make the story feel linear, it still just doesn't work. I don't blame that on him. I blame it on Rowling for all the really questionable and sometimes downright mind-boggling writing choices she made. One of the most primary was the introduction of Nagini as... a Korean girl? Rowling tries her hardest to justify this choice. Nagini is apparently a magical person who has a curse that they will eventually turn into an animal forever the more they turn into said animal. There was literally no point in making Nagini a human. She doesn't remotely affect the plot of this movie. In fact, you could take her out and nothing about this movie would change. That can be said for most of the characters in this movie. Leta Lestrange's story has some weight to it initially, but that weight disappears pretty quickly once you figure out that her character has nothing truly at stake. Katherine Waterson has an excellent performance as Tina, but her story is done with so quickly that you're given hardly any time to care. In fact, of the four central characters from the original movie, the only one that is consistent with their personality from the first is Newt. For some reason, Dan Fogler's Jacob Kowalski, who was perhaps the best part of the first movie, is reduced to a bumbling comedic relief side character. In the first movie, he was funny, but that came out of his natural charm. It wasn't like he was constantly messing things up or just being constantly clueless. In fact, he served as what the audience's reactions would be if they were to encounter the magical world, which was what made his character work. He's not at all like that in this movie. For most of it, he hardly has a character trait at all besides being funny. It's really disappointing what the movie does with Queenie, who I considered to be the most compelling character in the first film. The character choices she makes in this movie make no sense with who she was in the first. And unfortunately, for as much as I like Law's portrayal of Dumbledore, even he has no real bearings on the story. He just gives a quest to Newt, and there's not much else he does to legitimately effect the plot. I think the movie really could've explored his relationship with Grindelwald more to make us truly understand how complex it was. But J.K. Rowling is too afraid to explore their relationship beyond implying things about it. The only characters that are important to this movie realistically are Newt, Grindelwald, and Credence. But Grindelwald isn't interesting, and Credence is annoying.
Let's talk about the performances in this movie, because unfortunately there's a lot of weak performances in addition to the bad writing. I'm not sure if the bad writing escalated the bad performances, or if these just weren't the right people to play the characters. Johnny Depp gives the worst performance I've seen in any Rowling/Potter movie as Grindelwald. Usually Depp is too over the top in his performances nowadays, but here he just looks bored. Honestly, I would've preferred the over-the-top. At least it would've given the audience something ridiculous to watch. Instead what we get is a villain who is already generically written, and that is put on top of a generic performance. This was another aspect of the movie I was worried about, as Depp just hasn't been a great actor lately. It's hard to believe there was a time when I considered him one of my favorites, if not my absolute favorite actor. It's sad what he's become. Like I mentioned before, Dan Fogler's character is reduced to just comedic relief. I feel as though Fogler plays his character too cartoony. This totally contradicts what is a darker toned movie. I'm not saying that the dark tone of this film works (it doesn't for the most part), but the comedic aspects make the tone of the film feel even more confused. I don't completely blame Alison Sudol for her performance of Queenie. She basically had to change her character's personality in this film for her illogical changes to work. It doesn't feel like I'm watching the same person, which is really a shame. Callum Turner as Newt's brother Theseus is unbelievably dull to watch, and the same goes for William Nadylam as Yusuf. Out of the multiple pointless characters in this movie, these two were the most pointless. Any time they were in the movie, I just didn't care. Another point I want to make: even though I said Yates's directing was good, there was still WAY too much cheap-looking CGI in this film. Some of the creatures in the movie looked fake, especially these cat creatures. Compared to what the other Potter films have achieved, it's obvious that this film didn't have as much great visual effort put into it.
The ending of this film is insulting. There is a twist that's delivered that is so bad, so mind-numbingly idiotic. I just couldn't believe that it was J.K. Rowling that wrote this twist. J.K. Rowling, who has put so much care into giving us a character like Snape with a touching character arc, masterfully pieced together across seven books. J.K. Rowling, who built up the evil of Voldemort and created a menace that we were rooting to be taken down. J.K. Rowling, who made a compelling protagonist that had consistent development into a self-sacrificing hero. What's she doing now? Now, she's retconning her own series. She's adding in things to the film that don't matter. I think Rowling tried to put Nagini as a Korean human into this movie so she could say she has some representation. (Slight spoiler alert if you didn't know this) She only made Dumbledore comfortably gay. She doesn't want to straight out talk about it, when it could be powerful reasoning for why Dumbledore doesn't want to fight Grindelwald. (End small spoiler) The ending twist makes you wonder how much of the original Harry Potter series matters now. If Rowling can just add information whenever she wants, then the HP series is on a slippery slope of tearing apart at the seams. I did not go into this movie wanting to hate it. In fact, I was hoping I'd be proven wrong in my initial worries. The last time I was this disappointed in a Harry Potter film was "Deathly Hallows: Part 2". But at least with that one, Rowling didn't have as much of a say in the final product. In this one, she had full control over the writing. This is entirely her vision. Sadly, the vision just isn't good. I guess I will have to hold out hope for the next installment.
No comments:
Post a Comment