J.K. Rowling's Wizarding World is one of the most popular and well-known franchises of all time. I'm not a massive fan of it but I've seen all the films and enjoy them all, not least Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. This spin-off of the Harry Potter franchise is terrific; a film that works for me because it limits its ties to this universe to function as its own simple, enjoyable, standalone adventure with great characters and extremely fun creatures. Even though it takes place in the Wizarding World, it can easily be enjoyed by very lukewarm fans, myself included. It also isn't really a film that I think warrants sequels, especially not four. The Crimes of Grindelwald is a perfectly enjoyable film, but feels quite narratively muddled as it tries to link the characters of the first film to narratives more closely associated with Potter. Now, we have The Secrets of Dumbledore, and I didn't really know what to expect from this entry, but I assumed it'd likely be on a similar wavelength.
In the film, Newt Scamander, along with Jacob Kowalski, Albus Dumbledore, and his suitcase full of magical creatures, continue their pursuit and fight against Gellert Grindelwald as his influence throughout the Wizarding World continues to grow.
While the previous film in this series probably had a bit too much going on for its own good, this film suffers on the opposite end of the spectrum by having far too little going on, as you may have inferred from that plot summary. This is your typical filler film, as basically nothing of note happens throughout and it feels as if nothing new has been accomplished by the end. As a result, it can be quite boring at times as it just feels like nothing but padding. Between this and The Crimes of Grindelwald, I feel there's about enough content for a single film; the last one ended on a cliffhanger, and it feels like this is just what should've been the final act of that film extended to be feature length.
J.K. Rowling is undeniably a talented world-builder and has great ideas for stories and characters, and I don't really think she's that bad a screenwriter either. What weakens her storytelling abilities is likely the mindset that what's being told needs to go on for as long as possible, as she's clearly aware that the Wizarding World is a lucrative property and thus wants to capitalise on that by taking this new story and extending it beyond the point of necessity. If she was more efficient with her storytelling, then I think the second and third films in the Fantastic Beasts series probably could've been condensed into one solid entry.
The downside to this headspace Rowling is most likely in is the fact that the result is multiple films that feel either incomplete, or padded, or both. I understand that it can ensure a greater profit being made, but I also feel it can have the reverse effect. While dedicated fans will no doubt sit through hours of filler to the very end, general audiences may well pick up on the trend of these last two sequels and assume that whatever comes next will be equally dull and uninteresting, thus checking out of the series and not returning, which could be detrimental. If she just told the story of this franchise as concisely and efficiently as possible, at most forming a trilogy (keep in mind I don't know what the supposed fourth and fifth entries will consist of but I imagine will also be a single film stretched into two), then not only would the films be better off, but that fact would spawn positive word of mouth and maybe lead to solid success.
Okay, so the film overall is quite padded and uneventful, but does that mean its terrible? No. Despite its pacing issues, The Secrets of Dumbledore still has much to enjoy. Unsurprisingly, the titular fantastic beasts themselves are the best part of the film, even if they're slowly getting sidelined in a series named after them. Niffler and Pickett are back and still as fun as they were before, and there are some entertaining new additions, including these scorpion-like creatures, which lead to a funny sequence where Newt mimmicks their movements around a cave. The performances are also still great all round, with Eddie Redmayne, Dan Fogler, and Jude Law reprising their roles very well, despite the fact that their characters are hardly developed. The obvious standout, however, is Mads Mikkelsen, who replaces Johnny Depp as Grindelwald and makes the character far more menacing than he was before. There are also some well crafted set pieces, such as the afore mentioned scene with the scorpion creatures, various wand duels, and a climax that is very creatively set-up, as well as taking the Wizarding World to new locations. These factors all made the film passable while it was on, but unfortunately weren't enough to completely salvage it.
As a whole, Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore is a fine watch, but nothing special. It has many of the good attributes of that great first film and the previous entry, but its highly uneventful and padded nature make it a fairly dull watch. This will certainly be the one, and hopefully only, film in the series that is looked back on as the skippable load of filler, with its closest relative in the Harry Potter series being The Deathly Hallows Part 1. I'm not sure if I'd rank it lower than The Crimes of Grindelwald, but the fact that stuff actually happened in that film, even if much of it is contrived and overstuffed, makes it slightly more attractive. This was nothing awful, but nothing awfully good either.
I'm going to give Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore a 6.0/10
No comments:
Post a Comment