Crimes of Grindelwald: Guest Review 1

Kelly Loomis has been carrying the Crimes of Grindelwald ball for the HogwartsProfessor team in the run-up to the film’s release last week so that the rest of us could focus on Lethal White‘s artistry and meaning. It’s been a tough job because, every time Kelly put together a comprehensive post — see her Top Ten ‘Crimes of Grindelwald’ Plot Points Pulled from Trailers, Merchandise, and Fan Sites — Rowling and Warner Brothers would move the goal posts the same or next day with another Big Reveal. I asked Kelly, because of her greater knowledge of and investment in the Fantastic Beasts film franchise, to write our first review of the film. She obliged me with this offering — Enjoy!

I enjoyed Crimes of Grindelwald tremendously.  Going into it I was worried that I had been spoiled by too many trailers, photos and merchandising especially after seeing an interview with Ezra Miller before the first Fantastic Beasts movie which gave away the final Grindelwald-Graves twist.  And, arrogant as I was because of all the online reading and research I’d been doing, I thought I had it all figured out. Ha! Rowling strikes again. I have now seen the movie twice and have poured over the published screenplay. These are my first impressions:

The movie went really fast for me.  I thoroughly enjoyed it despite my high expectations and anticipation — and was shocked at the Leta reveal and the final scene Credence-Aurelius twist that few had foreseen.  I sat all the way through the credits trying to wrap my head around how this Dumbledore piece could have happened – trying to remember dates, ages, etc., etc. Then doubt crept in; knowing who was telling the tale, how could I be sure I had seen what I thought I saw?

I was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed characters that I was iffy about after the first film.  To me, I just wasn’t taken with them or had not bought into them yet. 

My excitement after seeing the first film was because I believed we were going to be getting more “Harry Potter” through the backstory of Grindelwald and Dumbledore.  I spent many hours pouring over content of the first film and even going to book stores to peruse the tie-in books looking for clues as to where this series was headed.  It was in the aftermath of the first film that I first happened upon HogwartsProfessor.com – not realizing I had actually been given and read John’s first book, How Harry Cast His Spell, many years prior.

What did the professional reviewers get right and wrong?

In some aspects, I agree with reviewers who have said there is just too much being attempted in this story.  It would definitely make a wonderful novel and I have always preferred Rowling novels over the films.  I thought with her writing the screenplay that more of her would come through these films than the film adaptations of her Hogwarts Saga.  It does, but at the same time, this screentime is not the best medium for the complexity, subtlety and layers of Rowling’s stories.  This would have been better as a mini-series drawn out over six hours rather than crammed full in 2 ¼ hours.

I agree, too, with others who believe this is not a stand-alone movie. And I don’t know if non wizarding world people would understand it or appreciate it. Many of us who have already immersed ourselves in the Harry Potter world are looking forward to how the rest of the Beasts story plays out, but six more years is a long time to wait for a finish.  I doubt a casual viewer will stick with it. 

Rowling said she wrote these prequel films for the fans. However, I agree with John that she wanted control over the content and didn’t want Warner Brothers messing it up as badly as they did the Potter adaptations, so that, when they told her they were going to exercise their rights over Fantastic Beasts, she stepped in.  Her lack of experience as a screenwriter has come out especially in this movie, unlike the first introductory movie, that she has made so “fat” with content only understood by those familiar with the original Wizarding World seven book saga.

Now onto the characters…

I adore Jude Law as Dumbledore. He gets Dumbledore. He acts just as I would have expected.  I’m a little disappointed in his costuming, however.  The script described him in his first scene as a “dandyesque forty-five-year-old wizard…”  I think Colleen Atwood, the only Oscar winner in franchise history, missed the boat on that one. More outlandish colors or patterns would have been better, but perhaps some of the drabber colors and staid suits Albus sports are Atwood’s visual reminder of the dandy’s emotional state at this time.

