I'm not a huge fan of "Fantastic Beasts”, I saw the movie, and I will not say that I do not like it very much. Rather, it has not become an important element of Potter's world for me. Especially that I admit - I was not surprised by its plot. Now, however, I must say that my assessment at the time was not severe. This change of opinion is due to the fact that I saw "The Crimes of Grindelwald" and I know that it could have been much worse. Spoilers are rather missing.
Before discussing the problem of the film, I must say that from my perspective, films about Harry Potter or the world of Harry Potter have a problem for years. This problem is called David Yates. He appeared as the director of Potter films at the fifth adaptation of the series, when the directors changes were abandoned. After several well-known directors (Columbus, Cuaron, Newell), it was decided to create an artist who did not have any important or groundbreaking work in his filmography. Looking at Yates filmography, it can be seen that although he had already good television productions, he did not have great film projects behind him. It is no coincidence that from the fifth part of Potter we did not get a really good movie from this world (it is not nice - almost disliked by all viewers - the first part of the seventh part - but that's my personal opinion). Yates turned out to be a perfectly safe director.
The problem is - not necessarily good. His films are actually all the same - very cut, uneven, with a tendency to scenes that do not combine seamlessly into a whole. The recipe for the film can be surprisingly similar - a long exposure, a few short action scenes and culmination. Of course, the level of the film is not only the result of the director's work. But you can not hide that the better the director, the easier it is to hide the hole in the storyline. Unfortunately - Yates does not have a style that covers these holes. I suspect that from the point of view of the company, he is an ideal director - loyal, committed and looking at his calendar - free until the fifth part of Fantastic Beasts. From the viewer's point of view - it's impossible not to ask yourself - is not this one of the biggest problems in the adaptations of Rowling books. In the end - they all still remember how the author's prose worked in the hands of Alfonso Cuaron - the director who definitely has his own style and something to say. Watching Yates films I am constantly wondering if the decision to allocate the entire franchise to one director was not very safe, and hence - did not have a negative impact on the entire film cycle.
This long admission is not accidental. I would like it to be clear - I have enormous problems with ”The Crimes of Grindelwald”, but in total - I lost my heart to adapt the prose or ideas of Rowling some time ago. And I'm not one of the people who think that Rowling is returning to her stories only for money (I give the authors the right to return to the world they created, they have the right to it - for pleasure, fame, money - they did it, not me decide what they have the right to do with their idea). Simply - where there are no movies there my heart beats less. And at Crimes of Grindelwald, I had to revive me a little. Well, but it is hardly surprising how a man falls asleep, the heart slows down. In the following review, I refrained from spoilers, although somebody who does not like to know anything could get hold of it. On the other hand, people who seen the movie can easily recognize which film threads are problematic in my opinion.
Summary of the story in the shortest, it would be problematic because the plot in the film is not enough. We meet the heroes a few months after the events of the first part. Each of them has gone a certain way, although the movie makes us think a little about what happened between them. It would be even interesting - if there was time for calm conversations between the heroes. Meanwhile - the excess of threads makes not only lack of time for longer dialogues, but also - there is not enough time for the characters involved in complicated intrigue to give a characteristic feature that would make us care about them. A perfect example is Leta Lestrange - the Newt’s beloved from childhood, who is engaged to his brother. Leta is a key figure for the whole story - it is largely about her that revolves around a lot of intrigue. The problem is that we do not have time to meet her. Zoe Kravitz changes dresses in almost every scene, but in total the heroine herself remains quite flat. Her dialogues are predictable and only in a small flashback we can see a glimpse of some more interesting character. The theoretically important figure is also Theseus Newt’s brother. His complicated relationships connect him with his brother. Well, again, the film for these relations does not have time. So we hear a lot about the fact that the brothers are different and they share a lot, but if you would exclude Theseus from the movie, the viewer would not even notice.
This, moreover, is a problem with the whole script - there are many characters in it that could not be peaceful. Nagini about which the Internet was arguing over the weeks, is probably only here, so that viewers who know well the books about Harry Potter felt that it is still the same story. But even she is less unnecessary than an ominous employee of the Ministry of Magic in a black hat. Seriously, this is a character who appears, gets two scenes and ... disappears. Similarly, at the beginning, we meet the Grindelwald’s helper who bears a huge price for his loyalty. Does he say anything? Do we find out something about him? Does it make any sense at all? Again - the answer is no. When you switch off the tv the question remains - why create an entire gallery of characters if you do not intend to equip them with any characteristic features. They are characters whose only function is to either move forward and disappear (which is a laziness on the part of the screenwriter) or play their role later - which means that now they stand aside and lack only the "exposure only" sign.
It would be even more bearable if the characters from the first part were going through some interesting transformation. But here, too, it can not be said that we have to deal with the development of the character. Newt remains himself what is just a nice aspect of the movie, because it's a well-written male figure. On the other hand, Newt performs well as counterpoint in comparison to others. Whenever it runs from point to point - it is not necessarily very interesting. In turn, Tina and Queenie who could theoretically undergo the biggest transformation, are mainly in this film. And it's not even the actresses fault - it's just a scenario that devotes a lot of time to bringing heroes from point A to point B, but does not necessarily give them any place to talk, present their reasons or show development. Which is quite annoying because we spend an hour and a half looking like heroes - without disturbing the status quo they are heading to one place. And then they get in a circle and explain the situation. And then they go to the next circle and there someone explains them again everything. And then the end of the movie.
