Maybe this should have been a TV series, if Rowling wanted to encompass so much-or she could have written a novel and then waited for a sufficient adaptation. But Crimes of Grindelwald tries to do entirely too much with no foundational text, so even diehards willing to follow Pottermore and various fan wikis to the ends of the Internet may find themselves hungry for further clarity. There are ribbons of old Rowling running throughout the film, mysteries from the past mingling with the present, teased out through callbacks and gradually meted out reveals. If even they can’t figure out how to expand this narrative in any comprehensible or engrossing way, then what possible future could the whole enterprise have? Which is troubling, given that Harry Potter stalwart David Yates (responsible for one of the best films in the original run) directed the thing, and Rowling herself wrote the script. Rowling’s original world-while trying desperately to entwine itself with it-that it can only gesture (or is it a flail?) toward what once, not too long ago, made these stories so special. Just as Game of Thrones began to sputter after it exhausted its rich source material, Grindelwald is far enough beyond the scope of J.K. big-budget show, too.) Scattered, confusing, and haunted by past grandeur, Crimes of Grindelwald perhaps marks the landmark moment when, alas, the magic finally flickers out. (The film is about as cheap- and plain-looking as a just-O.K. The current allegations against the actor, accused of drunkenly assaulting a crew member on the set of upcoming film City Of Lies seem set to add fuel to this particular fire.Watching Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, the second in a planned series of Harry Potter prequels, is a bit like watching a “previously on” recap of a season of television, except there are no actual episodes to go back to and watch in full. Within the fictional world and outside it, we all have to do what we believe to be the right thing." However, conscience isn’t governable by committee. I accept that there will be those who are not satisfied with our choice of actor in the title role. "I’ve loved writing the first two screenplays and I can’t wait for fans to see The Crimes Of Grindelwald. Based on our understanding of the circumstances, the filmmakers and I are not only comfortable sticking with our original casting, but genuinely happy to have Johnny playing a major character in the movies. However, the agreements that have been put in place to protect the privacy of two people, both of whom have expressed a desire to get on with their lives, must be respected. For me personally, the inability to speak openly to fans about this issue has been difficult, frustrating and at times painful. "The huge, mutually supportive community that has grown up around Harry Potter is one of the greatest joys of my life. I understand why some have been confused and angry about why that didn’t happen. As David Yates, long-time Potter director, has already said, we naturally considered the possibility of recasting. "Harry Potter fans had legitimate questions and concerns about our choice to continue with Johnny Depp in the role. "However, around the time of filming his cameo in the first movie, stories had appeared in the press that deeply concerned me and everyone most closely involved in the franchise. "When Johnny Depp was cast as Grindelwald, I thought he’d be wonderful in the role," she wrote on her site. Rowling addressed the issue with a hefty statement: After a scandal about domestic abuse issues in his marriage, fans were concerned about Depp's continued presence in the film. Johnny Depp's casting proved to be extremely controversial, and we don't mean because people wanted Colin Farrell to remain as Grindelwald following his performance as the disguised villain for most of the first film.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |