Credit where credit is due, “The Crimes of Grindelwald” accomplishes a feat that no prior “Wizarding World” film has been able to do: be a bad film. Even with that, the film faces a fate closely comparable to other blockbuster films, regardless of the quality, fans will still flock to the theatres and it will still make an abundance of money.
That being said, things aren’t completely dismal in this magical version of the 1920’s. Newt Scamander is still a wonderfully tame soul played with effortless charm by Eddie Redmayne (“The Theory of Everything,” “Les Misérables (2012)”). Despite a smaller than initially thought amount of screen time, Jude Law (“The Talented Mr. Ripley,” “Sherlock Holmes (2009)”) is also charming as a younger Dumbledore, working a smug smile into the powerful wizard’s repertoire of quips and misdirections.
That’s where the casts skills seem to end though, because the rest of them, even those reprising their roles from the first “Beasts” movie, seem to be floundering. Johnny Depp (“Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas,” “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl”) seems bored as he prances around as Grindelwald, and most of Newt’s friends seem like they’ve had the life sucked out of them. There’s also a steady flow of side characters that keep being slowly introduced, most of them without any real purpose. That doesn’t seem entirely their fault though.
It something seemingly thought impossible, but the script and writing is by far the film’s weakest link. Despite her pedigree, J.K. Rowling has delivered a chapter in her world that just seems overcomplicated and boring. She’s choked this outing full of subplots that either don’t conclude or are just funneled in to conclude in the next film. Director David Yates (“State of Play (2004),” “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince”) doesn’t seem to be helping much, merely acting as an autopilot, funneling viewers through a series of gray set-pieces until things build enough to call it an ending while still leaving plenty unexplained for the next film.
It at least maintains the distinct visual quality set by the previous Wizarding World films. Sets are mostly practical, blending real effects with CGI in a way that maintains a clean and solid look. A few moments of bad green screen stick out though, and the entire film just looks very dark and black.
It’s a film that spends so much time meandering in its plot, that by the time things actually start to move along, it’s in the third act. Most of it also just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Newt seems to have a semi-decent relationship with his brother, until the plot dictates they must give chase. It just feels like things are being made up on the spot to dictate the plot, pre-established lore be damned.
For a small example, Professor McGonagall pops up for a split second in the background. She’s addressed by name by Dumbledore, and leaves. She’s on screen for a total of 60 seconds. Sounds fine. Except, according to pre-established lore that Rowling herself wrote, McGonagall isn’t born, yet alone old enough to be a professor at Hogwarts. The film clearly takes place in 1927, and McGonagall isn’t born until 1935.
Which is bizarre. As much as the movie throws out and contradicts key pieces of Potter lore, it also tries to capitalize on it. Characters from deep cut Wizarding lore and dragged into the plot for mere moments, simply to say their names, and leave. It’s just as bad as any other cash grabbing nostalgia-bait film, but somehow worse. How a film manages to be a cash-grab, meant to capitalize on die hard fans, and yet get lore that those fans would know by heart wrong is kind of impressive.
Even if lore is thrown out the window, the result is a movie that’s just plain boring. Sure, there are a handful of amusingly entertaining sequences. Newt gets some good beastly moments, just like before, and they’re undoubtedly the highlight. The same goes for Law’s version of Dumbledore, and when Newt and the Professor are onscreen at once, then the film actually seems to be building to something great.
Even if its boring for most of its runtime, things really start to go downhill once the third act twists start being thrown out. The worst part is, in reality there’s probably only two or three big third act revelations. But because of how poorly this plot conveys any information to the audience, it feels closer to five or six plot twists. None of them are earned, especially not the one at the film’s very end, which manages to be simply confusing and illogical.
By the time everything comes to a head, it feels like this film is the middle chapter of three. The “Deathly Hallows Part 1” of this series, like it exists to fill in lore before the final installment. Except, not only does that lore feel so out of place and poorly constructed that its hard to tell what matters and what’s merely worldbuilding, but also that this is the second film OUT OF FIVE.
Even with the actors doing their best, solid visuals and a good musical score, “Crimes of Grindelwald” feels just like its title. It’s a crime to Wizarding fans, a crime to coherence, a crime to those who’ve spent time loving this franchise. It truly feels like Rowling doesn’t care, like she’s throwing characters and plots in to just create a film and collect a paycheck. This isn’t the Wizarding World we once knew. It’s bad, and quite worse, it’s boring. 2/5
No comments:
Post a Comment