[ad_1]
Like a deep jaded Harry Potter fan, sometimes I have to make a conscious effort to focus on positives. So I think it's worth noting that I was not supposed to try also hard to find some positive to focus on Fantastic beasts: the murders of Grindelwald.
The second tranche of Harry Potter the prequel series is now in the theater, and with it, author J.K. Rowling, writing scripts, introduced a lot of wrinkles into his own universe. The plot is confused, divided and apparently dedicated to the creation of a complicated story that will play in future rates.
Watching the movie feels a bit like being placed in the middle of a very thick novel that is full of words whose meanings you do not know. And this is true regardless of your level of Harry Potter fandom; Rowling makes a ton of building the world in flight and awaits viewers to roll with him and discover things as they go. It's hard to do, and that's what's happening Grimes de Grindelwald hard to revisit, because it is so obvious as a basis for a future film.
But even so, there are things to please them; and the things they like are, I think, quite interesting things!
Better not to think about it Fantastic beasts: the murders of Grindelwald as an independent film, as much as a truly long prologue Fantastic 3
The murders of Grindelwald takes the place where it is first Fantastic beasts the remaining movie: with the dark wizard Grindelwald (controversial Johnny Depp) sitting in prison after infiltration The American magic congress. (Why he wanted to infiltrate in the first place was never fully explained, but clearly involved that he was generically ill.)
In the moments of opening the new film, Grindelwald drastically escapes prison, leaving Professor Dumbledore – an inexplicably de-camped Jude Law – to decide how to respond. Dumbledore, who has been canonically loved by Grindelwald as a teenager and may have been once in a relationship with him, is either willing or unable to fight him now at maturity, so he sends our hero, Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) , to fight Grindelwald in his place. This involves finding the one who can fight it effectively: Faith (Ezra Miller), which I met in the first Fantastic beasts the film as a scared orphan, confused about his identity, and unaware of his extraordinary magical abilities.
The murders of Grindelwald then follows Newt as he tries to locate the Faith in Paris. It also follows Grindelwald as he tries to locate the Faith, and as it launches, it must be the fastest, politically elected, stormy and troubled, ever thrown by a writer capable of a far greater nuance than that. Driving force a The murders of Grindelwald– although it is difficult not to quote about sarcasm around the "plot" – it is for Newt to find faith in Grindelwald because the implication is that the one who reaches the Faith will have the best chance of using his magic as a weapon for their part. (More about what these parts are fighting in a moment.)
Along the way, the film is retreated by a network of tangled subplots. Characters continue to cast around fragments of prophecies whose origins are never properly contextualized and whose predictions are never fully explained. There are child crimes, misidentifications, mysterious characters with mysterious backgrounds, dramatic flashbacks, and a few different moments that disrupt the canonical chronology of the Harry Potter universe in ways that will destroy the brains of Harry Potter fans across the Internet. There is even a gigantic Chinese fire-dragon to be treated. (It's cute!)
But none of these subplots support the narrative beyond providing an occasional dramatic revelation that eventually does not go anywhere. Characters appear, give dramatic discoveries and dramatic discoveries, and then, more often than not, they die. The effect is essentially to follow The murders of Grindelwald he feels like he wanted to look at that peak initiation for two hours before he realizes that he will never fall because he does not have enough mass to upset his inertia. There's no story, no substance. And what small substance there is essentially creates a dramatic exposure for the next one Fantastic beasts movie.
It is particularly regrettable that this wheel spin for expository setup reasons was one of the main criticisms of the critics who revisited the previous version Fantastic beasts movie. But the previous film had a more real plot than the one that, by comparison, The crimes of Grindelwald feels extremely thin and bare. At least in the previous movie, there was a set of clearly achievable goals involving rounding a bunch of fantastic beasts!
But. But! Are we watching Harry Potter's films for plot or watching Harry Potter movies for the wizarding world? for The murders of Grindelwald contributes to the beauty and a strong sense of depth and depth of the Harry Potter universe, and deserves to be credited for it.
