There have been warnings galore that this was going to be a "What the dickens is going on?" film, which sums it up perfectly. I didn't even attempt to follow or comprehend all the maze of info and mumbo-jumbo designed to get you involved because, frankly, I couldn't care. I only went because I'd heard that the visuals were superlative, which is true. (Just where can they go from here? Surely the end of the road has been reached for this aspect!). But at 2.25 hours the film is far, far too long for its own good - and the final 40 mins or so is interminable, with an albino-ed Johnny Depp allowed to dominate proceedings as the titular and evil Grindelwald - something I'd assumed was a place!
Btw: Why do captions always have to announce such as 'London, England' and 'Paris, France') Yet when it comes to American cities their country of location is not stated. Of course we all know of London, Ontario and Paris, Texas though those places can hardly be confused with the European metropolitans. I can't believe [most] Americans are that dumb!
Eddie Redmayne reprises his role as Newt Scamander (Saviour of the world!) - and has the heavyweight casting of Jude Law as the young Dumbledore in his early time at Hogwarts.
The only other name in the cast I recognised was Hugh Quarshie, now an established TV regular, whom I regularly used to see on stage in a variety of roles at the Oxford Playhouse when I moved to that city, and when he was a mere stripling of 20 or so,
To call the plot of this labyrinthine would not be unfair. How many of the audience who are not familiar with the J.K. Rowling books would be able to explain it? And how many who have read them could do likewise? Who other than keen Rowling aficianados would even care to spend time reading such? Not me! My time left may be too restricted to have the luxury of bothering with stuff like this.
Director David Yates has already made four of the Harry Potters so there's no doubting that he knows his business - and he manages it all with the proficiency one would expect. However, I do wish he, and indeed Rowling herself, had created a product here where we are involved enough with what's going on so that we, at least speaking for myself, don't feel bored to tears.
I was going to rate this with a '3', but my kinder side is winning out, so I'd better post this quickly before I revert to my initial thoughts..........4.
(IMDb...................7.0 / Rott. Toms...............5.3 )
14 minutes ago
I commented on John's blog [Going Gently] that I felt lost during the first film because it seemed so much was unexplained, and so I have little desire to see this one. Plus, how could you replace Colin Farrell with Johnny Depp>ReplyDelete
This has nothing at all on the first film, Bob, to which I see I unaccountably gave a rating of '6'. This Part II is strictly for those who got so much out of the original that they really do want to come back for me - and, bafflingly to me, there are enough of them to make a healthy profit on this one too. Having said that I wasn't in any way enamoured of the Harry Potter films either, so there you are. No, I cannot recommend this unless you're a true Rowling fan.ReplyDelete
One to be missed for me. I haven't read or seen any Harry Potter and having read John's review and now yours I definitely wouldn't waste my time with this. It screams "not for me".ReplyDelete
You've got to be an avid J.K.Rpwling fan to get any pleasure out of this, Carol - and there ARE plenty of them, I don't deny. But it's hardly much entertainment for someone who doesn't belong to her 'church'.Delete
Btw: I don't in any way criticise her writings. It's just not for me - or, it seems, for you either.
You are quite right, I too wouldn't criticise her writings because she has a huge following but it has just never appealed to me.ReplyDelete
Love Eddie Redmayne, but even his star power could not get me into the theater to see him in "Fantastic Beasts." When it was shown on the telly, I gave it a go, but 30 minutes is about as far as I could manage. So, I definitely will not be seeing this.ReplyDelete
Eddie himself (and I'm a big fan too) didn't seem to have his habitual magnetism in this film, Paul. Perhaps he had a half-heartedness about the role (though I haven't heard that) which reflected in a lower-profile appearance. Also, I think he's maybe overshadowed by the presences of both Depp and Law, the second of these being particularly noticeable.Delete
Only in American movies is the Paris France thing...I find it irritating tooReplyDelete
Yes, I've noticed that, JayGee. It's the assumption that there's such a significant number of ignoramuses (ignorami?) around that they'd better point out what one might otherwise have expected every 7-year old to know. Jeez!Delete
I don't seem to have any interest in 'more Harry Potter" stuff so I won't be seeing it. I do like the beasties and creatures though. Right now Jenny Greenteeth and the Grindyloo are in the backyard pool.ReplyDelete
I find both the Harry Potter and these Beastie films off-puttingly brain-tiring, Dr Spo. I can't understand why, apparently, youngsters don't also find them so.ReplyDelete
Had to look up Jenny Greenteeth and Grindyloo to find what you're talking about. Completely new to me, both, as I'd expect them to be for most of my countrymen.
Sorry to post message here, but my blogger blog is now automatically redirected to Wordpress, so I can't respond there. Anyway, sorry about your problems with following the new site. I'm working with Wordpress on those issues. But they can't figure it out (something to do with Blogger probably). Anyway, while we continue to try... you can always sign up for email notification at the top of my sidebar. I promise you won't receive thousands in one day!ReplyDelete
Now done. I'd thought of it before but, disliking 'clutter' I've avoided it. Let's give it a try at least.Delete