Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald - Review Thread

I’m sad we didn’t get a Jude Law/Johnny Depp sex scene.

As was I.

Such an Ezra Miller fanboy.

This movie is so bad. I thought it would at least be better than the incredibly mediocre first movie.

The continuing phenomenon that is the Harry Potter empire needs no introduction, but it does serve as a nice jumping off point for discussing how studios maintain, or milk, their cash stream from these lucrative properties even when they're seemingly over.  Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 was released in 2011, and for me, served as a terrific high point for the franchise to end on.  It wrapped up the epic saga nicely and gave us the Harry Potter vs. Voldemort showdown we'd been hungering for since 2001.  But as wonderful an end to the franchise as it was, I don't believe anyone actually thought that Warner Bros. and J.K. Rowling would truly be done with their ever flowing payday.  I'm not opposed to more material that doesn't stem directly from Harry Potter's storyline being created at all.  In fact, Rowling is rightfully renowned for being an excellent world builder, and as is the key to creating compelling works of fantasy, has created an immense amount of lore and background to pull from that's ripe for continuing adventures within this world.  When you think about it, the possibilities are pretty endless.  Rowling could've done what Game of Thrones will be doing with its prequels and reach way back into the wizarding world, well before Harry or Dumbledore or any mainstays from the franchise.  Or she could've examined elements closer to Harry's timeline but from different angles, maybe even from that of Slytherin members or some form of antiheroes.  

But instead she settled on "adapting" her Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them book, sort of.  An intriguing idea, if not a wholly satisfying one.  But the prospect of following around enigmatic Newt Scamander as he travels the world interacting with magical creatures could be an entertaining romp.  When the first film was released in 2016 though, this wasn't nearly the case as instead Rowling pitted this idea into 1920s New York where Newt scrambled along after his released creatures and then shoehorned in a tonally uneven storyline about a dark lord similar to Voldemort and a child containing hidden powers that can be used to unleash chaos on the world.  While the film was amusing enough it was tonally all over the place, attempting to blend breezy chase sequences of recapturing magical creatures with the serious nature of impending doom with diminished results.  It wasn't fun enough or story driven enough to work on either end, so with the sequel, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, Rowling has doubled down on plot in an attempt to have this franchise mirror the gravitas that Harry Potter faced.  This surprisingly turns out to be disastrous as the film is bogged down with endless exposition and side stories about characters we don't care about and all culminating in a climax that isn't climactic at all but rather operates as pure setup for more events I don't think anyone cares about.  This film is a stunning low across the board and has me very skeptical as to what Rowling and talented director and seasoned Harry Potter helmer David Yates have to offer over, gulp, three more films.

The film begins with Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) escaping and beginning to assemble his league of followers.  It's a pretty cool opening to be fair with Grindelwald commandeering a flying carriage in the pouring rain and certainly establishes a much more serious and weighty tone to this film than the original ever provided.  From there though it's all downhill as we're reintroduced to the completely forgettable side characters from the first film and their seemingly endless melodrama which they saddle along our protagonist, Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne), who bears his own share of contrived melodrama stemming from a misunderstanding with Tina Goldstein (Katherine Waterston).  One of the biggest issues of why the first film never fully works is that Newt just simply is not an interesting protagonist to follow.  Whereas Harry, Ron, and Hermione were great protagonists who challenged authority, were flawed characters with good intentions, and served as curious voyeurs for us as we perused Hogwarts and its vast secrets, Newt is just an awkwardly passive protagonist that doesn't invite any intrigue.  I'm all for him being selfish and adamant in wanting to study creatures more than get involved with the politics of people, but then make him a little off putting, snarky, something.  Newt is so in the middle, both narratively and as a character, that there's nothing to build on.  He would be nothing more than a forgettable side character roaming Hogwarts in the Harry Potter franchise, and so to make him the Harry Potter of this franchise doesn't work at all.  

