Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald

As a sworn fan of the Harry Potter’s universe who can recite the names of most of the characters, spells and places at the drop of a hat, I automatically keep my distance with the related stuff by Rowling – with the exception of “The Cursed Child” – and the film adaptations of “Fantastic Beasts” illustrate why. I accepted the first one for the way it lays down the potentially interesting characters and conflicts and for the visually enriching expansion of the fictional world, and I honestly hate the second one for the very same reasons. It’s almost incredible how they manage to throw so many good guys with intertwined relationships into one world that is so powerfully dark, without having a proper clash in the climax. During the course of the film you’ll never guess where the story is heading, because it’s not really heading anywhere, it only delays stupidly the encounter of all the characters so there’ll be enough time for beasts, romance and flashbacks for morons. I still believe that the next sequel will explain all the apparently redundant motifs, but that doesn’t change the fact that the second Fantastic Beasts is awfully boring, that recycles stuff we’ve already seen and that the escalation is in fact stagnation with a multiplication potion. The first part of Deathly Hallows was great in comparison, it had several highlights and a clear narrative direction; here, the only things that are fine are Hogwarts, the young Dumbledore and one intimate scene with Newt and Tina that shows true emotions. Otherwise, if you erase if from your memory, you won’t be missing anything. (2018-11-14)

The first film proved that audiences are still quite curious about this cinematic world and will gladly pay to return to it. So what do we do in the second one? What makes sense. We're gonna add in everything that we think people might like, to keep it wringing it out for a few years. This approach is fine, it's just what Hollywood does with big movies, but unfortunately the second Fantastic Beasts shows that it's not always for the best. For example, getting a film directed by the biggest routine artist Hollywood has at its disposal, or wanting to milk the studio so badly that it sets up a lot of plots, subplots, characters, heroes and creatures that there's no time at all for a plot that makes even rudimentary sense. The result is a bunch of mediocre, albeit good-looking action, a lot of twists and turns that would put the creators of Wild Angel to shame, and a cauldron of book and movie references that fans are likely to enjoy. That last thing makes The Crimes of Grindelwald rather good, and if you head to the cinema expecting someone to simply shove things you probably like and probably want to see under your nose, you'll enjoy it. As an attempt to kickstart a grand fantasy franchise, however, it brutally fails in practically every way. Boring movie, and perhaps even a little embarrassing at times. (2018-11-15)

A fascist, anti-Nazi Depp in the blue continuation of the prequel to a magical saga… It's a little simplistic in places, but otherwise pleasant. A major drawback is that Grindewald’s crimes can’t stand alone. They are linked to so many storylines from the Harry Potter films as well as the previous Fantastic Beasts that it more or less manages to address the fundamental points in its quite limited runtime. Here, Rowling lacks the space that she has in her novels, where she can explain certain aspects. We don’t feel any connection with the new characters and they appear and disappear too quickly. Even Depp hardly appears in this movie. Law is all right, but lacks the space to shine. But even with all of these shortcomings, the narrative works. Yates should hand the directing over to someone with more skill. The action scenes are confusing and someone deserves be punched for the extreme close-ups at the beginning. The camera is often right in Redmayn’s freckly face. I don’t need to look at that. P.S. The Japanese snake woman is sexy beyond belief. I now understand Voldemort’s exaggerated affection towards her. (2018-11-20)

I actually had a bit of a déjà vu. Within the Harry Potter universe, the story is a few decades older than the one that was current at the time with the final two-parter about the Battle of Hogwarts. It’s as if the authors travelled back in time to do an inconspicuous film preparation for the epic final battle. And we’ve already seen that once. So, at times the first half of the film was incredibly boring. The entire movie is shot in these strange, dark-bleak colors that you have to work pretty hard not to be lulled to sleep by. And since there is nothing going on in the plot and there is zero action, it’s not easy to fight the urge to sleep. Some animals are quite nice the same way as in the first movie, but that’s about it. There isn’t much humor and the only thing that I remember about the characters is that Eddie’s portrayal of the anti-social Newt is more than believable. There still are a few good moments here. For instance, casting Jude Law as young Dumbledore was a great choice. J. K. Rowling also provided a couple of interesting story twists that fans of Harry Potter will surely appreciate. It still feels like a weaker return not only to Hogwarts. But when the film is taking place in Hogwarts, it picks up considerably. (2018-11-26)

I didn't expect that. After the previous film, which I really liked, came the second installment from the very same creators... And it's so much worse. Boredom, familiar characters who suddenly didn't matter to me, and new characters who were quite similar, their shallow dialogues, action scenes without many ideas and the attractions named Johnny Depp and Jude Law are barely used. While the previous film revealed new chapters of the Harry Potter world and enlarged it pleasantly, this one just strangely tangles it. Two and a half. (2018-11-23)