As very tired Harry Potter fans, I sometimes have to make a conscious effort to focus on positive things. So I think it should be noted that I don't have to try too it's hard to find some positive things to focus on Fantastic Animals: Grindelwald Crime.
Second installment in Harry Potter prequel series now in theaters, and with that, the author J.K. Rowling, who wrote the screenplay, has introduced a number of serious wrinkles in her own established world. The flow is confusing, disjointed, and seems to be intended to prepare a convoluted storyline that will be played in the next installment.
Watching a movie feels a bit like being dropped in the middle of a very thick novel full of words whose meaning you don't know. And this applies no matter the level of your Harry Potter fandom; Rowling does a ton of world buildings quickly, and expects viewers to roll over with her and think about things when they leave. That's hard to do, and it makes The Grimes of Grindelwald difficult to review, therefore very clearly laid the foundation for several future films.
But even with all that, there are things he likes about him; and things that are liked, I think, things that are quite interesting!
It's better not to think about it Fantastic Animals: Grindelwald Crime as a stand-alone film as a very long prologue to Fantastic Animals 3
Grindelwald crime take the first place Fantastic Animals the remaining films: with the dark witch Grindelwald (controversial Johnny Depp) sitting in prison after infiltration American magical congress. (The reason he wants to infiltrate in the first place is not fully explained, but it clearly involves being evil in general.)
In the opening moments of the new film, Grindelwald dramatically escaped from prison, leaving Professor Dumbledore – a mysterious Jude Law – to decide how to respond. Dumbledore, who canonically fell in love with Grindelwald when he was a teenager and probably had a relationship with him, was either unwilling or unable to fight him now, in adulthood, so he sent our hero Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) to fight Grindelwald as his replacement. This involves finding one person who can effectively fight him: Credence (Ezra Miller), which we met at first Fantastic Animals filmed as an orphan who was frightened, confused about his identity and unaware of his extraordinary magical abilities.
Grindelwald crime then followed Newt when he tried to find Credence in Paris. This also follows Grindelwald as he trying to find Credence, and when he launched what had to be the most hasty and muffled political allegory that had been torn down by a writer who had a far greater nuance than this. Driving force of Grindelwald crime'S plot – although it is difficult to refrain from placing sarcasm quotes around a "plot" – is for Newt to find credentials before Grindelwald can, because the implication is that anyone who gets the first Credence will have the best chance of spreading his magic as weapons for their side. (More about what the parties are fighting for at a glance.)
Along the way, the film is distracted by a tangled subplot network. Character continues to struggle with prophetic fragments whose origins have never really been contextualized and predictions that have never been fully explained. There are infanticide, cases of mistaken identity, mysterious characters with mysterious backgrounds, dramatic flashbacks, and several different moments that disrupt the prescribed canonical timeline of the Harry Potter universe in a way that will definitely destroy the brains of Harry Potter fans across the Internet . There is even a giant Chinese dragon fire dragon that needs to be dealt with. (Very funny!)
But none of these subplots that continue the narrative outside gives a dramatic, sometimes unexplained exposure that is not everywhere. Figures emerge, tell backstory and dramatic stories, and then, more often than not, die. The effect is basically watching Grindelwald crime it felt like staring at the spinning top Inception for two consecutive hours before finally realizing it will never fall, because it does not have enough mass to disturb its inertia. There is no story, no substance. And any small substance basically forms a dramatic exposition for the next Fantastic Animals film.
It is unfortunate that spinning these wheels for expository preparation is one of the critics' main complaints that they reviewed earlier Fantastic Animals film. But the previous film had a plot that was far more real than this, by comparison, That Grindelwald crime feels extra thin and empty. At least in the previous film, there was a set of goals that could be achieved clearly that involved rounding off a group of fantastic animals!
