[ad_1]
Two years after the release of Fantastic beasts and where to find them, the wizarding world of J.K. Rowling is back with Fantastic Beasts: The Grindlewald Crimes, the second of the five – count 'em – prequels originally Harry Potter franchise. But the new film, once again directed by the pillar of the franchise David Yates, does it have the magic touch that fans hope for?
"Unlike the first installment, which seemed like a forced effort to expand Rowling's brand, this engaging movie has its own kinetic and busy style," writes Caryn James in The Hollywood journalistThe examination of. "One of the curious and unattractive choices of the Beasts Franchise is his gray-brown palette and his storybook look flattened, in the background and old-fashioned. Even the fake Paris looks dark. It is a relief when the film settles briefly in the green landscape around Hogwarts to visit Dumbledore. When the special effects take off, the images can be spectacular. In the decisive battle between good and evil, Grindelwald unleashes whirlwinds of icy blue fire, which invade the screen. "
That fire broke out again in Michael Phillips' review of Chicago Tribune, who was otherwise disappointed by the movie. "It took JK The franchise adjacent to Rowling's Harry Potter is exactly a movie for shrugs to go up, even with all those awesome actors out there in the midst of costly digital blue flames," he said. he writes, others were similarly bored with what they saw.
Take as an example, The GuardianPeter Bradshaw, who said the new feature film "is just as spectacular as the wonderful opening film, with creatures made with love, witty inventions and witty thumbnails. But I could not help but think that the narrative rhythm was a little embarrassed and we bored a little into new details. He added that "some of the wonders, novelties and narrative rush of the first film have been lost to a more diffuse plot focus, spread among a larger group. "
United States todayBrian Truitt agreed, writing that "the ambition of crimesfrom the hot air balloon to the gymnastics needed to connect history to the greatest mythology, sometimes threatens to derail the episode, "and noting that the film" lacks a bit of the awkward appeal of the original Beasts, where to prevent the adorable creatures from sowing disorder in the Big Apple was a big part of the conflict. "
According to Kate Erbland of IndieWire, magic and planning are "rare" in the film. "In his second outing, cracks begin to appear in J.K. Rowling's highly followed series about Harry Potter, a franchise at the mercy of sloppy planning (these movies are concocted from various pieces of Wizarding World material, not individual novels) and the kind of higher decree that promised five films (five!) before the first was released in theaters. It is a long time to complete and, even if the second film of the franchise gives a boost to his story, it is at the expense of an inflated and fuzzy scenario.
The feeling that the film is too conscious of the utmost frankness is one that has appeared again and again in critics; The edgeTasha Robinson warned that the series was "deeply ingrained in the superfan," adding, "It's hard to imagine anyone other than hardcore Potterheads emotionally involving in the complicated plot." and the ancestral revelations of this film ", PolygonKaren Han explained that the film "destroys most [its own] good will in succumbing to the burdensome (and ultimately counter-productive) manner in which J.K. Rowling tends to return to his own work and to make every effort to mount a third film, Beasts. The frills that distinguish the film, once again realized by the pillar of the series Potter David Yates, are erased by its final, in favor of a sequel that has no title yet. "
However, not everyone was convinced that even the super-fans would enjoy the movie. Take Los Angeles Times The critic Justin Chang, who wrote: "An excruciating boredom barely brightened by a wandering glimpse of Hogwarts, a spark of gay romance and a computer-generated critter's bounty. Fantastic Beasts: The Grindelwald Crimes is enough to make J.K. Rowling fans cry in frustration, provided that they can even keep their eyes open. "
They were not all dark, depressing and negative critics. Fionnuala Halligan of Screen International described the feature film as "a film of considerable technical magic … a thread of mirrors elegantly punctuated in the glories of the past (a Diagon Alley-style decor in Paris, Newt's house resembling Tardis as a spectacular replica at Hogwarts), associated with sets Explosively explodes a story that starts badly but focuses very clearly on a chessboard for the next three films in the series. "
Meanwhile, the New York PostJohnny Oleksinski viewed the film as a "much improved sequel" to the first film Fantastic beasts, noting that the film improves the first installment with the good introduction of the nasty series; While others complained about Depp's performance, Oleksinski describes it as "certainly well presented here as a zombie-like scoundrel".
Overall, the answer to crimes – at least according to early critics – is that the film is darker and more self-conscious than the first film in the series, suffering at least the last of these two changes. If the series is to reach the end of its expected life, changes may be needed for the next installment – including, perhaps, lightening things up a bit. It may not be easy, but deep down, should not magic be doing the impossible …?
Fantastic Beasts: The Grindelwald Crimes opens on November 16th.
[ad_2]
Source link
