Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is a Visual Spectacle With Too Many Questions Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is a Visual Spectacle With Too Many Questions

15 Nov , 2018

FANTASTIC Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald is opening in theaters November 16th, and it’s supposed to be, well, Fantastic. I wish I could say that’s how I felt when the credits started rolling. Nope... not quite. Crimes of Grindelwald was a recipe for greatness, but some ingredients were missing.

Slight Spoilers ahead, you've been warned!  

Was Fantastic Beasts 'Fantastic?' 

First, I’ll start with the good. The acting was solid! I’m a HUGE fan of Eddie Redmayne’s Newt Scamanderhe just wants to follow his passion taming mythical creatures. We all understand working somewhere we don’t want to beit manifests into a fear of desk jobs for Newt. While I want more character development out of him, he’s still a loveable lead. I love Katherine Waterson’s Tinashe’s sharp, calculated, and ready to fight for the greater good! Ezra Miller’s Credence was a joy too. But Newt’s ragtag team of Jacob and Tina are slightly annoying. The movie spends a little too much time on their antics and it makes the film feel cluttered. They pull attention away from what’s important. Get me to Credence, Grindelwald, Dumbledore, and Newt.

The magic was a spectacle. Grindelwald’s blue fire was epic on the big screen, the monsters looked surreal and enchanting, and the other spells were actually brought to life. The Fantastic Beasts franchise stepped up the depiction of the spells big time. Little whisps and flicks actually come to life.

Okay okay… I know what most of you are thinking… “how’s Jude Law as Dumbledore?!” “Does Jude live up to Dumbledore?!” You’re in luck! He was a wonderful, youthful, spry Dumbledore! Anyone who’s seen Closer or The Talented Mr. Ripley knows Jude’s range is endless. He’s stoic, knowledgeable, and witty. But he’s in the movie… maybe ten minutes most? We get a glimpse at young Dumbledore when he tells Newt “you must fight Grindelwald,” and POOF! He’s gone almost instantly after. So, yes, what you saw in the trailer is most of what you get. But I did enjoy his character, and his lack of involvement makes sense for the payoff. The connection between him and Grindelwald was clearly a relationship, but they danced around actually saying Dumbledore was gay.

Grindelwald? Same problem. Excellent talent from Depp, but not used enough.  Instead, there's heavy focus on Leta Lestrange. I love Zoe Kravitz and ya’ll KNOW I wanna see her on screen (my heart’s beating out of my chest right now), but… I’ll say it again: GET ME BACK TO DUMBLEDORE, GRINDELWALD, NEWT, AND CREDENCE.

What went wrong? 

It brings me to the bad of the movie… pacing and writing. First and foremost I’d like to say not all Harry Potter movies are hit the nail on the head with pacing. But this installment is a prime example of being all over the fuckin’ place. We were bouncing from scene to scene like a locomotive, which wasn’t an enormous issue, but blended with the writing issues, it was unpleasant. They spend too much precious movie minutes on scurrying around, subplots, and character cameos. 

It's called the CRIMES OF GRINDELWALD and Grindelwald might have 10 or 15 more minutes than Dumbledore. The guy is a bulldozer and practically unstoppable, why not give me more? And when he's in it, he's got a villainous vibe but he never communicates a wicked agenda... It's clear he's got a Nazi Germany philosophy, he doesn't necessarily say he wants to rid the world of muggles.

Potterheads will gripe at some of the continuity confusion and possible errors. I won’t spoil heavy because I really want you to see this one. But let’s just say some family trees get a little jumbled and confusing. This is always the curse of prequels, unfortunately. But all these mistakes are present for one thing—a giant payoff.

So I’m sure you’re wondering “Leo, how exactly do you feel about this one?” This movie is a buildup film. Gives me the same feeling I had with Deathly Hallows part one, LOTS of messing around to set you up for future films. Because of that, I’m regrettingly giving Fantastic Beast 3 G’s out of 5.

Will you see Fantastic Beasts? What’d you think of the first film? Where do you want the future of this franchise to go? Let us know down in the comments! 

