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)

Another unimaginative film in which the duel between young Dumbledore and Grindelwald is in the cards, but it really is only in the cards - and it will probably take several more films before it actually happens. Rowling and a few others are unsuccessfully trying to fill sparse and artificially stretched story, based more or less only on the search for a wizard around Paris (surprisingly not Grindelwald), with sub-plots with the completely banal issues of a large number of characters, some of whom are presented just to be in the film, but they do not say or do anything significant at any point (and they probably won’t do anything meaningful until future sequels). In the background there seems to be the onset of an epic story arc about the fateful clash of the two greatest wizards of their time, but the film as such does not tell a great story and only rides on the fringe lukewarm romantic storylines of its heroes, Potter nostalgia and digital animals, which are only there for decoration. Visually, the film is beautiful and full of imaginative and fun-filled suggestions, which make it just an amusement park of colorful attractions and unfulfilled promises. (14/11/2018)

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)

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)

The sequel to Fantastic Beasts is quite a stylish film. It looks very nice, and all those pre-war aesthetics and costumes spiced up with witch elements are pleasing to the eyes. But the drama is a bit lazy, Mlok and the animals don't play a major role, Grindelwald appears for only a few minutes... Somehow, it failed to add life to these refined images. (11/08/2022)