Les Animaux fantastiques : Les crimes de Grindelwald

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)

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'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 production is so well tailored to patient Potter fans that it's killing me, as it doesn't stand a chance of being heartfelt for anyone else. It has everything, but most of it in such trace amounts that anyone who isn't satisfied by the fact that it's mostly just a glimpse at historical parallels and genealogical research will be disappointed. Once again, the most introverted action hero of all time takes us through the world of both magic and non-magic, but for those who haven't spent the past two years exploring diverse fan theories, the moments when new species of animals want to enchant us again in a hundred and one ways are not enough. The world of the audience has understandably begun to forget, and it will be even worse in two years' time. Although Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald lends tension and anticipation to the story wonderfully, this time it isn't the usual closed dramatic arc that we are accustomed to from the wizarding world. It is explicitly assumed that the viewer remembers even the more fleeting emotional moments from the first installment and the third installment again leaves a very precarious foundation for an open ending, a narrative betrayal unknown to the Hogwarts saga. I understand the audience's confusion: it is not possible to turn to the books for hints and answers, which many of them still consider a betrayal by J.K. Rowling. I don't, because I am extremely grateful that this world can open up to us again and again, and I barely breathed during the touching nostalgia of the outlines of that most beautiful castle. The change of scenery is finally complete, the deceit is over. (03/12/2018)

A fascist, anti-Nazi Depp in the blue continuation of the prequel to a magical saga… It's a little simplistic in places, but otherwise pleasant. A major drawback is that Grindewald’s crimes can’t stand alone. They are linked to so many storylines from the Harry Potter films as well as the previous Fantastic Beasts that it more or less manages to address the fundamental points in its quite limited runtime. Here, Rowling lacks the space that she has in her novels, where she can explain certain aspects. We don’t feel any connection with the new characters and they appear and disappear too quickly. Even Depp hardly appears in this movie. Law is all right, but lacks the space to shine. But even with all of these shortcomings, the narrative works. Yates should hand the directing over to someone with more skill. The action scenes are confusing and someone deserves be punched for the extreme close-ups at the beginning. The camera is often right in Redmayn’s freckly face. I don’t need to look at that. P.S. The Japanese snake woman is sexy beyond belief. I now understand Voldemort’s exaggerated affection towards her. (20/11/2018)

The sequel to Fantastic Beasts is quite a stylish film. It looks very nice, and all those pre-war aesthetics and costumes spiced up with witch elements are pleasing to the eyes. But the drama is a bit lazy, Mlok and the animals don't play a major role, Grindelwald appears for only a few minutes... Somehow, it failed to add life to these refined images. (12/08/2022)

I didn't expect that. After the previous film, which I really liked, came the second installment from the very same creators... And it's so much worse. Boredom, familiar characters who suddenly didn't matter to me, and new characters who were quite similar, their shallow dialogues, action scenes without many ideas and the attractions named Johnny Depp and Jude Law are barely used. While the previous film revealed new chapters of the Harry Potter world and enlarged it pleasantly, this one just strangely tangles it. Two and a half. (23/11/2018)

As a sworn fan of the Harry Potter’s universe who can recite the names of most of the characters, spells and places at the drop of a hat, I automatically keep my distance with the related stuff by Rowling – with the exception of “The Cursed Child” – and the film adaptations of “Fantastic Beasts” illustrate why. I accepted the first one for the way it lays down the potentially interesting characters and conflicts and for the visually enriching expansion of the fictional world, and I honestly hate the second one for the very same reasons. It’s almost incredible how they manage to throw so many good guys with intertwined relationships into one world that is so powerfully dark, without having a proper clash in the climax. During the course of the film you’ll never guess where the story is heading, because it’s not really heading anywhere, it only delays stupidly the encounter of all the characters so there’ll be enough time for beasts, romance and flashbacks for morons. I still believe that the next sequel will explain all the apparently redundant motifs, but that doesn’t change the fact that the second Fantastic Beasts is awfully boring, that recycles stuff we’ve already seen and that the escalation is in fact stagnation with a multiplication potion. The first part of Deathly Hallows was great in comparison, it had several highlights and a clear narrative direction; here, the only things that are fine are Hogwarts, the young Dumbledore and one intimate scene with Newt and Tina that shows true emotions. Otherwise, if you erase if from your memory, you won’t be missing anything. (15/11/2018)

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)

Every sequel between the first and potentially last installment of Fantastic Beasts (not only) has the unfortunate function of being a connector between the adventures – something that must be taken into account when watching the film. After two years, we return to a magical world that is slowly beginning to split into two camps, which includes close friends. The film sees the return of many old familiar characters and animals (Niffler is the Scrat of feature films) and the addition of others we've met many times in the Harry Potter saga (Dumbledore, Flamel, Nagini), so we come a little closer to the films we basically grew up on. Personally, I'd cut back on the relationship peripeties, they aren’t entirely necessary (Newt + Tina, Leta + Theseus, Queenie + Jacob) and add where it has more potential (Dumbledore + Grindelwald), which hopefully we'll see in future installments. I liked the unraveling of the story around Leta and Credence, though in the latter case it was a bit overdone by the end, but we'll be see how it develops further. It should be noted, however, that they have failed to significantly tap into the potential that this series abounds with, which in this case is a shame. In the end, this is a sequel that I had fun with in the cinema, and I was treated to some impressively shot scenes, but all the time I had in mind the fact that it could have been done in a different way than as a sequence of a few plot twists and new questions, which, although it set the stage for the next film, made the whole thing feel a bit sketchy – a thankless function of the middle films in a series, but one that can be avoided. P.S. I wonder how it is that IMDb lists McGonagall, who should be -8 years old at the time, among the characters? (15/11/2018)

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)

I should point out that I read my first Harry Potter book when I was 11 and basically grew up with Harry Potter (the books and the movies). As such, I consider would consider myself even at the age of 29 a hardcore fan of the Harry Potter saga. Unfortunately, The Crimes of Grindelwald is probably the weakest contribution to the Harry Potter or Fantastic Beasts extended universe so far. The big stumbling block is the script, which like the first Fantastic Beasts is written by none other than J.K. Rowling. Here she unfortunately shows just how good a writer and how mediocre a screenwriter she really is. With the Harry Potter films you could excuse all kinds of things in an often rather truncated and rather skeletal Steve Kloves script (because we knew how it was in the source material and accepted that there simply wasn't room in the film), but with the Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, all the gaps are unfortunately now on full display. The crimes of Grindelwald themselves are basically just plot filler, an interlude in the saga, a boneless intermezzo, or the (un)necessary fluff before the upcoming epic installments that will culminate in the even more epic contest between Grindewald and Dumbledore in 1945 (for those who haven't read the Harry Potter books, sorry for the spoiler). I was incredibly annoyed by the dead spots where nothing really happened and the very cheap reliance on some semblance of a romantic storyline between three (albeit) heterosexual couples. As such, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is actually a huge trick on the viewer, since it basically just uses well-known backdrops and settings to (poorly) tell a terribly superficial, simple, and trivial story that the whole saga could easily have done without. If there’s anything that can be accused of milking an established brand just to make a buck, it's clearly Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald. But I’ll do more than just criticize (Harry Potter is close to my heart, after all) because both Depp and Law are great, and I'll probably always defend Redmayne because his "snickering, weird, semi-retarded and slightly gay performance" is incredibly suited to his character. (19/11/2018)