#Uh;;; there was;;; that one comic that had Snake; the host. Who I believe was a paint tube?

[mymoonjin1]

My thoughts on Crimes of Grindelwald

I know there are loads of comments on this already but I too need to rant for a while. I’ll try to finish this off with some constructive criticism, though. (I’d like to add that it’s perfectly fine if you did enjoy this film, this is just MY opinion.)

I don’t even know where to start. Listen, I am a huge Harry Potter fan, always have been, even considering a tattoo. And I actually really liked the first Fantastic Beasts movie. It had its flaws, but overall it was a good story. But most importantly: the movie can stand on itself. It has its own plot. Newt arrives in New York and accidentally lets loose a few magical creatures. The goal: finding the creatures whilst figuring out who is causing the muggle attacks. Simple, fun. They mention Hogwarts and Dumbledore, stuff we’re familiar with, but not overly so. It’s done cleverly. Now. Cut to Crimes of Grindelwald. Oh, boy. From uncomfortable close-ups to just plain weird editing this film is a goddam mess, not to mention the nonsensical storylines. No matter how effing cute nifflers are. Let’s break it into themes. 

Grindelwald

The movie ended and I still had no idea what Grindelwald’s crimes were. He “escapes” (He had already switched places with Abernathy, so why was that whole scene even there? A dark, evil wizard like him surely would just call Abernathy's sacrifice necessary for the cause or whatever), his French sidekick kills a family in order to keep their house and then he gives a speech. That’s it. What were his crimes?! He’s already a “notorious" dark wizard, what has he done besides spreading the word? Also, what is his actual ideology here? I’m sorry but that speech was a bit lame and again, confusing. Is he opposed to World War II or is he gonna take advantage of it? Kill all muggles or only those responsible for the war? But most importantly, we see Grindelwald for like ten minutes during the whole movie, why is his name even on the freaking title? I liked when he held his wand like he was directing an orchestra whilst killing everyone with the blue fire. That’s pretty much it.  Also, I’m not getting into Johnny Depp’s controversy cause that’s a whole other issue, but I think it reflected on his performance, like he was being too cautious, or something, at least that was my perception. I mean, whatever the circumstances, you’re already playing the role, then play the goddam role. 

Queenie

*Sigh* I honestly do not understand how they managed to turn a sweet and caring character into this whiny and annoying person, doing things so out of character. The love potion crap. Are you freaking kidding me?! Why was this necessary? Never mind about Jacob’s consent when I can just roofie him, kidnap him and force him to marry me! I’m the victim here, I just want to marry the one I love! Just… whyyyy? Also, she’s a freaking mind reader. How could a mind reader get brainwashed into joining a dark wizard? Because he preaches... free love? Ummm, does he?! Also, why did she freak out on the street? It was never mentioned before that her mind could get overwhelmed in crowds. It would make sense, but it was so out of nowhere it came out weird, and that scene just takes too damn long. Then the movie forgets about her for like twenty minutes to suddenly show her at the French witch’s house, like sure, I’ll go for a cup of tea with a total stranger, why not? Ugh. 

Dumbledore 

Ok, I actually liked Jude Law’s performance. The issue is that he, just like Grindelwald, is barely in the movie. We already knew that their relationship wasn’t going to be explored in this film, but it was still disappointing. We only got a “we were closer than brothers” and some hand-holding seen through the Mirror of Erised, WHICH APPARENTLY CAN NOW SHOW MEMORIES TOO, BUT OKAY. And please explain to me how is a blood pact different from an Unbreakable Vow? I get the aesthetic but surely an Unbreakable Vow is more convenient since it can’t be undone. Dumbledore suggested at the end of the movie that he might be able to destroy the blood pact. Wouldn’t have Grindelwald made sure to not leave anything to chance? Also, when did they make this blood pact, before the duel that killed Ariana? Why were they able to duel then? It can’t have been after, they wouldn’t have been exactly on speaking terms after that. That blood pact storyline took away the complexity of Dumbledore’s motives about not wanting to go after Grindelwald. Why wasn’t it enough that he once loved him and couldn’t bear to confront him after all that happened between them? That was a perfectly good explanation. This whole thing completely downplayed their relationship, like “yeah, now I just need to figure out how to destroy this necklace and I’ll be free to duel and possibly kill him, yay!” *Sighs*

Leta and Yusuf

What was the real purpose for these characters? We were lead to believe that the Lestrange family history was going to have this awesome revelation/plot twist and it ended up going nowhere. Also, the (insufferably long) scene where they finally explain the whole thing was so overcomplicated and confusing AF. For some reason, Leta’s dad (a rapist) sent her and her half-brother to the US, but since the baby wouldn’t shut up Leta switched him with another baby who happened to look exactly like him, and that baby was Creedence. Uh…okay? But then Leta returned to the UK and studied at Hogwarts? Sooo was that meant to be only a cool summer abroad? And how did she know about her half-brother Yusuf? How did they meet? Who made that freaking prophecy? Yusuf made that unbreakable vow with… whom, exactly? Himself? Arrgggg. Yusuf seemed to be an important character, I mean he locks Tina and Newt in a dungeon (they escape immediately but ok), but no. He spends almost the entirety of the movie unconscious only to appear conveniently at the cemetery to reveal he’s Leta’s half-brother. Just. Why ANY OF IT if later on we’d find out Creedence isn't even a Lestrange? GOD. 

