Unpopular opinion: “The Crimes of Grindelwald” was better than “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.” Now, before I get thrown to the wolves, let me explain myself.
I really did enjoy the first movie in the “Fantastic Beasts” franchise, but it seemed bogged down by exposition. We were forced to learn about all of the characters, their personalities and their problems, which I understand is necessary, but it was a lot to absorb in two hours.
The first film also felt like it was leading up to something bigger and nothing really happened until the end when albino Johnny Depp walks into the tunnel. It was clear that no one was going to be able to destroy Credence’s “obscurus.” So, I knew that we would see him again in the second movie, which is honestly where all the action was. The first movie was just the tip of the iceberg and I couldn’t wait for the plot to really begin.
In “The Crimes of Grindelwald,” we are immediately thrown into what seems like the main conflict for the next eight or however many movies (we all know that they are going to try and drag this out as long as the Harry Potter franchise). Unsurprisingly, the main villain is Grindelwald, played by Johnny Depp, whose goal is to raise an army of pure-blood wizards in order to rule over all non-magical creatures aka Muggles/No Majs.
Grindelwald escapes from prison while enroute to a new holding cell in America. He seemed fine where he was so I’m not sure why they thought moving him was a good idea, but what do I know? Anyway, we once again follow Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) as he somehow destroys yet another city in an attempt to get to Ezra Miller’s character, Credence Barebone (the Obscurial), before Grindelwald.
Let me make this clear: I really like Eddie Redmayne as an actor. I think he’s great. However, the way he plays Newt could not annoy me more. I don’t know what it is but it really pisses me off. I think it might be in the way he speaks or his facial expressions or the fact that his head is down constantly and won’t look anyone in the eye. Nevermind, that’s exactly what it is.
I have heard really mixed reviews from friends who have seen this movie, which I am now starting to understand considering the large connections to Harry Potter. From the introduction of Dumbledore played by Jude Law (amazing), Leta LeStrange (relative of Bellatrix) played by Zoe Kravitz (also amazing), and learning about the origin story of Nagini (Voldemort’s snake), this was a Harry Potter fan’s dream.
So, basically it was made for me. I really, really like the Harry Potter series. I read all the books in fifth grade and have had several birthday parties at showings of the movies. This is probably why I liked the movie so much because I got really excited whenever there was a connection made back to the Harry Potter franchise. What can I say, it was the series of my childhood.
But regardless of the Harry Potter references, I just overall enjoyed this movie more. Nevermind the fact that Newt’s brother is a raging [expletive], I became more attached to the characters in this movie than the last. I also appreciated that Queenie (Alison Sudol) got her own storyline because she was one of my favorites from the last movie. And who can forget Jacob Kowalski (Dan Folger), aka the best character in the entire series? Don’t fight me on this because you’ll lose.
Ultimately, in conjunction with my love of Harry Potter, I also really like action movies, so I think one of the reasons I liked “The Crimes of Grindelwald” more is because it contained the action I felt was lacking in “Fantastic Beasts.” I felt like the characters were more likeable, the content was more interesting and the suspense felt more tangible.
I would recommend this movie to everyone, but people who are Harry Potter fans might enjoy it more since I do feel as thought this movie is geared towards that demographic. Despite that, I thought it was quite a good movie. I rest my case.
Rating: 7.5/10