Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is the cinematic equivalent of a rainy day: it’s cold and grey and it made me long for a nap. Now let’s be clear, I do enjoy watching a rainy day from time to time, but I’d prefer to watch from inside with a warm drink in hand and a pair of pink, fluffy slippers on my feet. (Yes, they have to be pink, and yes, they have to be fluffy.) The Crimes of Grindelwald isn’t something I appreciated watching, nor is it pink or fluffy. In fact, this movie is more like being stuck outside in the downpour, ruining my pink, fluffy slippers in the process. This is something I cannot forgive.
This is all to say that The Crimes of Grindelwald, which from here on out I will refer to by its acronym ‘CoG,’ a fitting descriptor as these movies aren’t so much interested in telling a story as they are in serving as a cog in Warner Bros’ money making machine, is a miserable viewing experience and further indication that this prequel series is in dire need of a revamping or, better yet, a complete dismantling.
Just so you know where we stand, I wasn’t a fan of the first Fantastic Beasts either. In my review, I called it ‘a plodding, tonally inconsistent mess’ and noted the glaring absence of either an involving storyline or compelling characters. Those complaints apply tenfold to CoG. At every turn, author turned screenwriter J.K. Rowling fails to craft a compelling story from a number of disparate pieces. Remember when Warner Bros. announced this new series and Rowling stated it wouldn’t be a sequel or a prequel to the Harry Potter series? My guess is Rowling originally wanted to tell a fun, standalone story, but Warner Bros. got greedy and forced her to connect this series more explicitly to Harry Potter, hence the awkward, jumbled storytelling and clashing tones. CoG feels like a whole lot of filler and you feel the strain of Warner Bros’ decision to turn Fantastic Beasts from a trilogy into a five-film series every step of the way. Did we really need to know Nagini’s origin story? No. No, we didn’t, but for some reason it’s included here and it’s just as pointless as you’d imagine.
Rowling throws multiple plotlines, characters and Potter references into the mix, but despite the overwhelming amount of things on screen, nothing seems to actually happen. Everything in CoG is disconnected, every character motivation is independent of what seems intended as the driving story. Most of the film’s runtime consists of stern, serious looking characters sitting in bland, nondescript rooms, wearing bland, nondescript outfits and talking and talking and talking. There’s a lot of talk of Grindelwald leading his followers into battle against the wizarding community and a great deal of discussion regarding the true identity of Credence (Ezra Miller), which seems to be a topic of large concern. Maybe all this would matter more if Rowling gave more attention to the characters most directly affected by and involved with the story, but for some reason she opts instead to focus on Newt and his companions, making them the primary players even though they have very little, if any, personal connection to what happens here. The story functions outside of their involvement, making it all the more apparent how little they matter in the grand scheme of things.
It would help if these characters were likable in the slightest, but they’re not. They’re as bland as the oddly colorless Paris portrayed in the film. Eddie Redmayne continues to play Newt Scamander as emotionally disconnected from everything and everyone around. He’s incapable of making eye contact with anyone, and I’m not sure if Redmayne intended to portray Newt as if he’s on the spectrum, but that’s exactly how it comes across. This would be fine, except it has zero bearing on anything that happens in the story and isn’t reflected in the script or the way other characters interact with him. Newt lacks a compelling motivation and his general disinterest in everything happening makes the prospect of following his character through three more films extremely unappealing.
The supporting cast returns too, though they aren’t given much to do except stand on the sidelines. As Newt’s best friend Jacob Kowalski, Dan Fogler flails about, making odd noises and giggling at random moments, which I guess is supposed to be funny? Katherine Waterston looks like she’s either on the verge of tears or in need of a decent nap. Probably both. She and Newt are supposed to be madly in love, but there’s a glaring absence of chemistry between them. And then there’s Alison Sudol’s Queenie, who is saddled with one of the film’s more nonsensical character arcs. To her credit, Sudol gives it her all, but it doesn’t make it feel any less ridiculous.
The new characters don’t fare much better. The most prominent is Leta Lestrange (Zoe Kravitz). She and Newt have some kind of past relationship that’s barely hinted at and for some reason she’s decided to marry Newt’s brother Theseus (Callum Turner). There’s no explanation as to why this is, though, to be fair, an explanation probably wouldn’t make me care anyway, so why bother? There’s also Johnny Depp’s take on big baddie Grindelwald. He’s weird in his special Johnny Depp way, but he makes a minimal impression. To be fair, Rowling’s screenplay doesn’t give him much to do, so it’s not entirely his fault, but having him in this role still seems like an odd misstep.
And then there’s Jude Law’s performance as Albus Dumbledore, which provides the only genuine spark of life in this entire enterprise. (It’s a toss-up between him and that adorable cat-dragon thing) Even with his limited screen time, it’s clear Law is the right man for the job. The brief time we spend with him, which includes a stop-in at Hogwarts, is the only time the film manages to conjure up any magic or delight. This has more to do with the familiar setting and elements than the storytelling itself. The soundtrack takes great delight in recycling the soaring Harry Potter theme in this moment and it’s a sad reminder of the days when this franchise was something to celebrate. More and more, this series is shaping up as an epic showdown between Dumbledore and Grindelwald. When CoG focuses on these characters and their relationship, it manages to find its footing, however wobbly it might be. Why, then, does Rowling and co. insist on bothering with the story of Newt and his blank slate companions? They are by far the weakest element of these films and, seeing as how they have so little bearing on what happens in these stories, the easiest to jettison.
Now. Let’s talk about David Yates, shall we?
Watching Yates come into his own as a director during the latter half of the Harry Potter series was a delight. With each entry, he became more and more confident as a director, peaking with his work on Deathly Hallows. With Fantastic Beasts, it’s the complete opposite experience. We’re watching the disintegration of Yates’ talents as a filmmaker. The ability to construct a coherent narrative or frame a shot with even a touch of inspiration is long gone; his action sequences are borderline incoherent and he demonstrates such a lack of understanding regarding the basic principles of visual storytelling you can never tell what’s happening.
To make matters worse, Mark Day’s editing hasn’t improved either. Following Yates’ example, Day continues to demonstrate a seeming disregard for the basic rules on how to string scenes together in a way that makes a modicum of sense. One moment characters are talking in a room, the next, they’re standing in a completely different location with no logical connection as to how they got there. This happens CONSTANTLY, and yes, I need to use CAPS to emphasize how bad it is. That’s what CoG has reduced me to.
To be clear, this isn’t storytelling. It’s placeholding. And sure, you could blame the original Harry Potter series of doing the same, but at least with those we were spending time with characters we loved and there was a semblance of excitement and magic, that it was all leading to a worthwhile conclusion. Fantastic Beasts has nothing to offer except the threat of three more movies, and that may be the greatest crime of all.
No comments:
Post a Comment