But. But! Do we watch Harry Potter films for the plot, or do we watch Harry Potter films for the magic world? Because Grindelwald crime contribute beauty and a strong understanding of the setting and depth to the Harry Potter universe, and it deserves praise for that.
Fantastic Animals represents the evolution for the Harry Potter franchise in several interesting ways. In other ways, not so much.
One of the things that I continue to admire and I like most about it Harry Potter the film franchise in the final installment of the day is how director David Yates, who has led all films since the fifth film in the main franchise, remains fully committed to J.K. Rowling's vision, no matter how difficult it is. And let's be real, Fantastic Animals is a completely new franchise franchise that goes to the know-where, and Rowling's vision is in obscured Grindelwald crime.
However, Andrea, with a mixture of sensitivity, detail, and a striking emphasis on the luxurious world buildings that she applied in each of the six Harry Potter films she directed so far, managed to make things work on her side. The Gilded Age, the Art Deco magic world with splashes of steampunk, moves from vintage New York to London and Paris during the film, and looks as beautiful and inviting as ever.
While magical elements can feel a little paint by number, it is clear that Andrea, Rowling, and the changing old script writer Harry Potter to producer Steve Kloves are still thinking deeply about how to keep the details of this world unique and magical. And I think, for the most part, they feel miraculous; that is, they feel like a world that I like to spend time, even when I'm annoyed by the lack of stories.
That helps that Fantastic Animals’Are most of the characters that I enjoy. It's hard to overestimate how unique Redmayne Newt Scamander is in the history of fictional heroes. Not only is he clearly neurodiversgent, but he underestimates the screen representation of masculinity in a refreshing and unexpected way. Rowling seems to have written it by consciously putting aside the poisonous metaphor of masculinity, and the result is that Newt, however overshadowed by the drama plot, always feels like the answer to the question she is trying to ask about violence and propaganda and side-taking. .
Unfortunately, the questions are not very good. Grindelwald's dark miracle was the earnestness of World War I mode, militant fascism disguised as left rhetoric, and worries about Nazi and World War II, designed to attract pureblood wizards of all races, including at least one character coded Jewish. What Grindelwald's politics is beyond the wishes of the Muggle genocide is anyone's guess, but given that the film arrived in one of the most politically and politically confusing eras in history today, it is rather worrying that Grindelwald's actual message is unclear and "enter-you- own ideology "maybe.
Then there is Grindelwald himself. A mere number of characters in Grindelwald crime that means we spend less time with Newt and his core group of friends than before, but we can spend time with Grindelwald. And although Johnny Depp's appearance is very weak (at least for Depp), Grindelwald still feels like a flamboyant gay villain (a stereotype that is getting worse because of how Dumbledore became stranded and muscular) – he always stands a little too close to his potential ally, always quietly seducing them to join him on the dark side, always framed by film as representing something irresistible and evil.
It's strange and uncomfortable to watch, and I hope I feel more of the oddity and discomfort because Grindelwald is a Nazi and not because he's weird. (All of the potential associations of Grindelwald's crime with their peculiarities are built into the narratives of Harry Potter books, but given so far, there are only two strange characters known throughout the world of magic, and remembering that one of them is evil genocide Aryan and the other falling in love with Aryan evil genocide, we can be forgiven for feeling a little nauseous about how things play out.)
But commenting was too critical Grindelwald crime Can, at this point, the amount of speculation that is unfair. Rowling is clearly in the midst of juggling eight or nine plot points at once, as she likes to do, and it seems rather futile to do anything but retreat and let it go, until finally we have a coherent 10-hour film that we can judge whole. What we clearly don't have Grindelwald crime is a film; instead, we have a very fragmented and less coherent part of something bigger.
What else is that, the bigger thing finally merges with the sparkling magical story that we go to, or whether it disappears into oblivion, remains to be seen. But for Harry Potter fans who have put their trust in J.K. Rowling has been the best thing I can say Grindelwald crime maybe this: This won't make you want to get rid of your stick in the near future.