The new ‘Fantastic Beasts’ is a nail in the coffin of the ‘Harry Potter’ series – 04/13/2022
5 min readIt is difficult to understand the strategy behind the “Fantastic Beasts” series. In theory, it would be an opportunity to expand the world presented over a decade in “Harry Potter”, revealing other corners of his magical world.
In practice, however, the triple Movies It had the opposite effect.
Uninteresting, boring and with the most ferocious protagonist of modern cinema, the series made the magic built with such dedication, with the affection of so many fans, evaporate, coming to an end not with an explosion, but with a slight, almost imperceptible tremor.
“Fantastic Beasts: Dumbledore’s Secret” is one of the most stark examples of corporate thinking, where any artistic impulse to make a product is stifled.
Suits’ biggest sin was to leave creative control in the hands of the destroyer to J.K. Rowling, the creator of it all. The script for the three films is hers, a tangle of bad ideas that even the best directors can’t salvage.
Imagine, then, what is left when driving Movie It’s in the hands of a worker like David Yates, the director of everything Potter since the Order of the Phoenix.
There’s nothing you can do but create the most polished look that money can buy and hope the audience will be so intrigued that they don’t even realize they’re consuming pastels de vento.
There is absolutely no problem in watching cinema as a producer. Marvel has been doing exactly that since 2008 with results almost always above average (I still haven’t forgiven the Eternals song, but I’m keeping track of the match).
Gravy spills when there isn’t even the will to maintain minimal cohesion with whatever combo has already been created. “Dumbledore’s Secret” virtually discards the open-ended plots of the previous film, the “Crimes of Grindelwald” fiasco, in favor of a zero-sum adventure.
As the title already gives, the focus here is on Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law), Principal of the Hogwarts School of Magic. He needs to arrange the pieces on the board, without actively participating in the game.
The task is to stop the threat posed by her former lover, the evil wizard Gellert Grindelwald (Mads Mikkelsen, here played by Johnny Depp). “Ex-lover” because the script calls it that, as they both have the sexual spark of a turnip.
If the villain in the previous adventure was the target of the greatest manhunt in the wizarding world, here he was acquitted without much shock and launched himself as a candidate for the presidency of the Wizarding Society (another candidate is Maria Fernanda Candido, who speaks the sentence and interacts with a digital pet). His goal, although the reason for this is not clear, is to start a war with the “negators,” the normal humans.
Thus, the entire story involving Clarence (Ezra Miller)’s supposedly super-powerful origins is left aside, and his very short narrative arc is resolved into a scene without any dramatic tension.
The film traces the small army that Dumbledore has amassed on the most headless mission in modern cinema. To sum it up, Grindelwald gains the ability to see the future, so the plan to stop him is basically no plan at all.
As pseudo-protagonist Newt Scamander, Eddie Redmayne is on his journey to prove to the world that he is the most exaggerated actor of all time.
As if he was constantly chewing on a potato, he was filling his time with confused expressions and exercising the void of his charisma. On your part, even the “sarcasm” played by Dan Vogler sounds much more interesting.
Don’t expect from “Fantastic Beasts: Dumbledore’s Secret” a thrilling, nostalgic tour of the world featured in the “Harry Potter” series, now a corpse that’s been crawling in movies for years, but still absurdly lucrative in themed stores.
Too many characters clash with a generally meaningless plot, tied together with an anti-climate ending that is executed to cause a yawn.
Which brings me back to the original question: What was, after all, the studio’s plan to sabotage one of its most valuable intellectual properties with such an inept movie series?
If I were to bet, I’d say it was a seismic shockwave so strong that it could be used as an excuse to remove Rowling from the series’ creative control. She forgot, after all, what was always the big attraction in her books: adventure for kids!
One of Harry Potter’s most important appeals was to bring the child heroes who grew up alongside their audience throughout the books, and thus in the movies.
Between the lines of magical battles and the struggle of good against evil, there was a story about the end of childhood, the loss of innocence, and how dangerous the world is when we control our destiny. it was amazing!
Fantastic Beasts stars a group of boring, hysterical and indifferent adults. The promise of mystery and magic is exactly what is promised. Which is unfortunate, as the scientist holds his breath whenever any movement occurs in the wizarding world.
The possibilities are enormous, it even clings to the premise of the title. Imagine, for example, if “Fantastic Beasts” is about students of another school of magic, in a different, and at the same time, very familiar setting, looking for stray creatures in this world.
Imagine if it was about the wizards who created the original Hogwarts homes, who brought legacy, nostalgia, and novelty in one package. Imagine if Newt Scamander was the protagonist with a tangible journey, if he already had his own story. just imagine.