Les Animaux fantastiques : Les crimes de Grindelwald

Ennuyeux, terne, confus et chaotique. Je considère que le meilleur passage de tout le film, c’est les dix premières minutes. Le spectateur que j'étais s'enthousiasmait et se réjouissait de voir plus d’action délirante ; j’anticipais ce que Johnny Depp nous réservait d’autre. Mais le reste du film n’était qu’une soupe d’ennui. À l’image du un, ce numéro deux tourne autour d’un cinglé et de ses origines. Paris, Eddie Redmayne et l'intro susmentionnée sont plaisants, mais pour le reste, ce sont les réactions négatives qui prévalent. Espérons que le troisième volet avec Mads sera meilleur… (01/01/2021)

Une autre bouillie réchauffée à l'eau, dans laquelle se prépare lentement le duel entre le jeune Dumbledore et Grindelwald, mais qui n'en est qu'à ses débuts - et cela prendra apparemment plusieurs films. Une histoire mince et artificiellement étirée, reposant principalement sur la poursuite d'un sorcier à travers Paris (curieusement pas Grindelwald), que Rowling et compagnie essaient sans succès de remplir de sous-intrigues avec des difficultés banals pour un grand nombre de personnages, dont certains sont introduits simplement pour être présents dans le film, mais ne disent ni ne font rien d'essentiel (et apparemment cela se produira à nouveau dans les prochains épisodes). En arrière-plan, il y a une sorte de mise en place d'un arc narratif épique sur la rencontre fatidique de deux des plus grands sorciers de leur temps, mais le film lui-même ne raconte aucune grande histoire et se contente de se promener le long de lignes romantiques tièdes pour ses héros, de nostalgie « potterienne » et d'animaux numériques utilisés uniquement pour la décoration. Visuellement, c'est magnifique et plein d'idées imaginatives et de stimuli amusants, mais cela ne fait que créer un parc d'attractions de couleurs vives et de promesses non tenues. (14/11/2018)

I'm very satisfied, unless you count the fact that I went to the cinema three times, as I didn't get to see the film because tickets were sold out. I liked the world of Harry Potter because great wizard fantasy is scarce, so when it was discontinued I had no choice but to hope something similar would come along, and Fantastic Beasts is a great substitute (like The Hobbit for Lord of the Rings). Compared to Harry the casting is much better. Johnny Depp as the bad guy is excellent and finally appears in a film that won't flop financially, Jude Law as the young Dumbledore is great, and though I don’t Eddie Redmayne’s weird expression, he is a young undoubtedly talented Oscar winning actor, so it's worth a try. The production design is great and the return to the familiar world is pleasantly nostalgic, the numerous Easter Eggs are a delight, the action is decently handled, although there isn't much of it, and the finale with the blue fire dragon is spectacular. I can strongly feel that the cards are still being dealt and something big is being promised, but I don't mind it at all, because the first two episodes of Harry Potter were similar and since Azkaban it's was a ride. I'm looking forward to the pentalogy. 75%. (29/11/2018)

The first film proved that audiences are still quite curious about this cinematic world and will gladly pay to return to it. So what do we do in the second one? What makes sense. We're gonna add in everything that we think people might like, to keep it wringing it out for a few years. This approach is fine, it's just what Hollywood does with big movies, but unfortunately the second Fantastic Beasts shows that it's not always for the best. For example, getting a film directed by the biggest routine artist Hollywood has at its disposal, or wanting to milk the studio so badly that it sets up a lot of plots, subplots, characters, heroes and creatures that there's no time at all for a plot that makes even rudimentary sense. The result is a bunch of mediocre, albeit good-looking action, a lot of twists and turns that would put the creators of Wild Angel to shame, and a cauldron of book and movie references that fans are likely to enjoy. That last thing makes The Crimes of Grindelwald rather good, and if you head to the cinema expecting someone to simply shove things you probably like and probably want to see under your nose, you'll enjoy it. As an attempt to kickstart a grand fantasy franchise, however, it brutally fails in practically every way. Boring movie, and perhaps even a little embarrassing at times. (15/11/2018)

I actually had a bit of a déjà vu. Within the Harry Potter universe, the story is a few decades older than the one that was current at the time with the final two-parter about the Battle of Hogwarts. It’s as if the authors travelled back in time to do an inconspicuous film preparation for the epic final battle. And we’ve already seen that once. So, at times the first half of the film was incredibly boring. The entire movie is shot in these strange, dark-bleak colors that you have to work pretty hard not to be lulled to sleep by. And since there is nothing going on in the plot and there is zero action, it’s not easy to fight the urge to sleep. Some animals are quite nice the same way as in the first movie, but that’s about it. There isn’t much humor and the only thing that I remember about the characters is that Eddie’s portrayal of the anti-social Newt is more than believable. There still are a few good moments here. For instance, casting Jude Law as young Dumbledore was a great choice. J. K. Rowling also provided a couple of interesting story twists that fans of Harry Potter will surely appreciate. It still feels like a weaker return not only to Hogwarts. But when the film is taking place in Hogwarts, it picks up considerably. (26/11/2018)