As Newt Scamander, magizoologist and author of the titular (and fictional) “Fantastic Beasts” tome, Redmayne is all flitty and mumbly, a shtick that’s more distracting than endearing. And the perennially twitchy, mannered Eddie Redmayne at the center of these films does not provide the most stable, powerful anchor. Hearing names like Lestrange and paying brief visits to Hogwarts to see a young, dashing Albus Dumbledore can only go so far to rekindle the original magic. This one, by comparison, is about too much, resulting in storytelling that’s more of a slog than a thrill. “The Crimes of Grindelwald” is about much more than its predecessor, which was tethered to the fundamental narrative necessities of world building and perhaps relied too heavily on its weird and wonderful creatures to provide the audience with the sensation of being transported, but that's not a good thing. There’s indeed magic to be found here, as well as visual wonder, but there’s also an unwieldy amount of character and plot. But it’s almost as if Rowling wants to cram in too much, and no one is willing to suggest reining in that instinct. This is perplexing, given that Rowling herself has written the screenplays for both the original “ Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them” from 2016 and now its follow-up, “Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald.” David Yates, who directed the last four movies in the “Harry Potter” series, is the director of these films, as well.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |