Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald

The production is so well tailored to patient Potter fans that it's killing me, as it doesn't stand a chance of being heartfelt for anyone else. It has everything, but most of it in such trace amounts that anyone who isn't satisfied by the fact that it's mostly just a glimpse at historical parallels and genealogical research will be disappointed. Once again, the most introverted action hero of all time takes us through the world of both magic and non-magic, but for those who haven't spent the past two years exploring diverse fan theories, the moments when new species of animals want to enchant us again in a hundred and one ways are not enough. The world of the audience has understandably begun to forget, and it will be even worse in two years' time. Although Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald lends tension and anticipation to the story wonderfully, this time it isn't the usual closed dramatic arc that we are accustomed to from the wizarding world. It is explicitly assumed that the viewer remembers even the more fleeting emotional moments from the first installment and the third installment again leaves a very precarious foundation for an open ending, a narrative betrayal unknown to the Hogwarts saga. I understand the audience's confusion: it is not possible to turn to the books for hints and answers, which many of them still consider a betrayal by J.K. Rowling. I don't, because I am extremely grateful that this world can open up to us again and again, and I barely breathed during the touching nostalgia of the outlines of that most beautiful castle. The change of scenery is finally complete, the deceit is over. (03/12/2018)

I'm very satisfied, unless you count the fact that I went to the cinema three times, as I didn't get to see the film because tickets were sold out. I liked the world of Harry Potter because great wizard fantasy is scarce, so when it was discontinued I had no choice but to hope something similar would come along, and Fantastic Beasts is a great substitute (like The Hobbit for Lord of the Rings). Compared to Harry the casting is much better. Johnny Depp as the bad guy is excellent and finally appears in a film that won't flop financially, Jude Law as the young Dumbledore is great, and though I don’t Eddie Redmayne’s weird expression, he is a young undoubtedly talented Oscar winning actor, so it's worth a try. The production design is great and the return to the familiar world is pleasantly nostalgic, the numerous Easter Eggs are a delight, the action is decently handled, although there isn't much of it, and the finale with the blue fire dragon is spectacular. I can strongly feel that the cards are still being dealt and something big is being promised, but I don't mind it at all, because the first two episodes of Harry Potter were similar and since Azkaban it's was a ride. I'm looking forward to the pentalogy. 75%. (29/11/2018)

Every sequel between the first and potentially last installment of Fantastic Beasts (not only) has the unfortunate function of being a connector between the adventures – something that must be taken into account when watching the film. After two years, we return to a magical world that is slowly beginning to split into two camps, which includes close friends. The film sees the return of many old familiar characters and animals (Niffler is the Scrat of feature films) and the addition of others we've met many times in the Harry Potter saga (Dumbledore, Flamel, Nagini), so we come a little closer to the films we basically grew up on. Personally, I'd cut back on the relationship peripeties, they aren’t entirely necessary (Newt + Tina, Leta + Theseus, Queenie + Jacob) and add where it has more potential (Dumbledore + Grindelwald), which hopefully we'll see in future installments. I liked the unraveling of the story around Leta and Credence, though in the latter case it was a bit overdone by the end, but we'll be see how it develops further. It should be noted, however, that they have failed to significantly tap into the potential that this series abounds with, which in this case is a shame. In the end, this is a sequel that I had fun with in the cinema, and I was treated to some impressively shot scenes, but all the time I had in mind the fact that it could have been done in a different way than as a sequence of a few plot twists and new questions, which, although it set the stage for the next film, made the whole thing feel a bit sketchy – a thankless function of the middle films in a series, but one that can be avoided. P.S. I wonder how it is that IMDb lists McGonagall, who should be -8 years old at the time, among the characters? (15/11/2018)

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. (15/11/2018)

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. (14/11/2018)