As an audience we're just sitting back and observing all of this endless discussion and dull magical bureaucracy that for some reason Rowling wants to confine her story to, when part of what made the Harry Potter franchise work so well was the feeling that we were active participants, pulling back the curtains on these old secrets with Harry and Co.  About halfway through the film, I realized I just didn't care about these characters or their problems because none of them are more than melodramatic pieces being moved in contrived ways.  Every twist in this film largely stems from misunderstandings or coincidence, and for a writer as accomplished as Rowling is, that's just not acceptable.  It also speaks to the larger issue of why we're even being presented this narrative in the first place.  It's such a lesser retread of Voldemort's story, as if Rowling doesn't trust her audience to embrace a departure plot wise from the Harry Potter films.  Yes, the original lacked scope and a compelling narrative through line, but the sequel contains none of the escapism and more of the nonsensical exposition that bogged it down.  This film lacks charm, compelling twists and turns, and honestly just overall imagination of showing us new elements of this large world.  Most of the film is confined to halls in the Ministry of Magic, or an odd street fair in Paris, or a crypt, and it's just not interesting enough when we've already seen so much more in prior films.  There's even a surprising lack of beasts and chasing them down, almost as if Rowling has realized her mistake in trying to balance both escapism pleasure and serious narrative and is slowly writing them out.  

There's a lot more than I can harp on here, but I feel I should rest my case.  Aside from gorgeous cinematography and Yates' sure handed direction of flimsy material, there's nothing to really react positively to.  Not only does the film present a dull lack of imagination in expanding this vast and interesting world, but it largely eschews any fun or signature moments altogether in favor of endless exposition, backstories, and relationship melodrama between characters that's just miserable to sit through.  It's a stunning misfire that all culminates in Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law) and Newt at the end of the film saying something like "let's get to work."  It's a tease of a film that offers no payoffs and no joy in-between.  This is made increasingly maddening at the prospect of three more films in this franchise being made.  I don't know if I can say that Rowling has done the unthinkable and pushed myself and many others to Potter fatigue, but I have no hope moving forward for this dismal franchise that I wish I could throw an invisibility cloak over.

4/10

I have wondered what Harry Potter movies must be like for those who are uninitiated into the world, either through the previous films or through the books. After seeing this film, I now think I have some idea. Yes, I saw the first Fantastic Beasts film, but it didn't exactly draw my attention, never mind actually engage with the characters and plot threads enough to lead into this film. So at many points throughout the film, I didn't understand what was going on.

Who was this Creedence guy, and why was I supposed to care about him or his lineage? Why was I supposed to care about the Lestrange woman and her lineage? Why is Newt supposed to be a good choice to hunt down Grindelwald? Whats with the blonde lady?

I can't quite pinpoint the right adjective to describe my thoughts about this movie. Stupid isn't quite right. Something along the lines of "full of itself" but not that heavy. Its more like they really want you to take whats going on seriously. They really, really want you to, but without being convincing about it. Is there a word for that?

Newt is the main character of this movie once again, which sees him going to Paris to kind this kid who is important somehow. Newt is sort of an interesting character, even though its obvious the actor his doing all he can to make him seem awkward. He has a couple friends who show up from the last movie, and his brother is here (and actually really looks like his brother), and the love interest from last movie. I was never really sure on everyone's motivations, but needless to say they did a bunch of stuff around Paris.

The best parts of this movie were the parts that took place at Hogwarts. I thought that Jude Law was an inspired choice for young Dumbledore, and I quite enjoyed him in that role. But everything else was kinda... I dunno, dreary? Befuddled? Maybe just uninteresting.

And while I liked Dumbledore in the film, I really disliked Grindelwald as the titular villain. All I know from Grindelwald comes from the backstory of the Deathly Hallows book. The impression that I got was that he was to be this really charismatic rogue, with some ambitious and misguided beliefs that needed to be brought into check. But Johnny Depp's character is not charismatic at all. He just has a silly haircut and makes a lot of speeches and sneers. Part of the problem is the fact that he always just seems like Johnny Depp, and the actual character of Grindelwald isn't able to rise about that star recognition and exist as his own character. Big fail there.

And that self-important ending where a bunch of people "go to the dark side". Ugh. It feels like they have not earned the weight they are going for here. I also wonder who these movies are for. I guess grown up Potter fans, cause they certainly aren't for kids. They are far too bleak, even involving some baby deaths. I know they are planning more, but I don't care what happens.
4.5/10

I love how they're pushing the Extended Cut that comes with the Blu Ray as if to say, "You thought this was too long?  Well, here's a couple extra minutes, ya fucks!"

Finally watched this last night. Shit was awful.

3/10

Watched it again last night.  Still really enjoy it.