Movie Review: Fantastic Beasts The Crimes of Grindelwald · 10:36pm Jan 3rd, 2019
First movie review of the new year, here we go!
Okay, I would have actually liked to write this up a while ago, but unfortunately an unpleasant experience with a total asshole about that movie soured me on writing up a review of it for most of the winter holiday. But now that it's a new year and I've had the benefit of distance and hindsight, I can fully go into my thoughts on the sequel to 2016's Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.
Now, I'm gonna come out and say it right out the gate: I don't get the hatred that this movie gets.
Seriously!
I had a ball with this movie, and I say that as someone who wasn't too shot with the previous Fantastic Beasts movie. I thought that the 2016 film was simply decent, with some cool designs but an uncharismatic lead in Newt Scamander, and some trouble with bringing the plot threads together. Grindelwald though, I loved almost from the start. I found it a vast improvement on its precursor in almost every way.
(In all honesty, part of me thinks that this backlash/hate-fest over the movie is just people looking for any excuse to go after J.K. Rowling, Johnny Depp, whoever else... but that's a topic for a whole other thread.)
Anyway, with that out of the way, NOW let's get into The Crimes of Grindelwald:
Our story opens with the escape of infamous dark wizard Gellert Grindelwald (played by Johnny Depp in a positively masterful performance) during transfer from the United States to the Ministry of Magic in Great Britain, in a powerful and pulse-pounding sequence as Grindelwald near-effortlessly dispatches his captors and pursuers with brilliant (and terrifying) magic during a booming thunderstorm. I was on the edge of my seat constantly through this sequence, watching the Ministry wizards freaking out and trying to fight back, all to no avail. To me, this opening established Grindelwald as a dark wizard par excellence, far more engaging than Voldemort EVER was in the Harry Potter series.
Three months after Grindelwald's escape, we see Newt Scamander (played by Eddie Redmayne) appealing to the Ministry of Magic to have his travel license restored. While there he runs into old Hogwarts friend Leta Lestrange (Zoe Kravitz); Leta is engaged to Newt's brother Theseus (an Auror and Ministry official himself), and there is a strained relationship between the two brothers. Newt is offered by the Ministry to have his travel license restored, if he takes a deal from them to assist Theseus in tracking down Credence Barebone, who has resurfaced in France.
Newt refuses the offer, but later, after being approached by a younger Albus Dumbledore (played by Jude Law), he is persuaded to search for Credence. Additionally, Newt briefly reunites with his American friends Queenie Goldstein (Allison Sudol) and Muggle/no-maj Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler) - Queenie is searching for her sister Tina (Katherine Waterston), who is also after Credence; and while Queenie soon splits to look for Tina on her own, Newt ends up bringing Jacob with him in his own search for Credence.
While all of this is going on, Grindelwald and his followers establish a new safehouse in France... where, in one of the movie's most unsettling moments, they kill the Muggle inhabitants of the home, even a little boy. This was a moment that I absolutely did NOT expect to ever see, and really clued me in to the fact that this story of the Harry Potter world was NOT going to play softball with the dark use of magic. 
Credence Barebone (Ezra Miller) is found working as an assistant in a wizarding freak show in Paris. Specifically, he has made a friend in one of the "exhibits": a witch named Nagini (Claudia Kim), who is under a curse that causes her to turn into a snake and will someday leave her trapped in that form. (While this revelation about Nagini has enraged some - okay, a lot of people, I was kind of interested by the idea, and hey, it makes Nagini more of a character than just a big nasty monster that Voldemort made... *shrugs*)
This freakshow sequence, as part of a display of what is essentially a French version of Diagon Alley, is a visual spectacle to behold. It's a veritable triumph of distinctive visual effects work, while also displaying something that I felt was sorely lacking in the previous movie: namely, the uglier side of wizarding life, in the form of prejudices towards creatures or beings deemed "lesser". (In regard to the previous film, it still rankles me that the President of the US Ministry of Magic is a woman of color... in 1920s America? Really?)
After escaping from the freak show, Credence and Nagini set out on their own, as Credence is in France to chase down leads about his parentage... leads that would connect him to the Lestrange family...
I won't mince words, this movie has a LOT of plot threads going on. Newt and Jacob, Tina and Goldie, Credence, Leta, Grindelwald, AND Dumbledore too... all of them have scenes that tie together or affect the greater plot of the movie. Some say that the movie is overstuffed or overcomplicated, and I could see that, but frankly, I had no trouble following the plot threads of this movie, and felt that they did a good job tying everything together for the climax, and setting up the next installment. (And to those who say that they left too much open... this IS the second movie of the series, there is gonna be more coming! Can't people settle down and accept that not everything in the story is always going to be explained or brought to a conclusion?)
Thought speaking of that climax...
I was in awe of it. 