I was delighted by Newt.  At the end of Fantastic Beasts 1, I couldn’t see Eddie Redmayne’s appeal.  He upped his acting game or he was given better material this time (I think it was the latter). His bromance with Jacob continues to delight audiences and his relationship with Tina towards the latter part was precious.  The “Salamander eyes” scene and Tina’s knowledge of that description from reading Newt’s just published book (and memorizing it!) was priceless.

I felt, too, that Johnny Depp acted the Grindelwald role really well.  His mannerisms, differing vocal intonations and styles were elegant.  The scene where he looked like he was conducting the fire was wonderful.  However, I CANNOT get past his horrible interpretation of Grindelwald’s appearance.  They gave the actor a pretty free reign with that and I think it was a mistake.  Yes, it’s a high stakes game he is playing, but the teenage frolicking Grindelwald seen in the adaptation of Deathly Hallows and this film’s Mirror of Erised scene was so much more appealing. Put the beauty of that actor along with his ability to persuade and it would have been truly magical.

And the Seven Players beside the Terrific Triumvirate?

Tina’s interactions with Newt and others and her brusqueness would have been annoying if she hadn’t softened towards Newt in the last part.  Her delight in him and his world were very evident in the archives scene and the zouwu scenes. 

Queenie seemed off the wall in this installment.  She was almost manic. Not that much time had passed and she was so impatient to get married and be loved in that way that she put the spell on Jacob, kidnapped him, and then —  a little rain and loneliness later — bang, she was willing to go to the Grindelwald “Free to Love” side. She was very puzzling.  I can understand Gindelwald’s appeal to her but combined with everything else she did, I’m with Jacob; she WAS acting crazy. Except that she survives the trial by circular, truth-telling Fiend Fyre (or a near equivalent) at the finish, you’d have to think she was a double agent for Dumbledore.

Credence was, well, Credence.  He wasn’t developed very much in the film and in some ways the Gloomy Gus was overlooked even though all the hype suggested he was supposed to be the center of the plot action. Instead, he drives it as Gellert tells us the whole story is to get Credence to come to him rather than repeat the failed finish of the first film. But we see very little of Credence’s struggle with that decision, if there was one.

Nagini the Maledictus was a likable character though tragic and she didn’t do much other than look tormented and be close to “I want to know who I am!” Credence. I do look forward to their development individually and as a pair over the next three films. We have a pretty good idea she survives the finale…

Kama was thrown in for the development of the red herring of Credence’s Lestrange identity.  I can’t see him being involved very much in the future.

Leta was a very tragic character.  Zoe did her part looking tormented but I think the real star was young Hogwarts Leta. Theseus was much more likeable than I thought he would and he really loved his brother.

Conclusions

Those are my intitial reactions.  I hope we will get more into exploring what is actually going on with Grindewald and who Credence really is. No matter if Credence is a Lestrange, a Dumbledore, or a member of any other family, he is very powerful considering how he has controlled and marshalled his Obscurus.  Grindelwald must be salivating at what he can do with him in the future both to further his ends and to defeat and neutralize Dumbledore.

I’m remembering a quote by The Presence in which she told us in so many words: “Whatever you think at the end of the movie might not be the case”.  Classic narrative misdirection by the Master – as if fans of her books needed to be told there will be twists (here I think she was referring to plot and to character alliances).  Lastly, I read an interview of Jude Law in which he said, “for a reason I can’t divulge, they have this falling out” referring to Dumbledore and Grindelwald.  Law read all the books with his kids and we’ve known about Dumbledore’s explanation of the fight and Arianna’s death for a long time.  This can’t be the fact the actor is unable to divulge.  What further Dumbledore Family information does Rowling have in her brain that she has kept from us?

If you’re like me, you’ll be paying attention to everything Warner Brothers and Rowling release that might answer this question over the next three films, not to mention the discussion here at HogwartsProfessor.com! Please write your first thoughts about my first impressions in the comment boxes below — or write your Guest Post review for us to read. I look forward to reading what you’re thinking!