Fantastic beasts is an evolution for the Harry Potter franchise in some interesting ways. In other ways, not so much.
One of the things I continue to admire and love most about Harry Potter franchise film in its last days is how director David Yates, who has run all of the films from the fifth in the main franchise, remains fully committed to J.K. Rowling's vision, no matter how obscure it might be. And to be real, Fantastic beasts is a whole new franchise arc that drives who knows where, and Rowling's vision is deep hidden in The murders of Grindelwald.
Yates, however, with the mix of sensibility, detail and accent marks on building the sumptuous world that he has deployed in each of Harry Potter's six films he has guided so far, manages to do things . The golden age witchcraft, Art Deco, with a drop of steampunk, moves from New York's vintage era to London and Paris throughout the film and looks so charming and welcoming like never before.
While magical elements can sometimes feel a bit of painted numbers, it is clear that Yates, Rowling and scriptwriter Harry Potter, the scriptwriter-transformed, Steve Kloves still think deeply about how to keep the details of this unique and magical world. And I think, for the most part, they feel magic; that is, I feel like a world where I like to spend time, even when I'm exasperated by the lack of story.
Help this Fantastic beasts"The characters are, for the most part, characters I like to follow." It's hard to exaggerate how unique Redmayne's Newt Scamander is in the annals of the fictional heroes, and not only is he a clear and unmarked neurobiter, but he subverts the typical depictions of masculinity on the screen in refreshing and unexpected ways. Rowling seems to have consciously written it, avoiding the tropics of toxic masculinity, and the result is that Newt, while shadowed by the dramaturgy of the plot, always feels the answer to the questions he is trying to ask them about violence, propaganda and participation.
Unfortunately, these questions are not very well presented. Grindelwald's dark witchcraft is a mishmash messed up by World War I fashion, militant fascism disguised as left rhetoric and worry about the Nazis and World War II, meant to appeal to wizards of all races including at least one character encoded Jewish. What Grindelwald's current policy is beyond the desire for genocide of the muscles is one's assumption, but given that this film arrives in one of the most confused and polarized in recent history, it is worrying that Grindelwald's real message is so vague and "own ideology".
And then it's Grindelwald himself. The large number of characters in The murders of Grindelwald means we spend less time with Newt and his group of friends than before, but we certainly spend most time with Grindelwald. And although Johnny Depp's performance is pretty subdued (at least for Depp), Grindelwald still feels like a "flamboyant gay villain" (a stereotype that is still exacerbated by the fact that Dumbledore has become toned) too close to potential allies his always turning back to tacitly to join him on the dark side, always framed by the film as something irresistible and innate evil.
It is strange and uncomfortable to look, and I would like to feel more of that oddity and discomfort because Grindelwald is a Nazi and not because it's weird. (All this potential association of Grindelwald's wickedness with his delicacy is embedded in the narrative of Harry Potter's books, but given that so far there are only two characters known throughout the wizard's universe, and since one of them is a bad Arien Genocide and the other is in love with the evil Arian genocide, we can be forgiven because we feel a little bit of stuff about how things are going to happen.)
But commenting too critically The murders of Grindelwald could at this time represent an unfair speculation. Rowling is clearly in the middle of the juggling of eight or nine scroll points as he likes to do, and it seems somewhat useless to do anything but stay back and leave it until we finally have a movie a coherent 10-hour period that we can judge on the whole. What we clearly do not have The murders of Grindelwald is a movie; Instead, we have a much more fragmented, less coherent piece.
If something else, something bigger, finally comes together in the glamorous magic story we came to, or if it disapproves in oblivion, it remains to be seen. But for Harry Potter fans who put their trust in J.K. Rowling for all this time, the best thing I can say The murders of Grindelwald this is probably the case: It will not make you want to put your wand any time soon.
Source link