Actually, the entire script of the film is based on a fairly simple procedure, discovering identity. I admit honestly - Rowling should give up this theme some time ago, but apparently she still recognizes that there is nothing more interesting than finding who he is. These types of plot almost always fail, because they build expectations that the final solution is usually unable to meet. Since the entire film promises us that the hero's identity will be shocking then it is very difficult to provide something that really will shock us. In addition - burial in the family tree too often resembles dramas straight from the soap opera, so that the viewer does not roll his eyes. In the case of Grindelwald's, the problem is that when finally the hero's identity is revealed, we feel cheated. Mainly because the author uses a banal, harmonious scheme that really is a native of a soap opera. Besides - it seems that Rowling has overestimated the desire of viewers to make the old cycle necessarily associated with the new one. Hence, viewers who hoped for new names and new characters may be a bit disappointed when it turns out that in the magical world there are three families on the cross and all on the same boat.
Interestingly, the title Grindelwald and his crimes are not at all the movie. All of them have somehow overlooked the crimes. When the Aurors go to meet the followers of Grindelwald, they remind each other that there is no prohibition on listening to the wizard so they can not be aggressive. As if in the previous part, we were not told that we are talking about someone who is wanted for an offense and crimes. Which in the same movie breaks free by attacking other wizards. As if you can listen to a criminal but you have to be reckoned that the police will arrest him and it will be after the case. But that's not even the point - Grindelwald is supposed to be a perfect manipulator and a follower of ideology that for everyone should smell bad. The problem is that the final speech of the evil wizard, which is supposed to be so repulsive ... in 1927 it would not necessarily be that. Of course, we can assume that no wizard has any idea what people of different origin wrote about in Muggle newspapers and books. But if they had any insight into society at the time, then Grindelwald's views would be neither new nor strange. This is a problem when you try to reject modern viewers, but you forget that the movie is played 90 years ago. I'm not saying that this is a big problem (this movie has a million other problems) but it shows that the certain strength of the metaphor used by Rowling in relation to the present day, weakens when we move the characters into the past.
Many viewers expected that because Rowling publicly stated that Dumbledore is homosexual, his appearance in the film will be confirmed canonically in the film version. For naive souls of fans. Of course, nothing will be said here directly, because the author is the author, but it is a high-budget American production intended for wide distribution. Hint is everything you can expect. Why? Because the studio company probably calculated that it would be better to suggest and not to face any protests, boycotts or the need to cut scenes when sending a film to more conservative countries. Do I like it? I find it idiotic when we have two antagonists who share a common romantic past, clearly standing in their way, which can not be said, because a mother in Texas will not let the child go to the cinema. Besides - it must be said that this would add at least some depth to the protagonists actions - which are all so terribly flat.
Exactly - a large group of heroes wandering around Paris to find their way to the cemetery. This film is more or less like watching lost tourists who went to the cemetery in the hope that someone would show them where the train station is and tell them what is going on. Personally, I prefer when the action goes rather smoothly and does not abide, for example, because it was decided to introduce the theme of the characters, which viewers should associate with Harry Potter but its presence in this film is not very much justified by anything more than the desire to blink to the viewer. Here, in turn, I have the impression that this is a bit the result of writing a screenplay like books. In the book, a multitude of characters, appearing even briefly, does not bother or even enrich the world of the novel. In the film, so many threads and characters usually make it difficult to conduct a coherent narrative. Perhaps it should be for us to learn from this that writers to the novel, scriptwriters for screenplays. Because Rowling writes the novels efficiently, but the scenarios try to write like novels and this is a huge problem. Anyway, notice that when you look at the next scenes you can almost reproduce the first sentences of the next chapters of the book.
Did I like something? Jude Law as Dumbledore turned out to be quite good and quite intriguing. It is a pity that he really appears somewhat in the third plan in the film. I liked Eddie Redmayne as Newt as always. Mainly because it is probably the only relatively consistently conducted and interesting character in these films. Besides where the fantastic Newt there are fantastic animals. And as always, they were nicely designed and sweet. And above all - the approach to them is the wisest message of the film. An animal is not a beast simply because you do not know how to reach it. I feel that this is the best in this cycle. Many people pay attention to beautiful special effects, but it must be said that from the visual side, it has long been the Potter films that work well. At the end I have to say that even Depp had some better moments - maybe for the first time in a long time he did not play here like Jack Sparrow. Although honestly, I have a problem with watching Depp, and I think that I would look at the film more comfortably if he was not in the cast. At the end, unfortunately, I have to say that Ezra Miller's enormous actor's potential has not been used too much, because - despite the key role, the actor has to hunch in the film above all. He hunches with dedication, and yet he could do a lot more.
Ultimately, the whole movie is simply boring. Truth be told, you need a certain talent from a movie where there are magical creatures, blood pacts, wizards, threats, prophecies, secrets and great forces arguing over the fate of the world, create a movie from which maybe a quarter of an hour is interesting. Perhaps you should do just that, shorten the movie to a quarter of an hour and put it in the beginning of the next part. Although there should be five of these films, maybe in the next one it will be only a quarter of an hour interested as well. And do you know what is the worst? I will spend another two hours to watch this quarter.
Ps. There are a few scenes in the trailer that did not make it to the movie. Maybe those were the scenes where anything interesting happened.