What an astonishing trip to J.K. Rowling’s world! I don’t quite get how people are saying that this one is kinda pale in comparison to the first one, but either I’m terribly mistaken and don’t remember well the first one, or… opinions are opinions, right?
Do you think it makes sense to have Fantastic Beasts in the title? I mean the first one was “FANTASTIC BEASTS, and where to find them”, and this one is “fantastic beasts, THE CRIMES OF GRINDELWALD”. See what I mean? Does it really need the fantastic beasts part, despite being a core theme of the movies? I’ll let you think about that.
Crimes of Grindelwald comes some months after “Fantastic Beasts, and where to find them” ended. Newt sees himself stuck in New York due to the chaos of the previous events while Grindelwald plans his escape and his own ascension, to rule and lead the wizard world against the muggles.
After Grindelwald’s escape, Albus Dumbledore seeks Newt Scamander to put a stop to the infamous sorcerer, while Newt still deals with a misunderstanding with Tina and the recent, controversial romance between his muggle friend Jacob and Queenie, as he still operates his own version of a Zoologic park within a magical briefcase.
I don’t know what’s all the fuss about Crimes of Grindelwald… what’s the problem with the people ranting, speaking of the sequel curse, that the movie in the middle of a trilogy is doomed to be inferior to its counterparts… To me, that’s all bullshit. Period.
The story flows at coherent pace, in a time not so far away from the ending of the previous movie. There aren’t that much character plot threads, as I was led to believe in a diagonal reading at another blog. If I didn’t find anything confusing storywise, then why would anyone feel differently? I’m your average Joe here. This isn’t Inception or Sucker Punch, which from the list of movies that messed up with my mind, are top 2.
We have the Fantastic Beasts part and we have the developtment of the plot threads, like the rise of Grindelwald’s faction, what motives other wizards to join him, the freaking cause for such a revolution, the reason as to why Credence is so important, besides being an obscurus, and some other stuff that I won’t describe for word count purposes.
Then of course we also become aware of what Grindelwald’s idea is and how he plans to overcome the current wizard system so that he can then enslave the muggles to do the wizards’ bidding, thus stopping a very important event in Mankind’s history.
The thing is, Grindelwald doesn’t seem to be that much of a wizard himself, since, you know, he is trying to use or recruit Credence for a reason. But, he’s more of a leader than anyone present in the movie, and as he reveals the reason for the war against the muggles, he plays his cards just right to captivate a high number of followers to join his cause, while playing the Aurors, and the institution they represent, like fools. Of course he is indeed, perhaps a mix between Lawful and Neutral Evil, without much remorse of his dark actions.
There aren’t many scenes where you go like “awwww” what a beautiful place. Or at least, it did not happen to me. The spells and the beasts used are definitely worth to watch, while the Beastiary is expanded in this sequel of Fantastic Beasts where we learn a little bit more about other fantastic and magical creatures.
I believe I’ve already mentioned this, if it was written or not, I don’t quite remember. Do you remember how they taught spells in Hogwarts? Hermione says, its Levi-o-sa not Levio-o-saa. You had to speak the spell’s name correctly and move your wand accordingly for a spell to take effect. Now you just cast invisible, powerful barriers with a snap of your fingers, summon a sentient blue fire that protects and attacks at the same time without much effort… And Avada Kedavra is used so easily without being mentioned… To me, this is a negative aspect of the movie which lessens the immersion of it as a whole.
Here’s an interesting fail of the production that I did not catch while watching the movie. Professor Minerva McGonagall was said to be born much later to the events displayed in the movie, 1935 if I remember correctly, while the movie happens through 1927, which means that in no way she should be alive, much less a professor in Hogwarts. Her scene was funny though!
There’s no reason at all for the, “the first movie was better” opinion, but then again I don’t quite follow the masses in this aspect. Crimes of Grindelwald is a fantastic and superior piece while compared to its predessecor and I enjoyed every moment of it. Definitely worth to watch, with a more pleasing story than the last where we finally get to know the antagonist’s reason for what he fights for, thus setting the events in motion for the climax of the trilogy. Did I sound that enthusiastic about Grindelwald? Just a misunderstanding from your part, dear reader.