So, back to Leta. She switched the babies (in the Titanic?) and also befriended Newt at Hogwarts. What was her relevance in the present? Why wasn’t the whole "ending up marrying his brother" explained? That’s a flashback that would’ve been useful, unlike the other ones. It could’ve added so much more to the relationship between the three of them, specially Theseus and Newt. But it was never mentioned. Also, why was she hated by everyone at school? Were all the Lestrange hated or was it only her? And THEN, FFS what was she even trying to attempt when she approached Grindelwald? Was she like tempted into joining him but regretted her decision last minute and tried to kill him instead? WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT ALL ABOUT? I liked the part when she said “I love you” and you’re not quite sure if she meant Newt or his brother. That was interesting. Would’ve been even more interesting had it been developed properly. But the rest of it? What a mess.

Newt, Tina, and Jacob

I actually adore Newt as a character. He’s a refreshing male lead who’s unapologetically himself throughout the story. I read a Vox article that called him amazingly neurodivergent, and in an interview, Redmayne also said he thought of him as having Asperger's. What an extraordinary thing to see in a male lead in a multimillion-dollar franchise! He’s awesome and doesn’t need to change the way he is in order to be cool. And yet in this film, he’s sooo relegated. He could’ve done SO much more, instead, he’s just lost in the sea of subplots with no real purpose. As for Tina, she has absolutely no character development whatsoever and Jacob is just there for comic relief. Also, how did he get his memories back? I’m sorry, but “the potion only took away the bad memories” is lazy writing. They are great characters but did absolutely nothing in this movie. Totally underappreciated. 

Nagini and Creedence

I don’t get why they made such a fuss over this since she has like THREE lines in the entire movie?! Seriously, why was she even there? She brought absolutely NOTHING to the plot. She just stands there next to Creedence when she could’ve been a super badass character. I’m not getting into the whole controversy, but I mean, if it was already happening, she should’ve at least had a kickass introduction. A backstory. ANYTHING. Why is a woman turning into a snake a circus attraction when anyone in this universe can become an animagus with enough practice? She was sooo mistreated here as a character. I get that there’s gonna be three more movies but COME ON, you can’t just make a huge ass preamble to another film without ANY sort of character development. It needs to have a plot of its own too. Like each of the Harry Potter books/movies. GEEZ. Now, Creedence. How did he survive? We saw a little remnant of the obscurus at the end of the first film, but hey, a little more context would’ve been nice. I thought the host and the obscurus were different things. Care to explain?! Also, how did he end up in Europe working at a magic circus? That circus thing could’ve been a very interesting plot but it goes nowhere. Again. And then... the ending. I hope the theory going around that it’s actually Ariana’s obscurus that somehow got attached to him and not actually him that’s a Dumbledore (and that’s what the phoenix was attracted to) is real because otherwise IT DOESN’T MAKE ANY SENSE. Kendra Dumbledore died in 1899. Crimes takes place in 1927. That’s 28 years. I HIGHLY doubt Creedence is 28. Why would he still be living at an orphanage at 28 then? Or did Dumbledore’s dad knock someone up in Azkaban? Just. So. Many. Plot. Holes.

Nonsensical stuff

-The lady guarding Leta’s chamber. What. The. Fork?! She lets them through even though she clearly knew Tina wasn’t Leta, and only after they’re already inside she unleashes those weird cat things with Leta being there, the actual owner of the chamber who clearly doesn’t have a problem with the “intruders”. Just… WHY? 

-Jacob being able to go through the statue. Ummmm?! 

-McGonagall. SHE WAS BORN IN 1935! WHAT?!

-Also, I get the whole 1920’s vibe and I mean no disrespect towards Colleen Atwood, because the costumes are actually gorgeous, but like… no robes? NONE? You can’t tell muggles and wizards apart. That was a key aspect of Harry Potter, at least with the older generations, so you’d think in the 1920’s they’d be even more traditional with their wizard clothing. I mean, Lupin wore both suits AND robes. Just saying. 

-Out of hundreds of people at the cemetery, the niffler somehow knew precisely what item to steal and from whom. Ok???? 

