Of all the sequels that don't need to exist, Fantastic Beasts is probably the one that does it the most seriously - far better than Star Wars, which fell into the hands of Mickey Mouse, at least J (Woman)· Ms. K (high student) Rowling, was not kicked out like George Lucas. But even so, it's hard to stop the magic of the wizarding world from disappearing little by little in Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald.
Of course, this is another great example: the best things are often not created by force—even by the same author.
"Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald" is a major production involving (the most "favorite" World War II feature in Europe) racist topics. Although it was launched at the end of the year, it is definitely not in the traditional sense. It is used to escape Real-life family entertainment movies -- and that's where the entire Harry Potter franchise had its greatest charm before David Yates personalised it. Of course, J.K. Rowling's entire Harry Potter literary and cinematic empire is built on a solemn and moral theme, exploring good and evil through an epic confrontation of good and evil, making it appropriate Readers and viewers of all ages. But while the Harry Potter film franchise strikes an important balance between exciting and thought-provoking, the Fantastic Beasts spinoff universe is still struggling to find its own solid foundation and keystone.
And this status is a little confusing, because J.K. Rowling himself has been involved in "Fantastic Beasts" even more than the original "Harry Potter" series - not only for the two "Fantastic Beasts" The film wrote the script and also served as the producer. But this goes back to the old problem of "specialization in the surgery industry". J.K. Rowling's story is not bad, but for an original script like Fantastic Beasts, it's a bit out of place. The final state of "Harry Potter" movie is obtained by compressing the complex tome, but even this can't stop the "Low Magic Hunter" David Yates's Axe; Animals is naturally a bit worse in story density, and often appears to lack original impetus.
At the end of the day, it's a matter of lack of good checks and balances on the creative side (rather than being in tune with David Yates). Fantastic Beasts 2 does have magic, does have visual spectacle, but also has some awkward characters and plot design. Even the world-building and narrative space of the entire Fantastic Beasts series relies a little too much on Fantastic Beasts itself and ignores the appeal of magic itself, which is not a good thing.
The magical world should be the magical world, not a magical alternate version of the real world.
David Yates, who is too obsessed with ideological disputes, has shown impatience with teenage adventure themes since the "Harry Potter" era. From "Order of the Phoenix" to "Half-Blood Prince", he can't wait to triple jump to forcefully obliterate the youth of readers (along with Harry Potter). When it came to "Deathly Hallows", it finally succeeded in twisting into an adult fateful confrontation. And when it comes to "Fantastic Beasts", the wizarding world in the eyes of David Yates has become a big stage for Counter-Strike. But what has remained unchanged for many years is still the same as David Yates's Harry Potter movies, a typical large-cost running account-every time there is a large-scale action scene, David Yates's excitement will burst out. , but otherwise, the viewability of the story and the use of color is, as always, chaotic dark (rather than dark) and dull.
This leads to the fact that in Fantastic Beasts 2, the narrative part is more like a forced creative writing, rather than providing freshness and excitement to the audience. Too many forced turns, leaving viewers carried around for over two hours with inexplicable meaning and lack of a clear purpose - apparently, David Yates and J.K. Rowling, right There was little interest in anything other than Credence, the humanoid McGuffin.
And the wizarding world that was supposed to expand further in Fantastic Beasts 2 was dealt with in a perfunctory way. David Yates's vision of wizards and magic is grossly unimaginative, charismatic and surprising - magic should not be a substitute for electricity (even electropunk-style robots have come out), but the substance of the imagination Transformational performance - the magic in "Fantastic Beasts 2" has no romance at all, and even in the final battle, the magic output actually relies on roar, which is shocking.
But there are moments in Fantastic Beasts 2 that do stand out as a regular commercial movie, not a Harry Potter movie: the recycling of circus tents, and the various non-plot-related Fantastic Beasts. And the performance is on a higher level, especially the old Johnny Depp and Ezra Miller, who had little time and opportunity to appear in the last film, and Jude Law, the newcomer in this film, completely overshadowed them. Oscar winner Eddie Redmayne. The latter's lack of breakthrough performance makes him not even the protagonist of "Fantastic Beasts 2" - although David Yates himself may not know who is the protagonist of this part - hair volume and appearance are directly proportional Jude Law easily steals the attention of the camera.
And this also reflects another important mistake made by David Yates on Fantastic Beasts 2, which is the lack of anchors for characters and stories - Harry Potter's anchor is naturally Harry Potter A trio, but Fantastic Beasts 2's anchor isn't Freckle and his friends. In the ambitious narratives of David Yates and J.K. Rowling, the protagonist is also a victim.
Fantastic Beasts 2 The Crimes of Grindelwald is a tough attempt, with David Yates and J.K. Rowling groping for a long time at the emotional drivers that will infect audiences, but simply can't decide which arc is the best Importantly, it is not even known which is the most effective. From creating and attracting fans around the world, to relying on fans to reap the box office, this is the gap between "Harry Potter" and "Fantastic Beasts".
As for Easter eggs and tributes? That's what it's supposed to do as a spinoff and sequel movie, and it's far from a plus. If you mess up the position, it is simply putting the cart before the horse.
In fact, J.K. Rowling's creative intentions to express through "Fantastic Beasts" are understandable: another child of the prophecy, a story of "Harry Potter" falling into the dark side - "Before Star Wars" Biography" at this time again haunted, Dumbledore v. Master Yoda, Newt Scamander v. Obi-Wan, Credence Barebones v. Anakin Skywalker -- and The theme of the characters is also consistent with Harry Potter and even deepened, and the same lonely and autistic (pseudo) teenagers - the casting of Ezra Miller and Little Freckles is a magical stroke - trying to find where he is. location in the world. The background is not a new British-style fable of World War II.
As for whether it can be played well or not, this is a completely different topic. We've seen the huge gap between idea and execution too, too many times.
But Fantastic Beasts hasn't been eroded by the messy, imposed social issues, at least compared to Star Wars, which I've taken away from myself. From the current point of view, the politically correct part is basically not out of line nor obtrusive. Warner does not seem to be as extreme as Disney, and the participation of minorities, including blacks, is a good supplement to the wizarding world. But I only hope that I won't make a wizarding world version of L3-37 in the future, shouting to liberate house-elves while showing off their sexual fetishes.
That's really Too Far, not Me Too.
View more about Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald reviews