Set in the Pere Lachaise cemetery, it concerns a rally led by Grindelwald, as he speaks to his gathered followers (plus Newt and others who have been led to this place). And let me say, that I feel that Johnny Depp knocks it out of the damn park with Grindelwald's speech here: he plays his audience perfectly, evoking a number of fears and spinning a familiar narrative that many real-life dictators, cult leaders and such have used: stating, in eloquent and reasonable-sounding rhetoric, that there is a great danger threatening all of them, and that they must trust him, and rise up against the non-magical world, to stop them for their own good... I was quite impressed with the brilliance of Grindelwald's speech and just how expertly he manipulated his audience. It's a scene that instantly elevated Grindelwald from "Voldemort's predecessor" to "greatest Potter-verse villain" in almost no time.
Because, to me, the strength of this movie is that it digs far more into the greyer, uglier side of the Wizarding World that we all know and love. There is a greater willingness to address the nastier applications of magic and of the secrecy of the wizard society (which, while present in the Harry Potter books and films, was still to a lesser level than in this movie to my opinion). In particular are the revelations concerning the Lestrange family, which genuinely shook me, while also feeling depressingly true to the real-life prejudices and abuses of the era's period. 
Grindelwald isn't the cartoonishly-evil bad guy, capital-d Dark Wizard that Voldemort and his ilk was: he's a genuinely charismatic leader who raises truly compelling or intriguing arguments for his followers instead of just "power, mwahaha". You can understand WHY people would join this guy. His followers (one of which is a pretty unsettling, upsetting case, especially for fans of the character) are more than card-carrying assholes and psychopaths marching in the name of Dark Magic, there are people who think that Grindelwald's coming to power will legitimately make the world a better place.
There's a reason that "For the Greater Good" was carved over the gates of Nurmengard, after all.
All in all, I very much enjoyed The Crimes of Grindelwald. I thought it vastly improved on the previous movie in every way.
The effects are still gorgeous. From Grindelwald's escape at the start, to the French magical street fair, to the climactic sequence where Grindelwald unleashes magical blue fire (a sequence that honestly made me think of Fantasia's Night on Bald Mountain sequence in some moments!), there is a lot of magic to please the eyes in this movie.
In terms of performances, I felt that Eddie Redmayne has come a long way towards making Newt Scamander an interesting and likable character. As Dumbledore said, he doesn't seek power, and in his interactions with his various creatures (a particular delight is to see him and an assistant at work with his menagerie) there's some charming care and fun with Newt showing how much he cares for the beasts of the world.
Ezra Miller continues to deliver an engaging and very sympathetic performance as the desperate, lost young man Credence. A particular standout is when he and Nagini meet an elderly half-elf servant of the Lestranges... I felt so bad for poor Credence in this sequence, as it's clear that the poor boy is so desperate for somebody to love him, to have some kind of family or home, and he just keeps getting screwed over. (And in regard to the supposed final twist of his heritage? Yeah, take that with a grain of salt, people, considering it's Grindelwald saying that.)
I also very much enjoyed Zoe Kravitz as Leta Lestrange. Given the heavy, heavy associations that the name Lestrange has for HP fans, I felt that she delivered a very engaging, and ultimately very tragic, character, especially with the details of her backstory once they come to light. Just, damn... 
Jude Law, in the short amount of time he has, does a good job portraying Dumbledore, I thought. (Far better than Michael Gambon, whose portrayal I never really warmed to, not after *that* moment from the Goblet of Fire movie). Law's Dumbledore is a quiet and dignified presence: paternal with his students, wise of course as he often is... and also, very wistful too. I personally really enjoyed the scene where he visits the Mirror of Erised and looks into it, back at some important memories of himself and Grindelwald. (And look, while I'm sure it would have been great for fans who wanted confirmation of Dumbledore being gay to see proof of it in that moment, at the same time, the bit with the Mirror showing Albus and Gellert sharing blood magic is pretty goddamned explicit as metaphors go.)
As I've said before, I very much enjoyed this movie. Is it complicated? Yes. Is it dark? Hell yes.
Is it bad? I honestly don't think so, especially not to the degree that so many people seem to say that it is.
But that's just my own view on the subject. If you disagree with me (and can do so without being a snide asshole), then all the power to you.
Me, though, I am definitely now invested in this prequel story arc for the world of Harry Potter, and very much interested to see where it goes from here in the next movie.
People are never going to let go of "Did you put your name in the Goblet of Fire", are they?
4990777
No, they aren't. Because it was a pretty stupid moment to have the wise mentor figure grab Harry roughly, nearly slam him against the fucking wall, and yell it in his face.
Even if Gambon's performance improved more in the later movies (I especially enjoyed him in Half-Blood Prince with meeting Slughorn), that was a pretty bad moment. Part of why GoF is the worst Potter movie to me.
4990779
Really? I like every single movie from Harry Potter.
4990812
I liked some stuff in that movie, but I think the movie on the whole is pretty weak. I've only seen it once and never been tempted to go back again.
I like most of the Potter movies (I don't think any of them are truly bad!), but I think some are a lot better than others. And to me, GoF is the weakest of the bunch.
4990815
Well, that's a relief.
4990816
Yeah, don't worry, I don't hate any of the Potter movies.
4990818