-Nicholas Flamel. What was the point of him? All he did was talk with a random woman through a book and then conveniently appear at the end to tell everyone what to do to control the fire. I mean, cool, but care to elaborate?

-And that blue fire eagle thing. It’s a very, very long sequence that could have been way quicker. It was time wasted on CGI, time they could’ve spent more wisely elsewhere. 

-Another thing that has been rubbing me the wrong way is the mention of Creedence’s nanny being half-elf. I know it’s probably stupid for me to be weird about it but listen. This is a universe with house elves and goblins, and that’s totally fine, I like the part they play in the story. But then we also have Professor Flitwick, who’s never mentioned to be either of those things; he’s just little. That’s it. And he’s a total badass. So why did the nanny had to be half-elf? I remember an interview with Peter Dinklage in which he said he didn’t like playing roles that cast little people as magical beings, which is why he loved Tyrion in Game of Thrones. Then why couldn’t the nanny just be a regular witch? Why half-elf? How did that come about? Think about it: a human witch/wizard… with a house elf? Which are, essentially… slaves?! I don’t even want to know. And I’m probably overthinking it, but seriously. It wasn’t a necessary detail to mention. 

The Fanservice 

Ok, I get that they’d include certain Potter related stuff. Nostalgia is fun, right? AS LONG AS IT MAKES SENSE. McGonagall being there makes no sense. RESPECT. CANON. PLEASE. I get retconning stuff like classes taking place on different floors at Hogwarts but dude. This was kind of an important detail. The Philosopher’s Stone casually being shown at Flamel’s house. I mean, fine. But we get it, we know who he is, it’s not like we are idiots who need reminding of this. Also, the music. I adore Hedwig’s Theme, but this is a different story. I get like a few notes here and there, but the WHOLE damn theme during that Hogwarts shot? It actually kind of threw me off a little. I couldn’t pay attention to what was actually happening. 

Conclusion 

Ok. I honestly don’t understand what went wrong. I don’t know if Rowling should just stick to writing novels or if it was the editing, the directing or-or… I just can’t even. JK Rowling is amazing at writing mystery. In all of the Harry Potter books, there were mysteries to be solved: who’s after the Philosopher’s Stone? Who opened the Chamber of Secrets? Why is Sirius Black after Harry? Who put his name in the Goblet of Fire? And so on. And in the first FB movie, the mystery was who was responsible for the attacks, and it made you believe it was Creedence’s little sister. That was still a good plot twist. Please, do tell, what was solved in Crimes? What did they actually accomplish? They spent the whole movie going in circles. Like I said, you can’t just have a huge ass preamble to a different movie. It needs to stand on its own, have its own arc. Otherwise, what’s the point? I genuinely wanted to like this film, but its narrativity makes it impossible to enjoy the actual plot, even with likable characters and appealing visuals.

Listen, I will forever be grateful to JK Rowling for the impact Harry Potter has had in my life. They are to this day my favorite books. I loved the original book for Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, as well as Quidditch Through the Ages and Tales of Beedle the Bard. They added fun details to the main story, a little peek into the Wizarding World. But then the whole expansion happened. And I used to get mildly excited whenever a new story was published on Pottermore. But eventually, I lost interest. And whenever someone said “I wish there was another book” I immediately cringed at the thought. Why ruin something that had ended in such a perfect way? The Harry Potter world ended with the seventh book. And that was ok. You need to let things go. That’s life. But then for money some reason, Cursed Child (aka That Which Must Not Be Named) was allowed to happen. And then, Fantastic Beasts happened, but it was a whole different story with brand new characters within the same universe, actually written by JK Rowling. Well, that actually sounded promising. Because it was a separate thing. A few references here and there. What could go wrong? Right. 

There are millions of reasons why the expansion hasn’t been working, but I think part of the problem came from social media. When we were kids we’d send letters to our favorite authors, but now they are just a tweet away. Which can obviously be wonderful. But you have to know where to stop. And I don’t think JK understands that. And I don’t mean it like she’s not allowed to have her own opinions and versions of certain things that didn’t come up in the books; she created the universe. But altering canon isn’t right. Forcing narratives that don’t make sense with what’s already established is weird. That’s why it’s important to leave things to the imagination/each reader’s interpretation. You want to write a different story within the same universe, that’s amazing, go ahead! As long as it’s properly developed and has its own merits. I genuinely want to like FB. And I did. But I don’t know what went wrong with this one. You’re capable of SO much more, Jo, I know you are. Sorry if I’m being too harsh. 

#fantastic beasts #crimes of grindelwald #crimes of grindelwald spoilers #rant #opinion #fantastic beasts movie #fantastic beasts and where to find them #jk rowling #twoheartedslytherinwrites