I've been a big fan of the Harry Potter series (both book and film versions) since I saw the original film in the early 2000s. Author J.K. Rowling created one of the most original and entertaining series of all-time and I've been a rabid fan for almost two decades (man, do I feel old). I was both excited and sad when the final film version came out, as it was the culmination of a fantastic series of movies. But, like anything in Hollywood, there's always money to be made in a successful intellectual property. Instead of rebooting the series (fingers crossed that it never happens), Rowling (now the screenwriter) decided to expand the Potter-verse (now dubbed the Wizarding World) with the Fantastic Beasts series. The original film introduced us to a new series of characters for us to enjoy. I thought that it perfectly breathed life into the Wizarding World while being able to stand on its own two feet. Newt Scamander (played with neurotic precision by Eddie Redmayne) traveled to 1920s New York City and wound up getting swept up in the original battle between Wizards and Muggles (or non-majs as they were called in America). There was a pre-Voldemort evil wizard on the loose, and the surprise twist reveal that Johnny Depp was actually Grindelwald set up an exciting foundation for a sequel.
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes Of Grindelwald takes place three months after the events of the first film with Grindelwald (not shockingly) escaping from custody. A young Dumbledore (played by Jude Law) calls upon Newt to go on a secret mission to catch Grindelwald before he can declare war on the non magic world. This film, like all sequels, goes bigger. More characters. More locations. And more stories to follow. The returns are a film that is better than its 40% Rotten Tomatoes score, but also one that's strictly for the devotees of the Wizarding World. There's a lot of lore that's introduced here with our characters getting more of their back stories revealed. Some of it works (like Newt's time at Hogwarts) and some of it gets lost in translation. There's a familial bloodline story that made my sister and I scratch our heads.
Overall, this was an enjoyable, albeit slightly overstuffed, sequel. The main cast of characters all do a great job of reprising their roles. Controversial casting of Johnny Depp aside, he did a great job as portraying the villainous Grindelwald. I look forward to seeing where he takes the character in future films (this is the second of a planned five-part series). Some of the newer characters feel half-baked (most notably Zoe Kravitz's Leta Lestrange), and others are thrown in there as unnecessary callbacks to the original films (cough cough Nicolas Flamel), or canon-ruining (Professor McGonagall appears in this film... apparently 8 years before she was supposedly born according to the books).
My main issue with this series of films is that the Beasts almost seem like the most unnecessary part. Yeah, they're cute and provide a sense of amusement and comic-relief, but they seem like almost afterthoughts to the larger story in this film. I'd liken them to the Ewoks or Porgs in the Star Wars franchise. Cute, fun, but largely unnecessary.
I'm giving Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes Of Grindelwald 2.5 out of 4 stars. It was an entertaining film, but seemed to serve as a launching pad for more movies. It was a "chess board" film, meaning that they're using it to move the pieces into position for future moves, instead of focusing on the current moves. If you're a fan of the Wizarding World, definitely check it out. If not, you can skip it.
No comments:
Post a Comment