 

 

FANTASTIC Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald is opening in theaters November 16th, and it’s supposed to be, well, Fantastic. I wish I could say that’s how I felt when the credits started rolling. Nope... not quite. Crimes of Grindelwald was a recipe for greatness, but some ingredients were missing.

Slight Spoilers ahead, you've been warned!  

Was Fantastic Beasts 'Fantastic?' 

First, I’ll start with the good. The acting was solid! I’m a HUGE fan of Eddie Redmayne’s Newt Scamanderhe just wants to follow his passion taming mythical creatures. We all understand working somewhere we don’t want to beit manifests into a fear of desk jobs for Newt. While I want more character development out of him, he’s still a loveable lead. I love Katherine Waterson’s Tinashe’s sharp, calculated, and ready to fight for the greater good! Ezra Miller’s Credence was a joy too. But Newt’s ragtag team of Jacob and Tina are slightly annoying. The movie spends a little too much time on their antics and it makes the film feel cluttered. They pull attention away from what’s important. Get me to Credence, Grindelwald, Dumbledore, and Newt.

The magic was a spectacle. Grindelwald’s blue fire was epic on the big screen, the monsters looked surreal and enchanting, and the other spells were actually brought to life. The Fantastic Beasts franchise stepped up the depiction of the spells big time. Little whisps and flicks actually come to life.

Okay okay… I know what most of you are thinking… “how’s Jude Law as Dumbledore?!” “Does Jude live up to Dumbledore?!” You’re in luck! He was a wonderful, youthful, spry Dumbledore! Anyone who’s seen Closer or The Talented Mr. Ripley knows Jude’s range is endless. He’s stoic, knowledgeable, and witty. But he’s in the movie… maybe ten minutes most? We get a glimpse at young Dumbledore when he tells Newt “you must fight Grindelwald,” and POOF! He’s gone almost instantly after. So, yes, what you saw in the trailer is most of what you get. But I did enjoy his character, and his lack of involvement makes sense for the payoff. The connection between him and Grindelwald was clearly a relationship, but they danced around actually saying Dumbledore was gay.

Grindelwald? Same problem. Excellent talent from Depp, but not used enough.  Instead, there's heavy focus on Leta Lestrange. I love Zoe Kravitz and ya’ll KNOW I wanna see her on screen (my heart’s beating out of my chest right now), but… I’ll say it again: GET ME BACK TO DUMBLEDORE, GRINDELWALD, NEWT, AND CREDENCE.

What went wrong? 

It brings me to the bad of the movie… pacing and writing. First and foremost I’d like to say not all Harry Potter movies are hit the nail on the head with pacing. But this installment is a prime example of being all over the fuckin’ place. We were bouncing from scene to scene like a locomotive, which wasn’t an enormous issue, but blended with the writing issues, it was unpleasant. They spend too much precious movie minutes on scurrying around, subplots, and character cameos. 

It's called the CRIMES OF GRINDELWALD and Grindelwald might have 10 or 15 more minutes than Dumbledore. The guy is a bulldozer and practically unstoppable, why not give me more? And when he's in it, he's got a villainous vibe but he never communicates a wicked agenda... It's clear he's got a Nazi Germany philosophy, he doesn't necessarily say he wants to rid the world of muggles.

Potterheads will gripe at some of the continuity confusion and possible errors. I won’t spoil heavy because I really want you to see this one. But let’s just say some family trees get a little jumbled and confusing. This is always the curse of prequels, unfortunately. But all these mistakes are present for one thing—a giant payoff.

So I’m sure you’re wondering “Leo, how exactly do you feel about this one?” This movie is a buildup film. Gives me the same feeling I had with Deathly Hallows part one, LOTS of messing around to set you up for future films. Because of that, I’m regrettingly giving Fantastic Beast 3 G’s out of 5.

Will you see Fantastic Beasts? What’d you think of the first film? Where do you want the future of this franchise to go? Let us know down in the comments! 

 

 

Leave a Reply

All blog comments are checked prior to publishing