Fantastic Beasts : The Crimes of Grindelwald Review

If you have read my blog post on my childhood books, you would know that Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secret was the first proper book I ever bought. You wouldn't be remiss in thinking that I'm a Harry Potter (and by extension, of J.K. Rowling's work) fan.
When the first film of the Fantastic Beasts series came out, I was excited to be able to immerse myself once again in the magical world Rowling had created, and I instantly fell in love. That's why I was willing to spend the whopping €15,4 (including the 10% pre-sale cost) it costs to see the series' second installment, The Crimes of Grindelwald.

I made the mistake of reading the (non-spoiler) critics' review of the movie a week before I saw it myself, as they were not at all positive. Most mentioned the overwhelming amount of subplots, J.K. Rowling's confusing motives to ruin and mess up the original Harry Potter series, and Johnny Depp's marital scandal and subsequent domestic violence accusation. The only positives was the technical aspects of the movie; the special effects, and sets.

In my opinion, some of the critics docked a lot of points for Depp's role in the movie, and in some cases, their bias were evident in their reviews. I myself failed to see how Depp's scandal was still relevant; the filling was withdrawn; Rowling, the Warner Bros, and David Yates had all stated their support for him, in writing as well as allowing him to keep in role. Was The Crimes of Grindelwald Depp's best acting to date that will earn him an Oscar? Most likely not, and I don't think that was the goal either.

After watching the movie myself, I was able to gain some perspective on the critics' review. I see their point and reasoning, but at the end of the day, I don't agree with most of them. The critics mentioned that fans will still enjoy the movie, and that's true, but why must that be a bad thing? While not every movie would have a dedicated built-in fan base like Fantastic Beasts, I personally would think that the first goal of the filmmakers would be to satisfy and appease the fans; their duties should be to the fans, not the critics. Otherwise, we would have another Cursed Child and its completely non-sensical plot on our hands (although in play it might be marvelous and award-winning, in plain writing it is simply awful).

I think you would need to be a fan of the Harry Potter universe to understand the movie in its motives and nuances. You would have to know your way back and forth on the Harry Potter books to fully appreciate the implications and twists of the story, especially when it comes to Dumbledore.

There were a lot of subplots on The Crimes of Grindelwald, each exploring the new character's - and to some extent the old's - backstory, but this, I think were there for a reason. There will be five movies in the whole series, and this was only the second one. There is still a lot of background to be explained and filled, so that when the conflicts finally arose, the viewers can understand why it was happening.

This was pointed out as a flaw; a lack of focus on Rowling's part as she wrote the screenplay, and its difference to the Harry Potter series. But what most seem to forget is that Fantastic Beasts is different to Harry Potter. Harry Potter was written as a book, that were later adapted to the big screen. Fantastic Beasts were written for the cinema, with no one knowing what would happen next except for Rowling. The difference between Rowling's styles of writing were already evident on the first movie; her lack of conclusion and the decision to keep the ending vague and with a surprising twist of Grindelwald's identity is something that would never have occured in a Harry Potter book.

**SPOILERS BEGINS**

My bigger issue has more to do with the twists themselves, but not necessarily in a bad way. Credence's indentity twist was unexpected, and I'm still unconvinced that Grindelwad is telling the truth. I do rather resent that a big part of the movie was about the Lestranges, and then Leta is now almost certainly dead. Why bring her on just to kill her? Many people seem to have a problem with Queenie's decision to join Grindelwald, but I can somewhat understand her motivations; she felt that she has no one to support her wish to be with Jacob, and she wished that the world is different. Grindelwald's vision appeals to her because it's different to her reality, even if it's not necessarily better.

I must say, however, that sitting in a room full of Germans and watching the "future" as told by Grindelwald of the World War II was a bit discomforting. One, because it'll happen anyway, and two, because everybody seemed to cringe and felt uncomfortable too. Speaking of, since when did Grindelwald has the Sight and is able to predict the future?

**SPOILERS ENDS**

As is with most artistic entertainment, The Crimes of Grindelwald is open to interpretation and is a matter of taste. Some will vehemently hate it, but some will love it anyway. I, for one, can't wait for the next installment to come out, even if it's only to see Jude Law's Albus Dumbledore again.


xo,
Maria