Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is the latest installment in J.K. Rowling’s wizarding world. However, is it worthy of the Harry Potter name? I think not. As someone who has personally followed the series since 4th grade, I’ve loved reading the books and watching the series grow. I’ve been to Hogwarts in Universal Studios twice. I have a wall in my room dedicated to my Harry Potter memorabilia. I love this series, but this recent movie only gave me disappointment instead of awe. Warning: spoilers galore ahead.
First, here are some highlights. Eddie Redmayne was perfect once again as Newt. He brought the right amount of charm and awkwardness to the character. He compared Tina’s eyes to a salamander. That was a cute moment that put a twist on the normal confession of love. His gentle nature with the creatures was beautifully portrayed. Seeing his awkward exterior melt away as he came in contact with the creatures was heartwarming and fully showed how much he enjoyed his “job”. Speaking of the creatures, they were just as marvelous as the last one. The Zouwu, the Chinese cat beast, was gorgeous and was an amazing part in the movie. Each creature present had its own role to play that contributed to the build-up for the climax. They were brought to life each with a separate personality. Without words, the creatures were able to show the audience how mischievous and loyal to Newt that they are. Overall, the portrayal of Newt and the creatures that accompanied him was well done.
Time to get deep into the plot. Leta Lestrange, the powerful witch who bravely sacrificed herself at the ending of the movie. She was a well-written character who was independent of her fiance, powerful, and fun to watch. However, her backstory was not well flushed out. Her story is a tragic one, filled with death and anguish. This intense story was only covered in the space of a few minutes with a few dramatic images. As an audience member, it was difficult to feel for her. They brushed past the death of a baby only to have another debate over who Credence’s family is. The writers didn’t put the emphasis in her story that was needed.
Speaking of female characters who weren’t given enough emphasis, Nagani. She was given this intimidating power, the ability to turn into a snake. However, she spent all of the movie clinging to Credence and hugging him when he needed support. She had all the means to do something in the movie, but all she did is play a weak female. This isn’t the 20th century anymore, women can be strong characters. If this girl is supposed to become Voldemort’s feared snake, she should live up to the name. Nagani is constantly attacking Harry and friends, not hiding. Why did they portray human Nagini as a wimp when in the other movies she is an aggressive snake?
In the film, the alchemist Nicholas Flamel made a brief cameo. During his first appearance, it is constantly enforced that his bones, especially in his hands, are fragile. His body appears to be weak and decaying. However, somehow he was able to make it all the way to the graveyard by himself and slam the wand into the ground in order to cast a spell? He is obviously not as weak as the movie claims he is. He is a powerful character, but the movie downgraded him to an old man whose only purpose was to cast one spell. He even made the Philosopher's Stone, but is this mentioned? No, it’s just a small easter egg for the people with the quickest eyes. His power is underrated and underdeveloped.
It’s time to talk about the obvious queerbaiting present. J.K. Rowling has claimed in the past that Dumbledore is gay. Another instance of no background, no reason, and no context. She was trying to get publicity points in a modern society. Sadly, this claim was not represented in this movie. If Dumbledore was actually gay, and this movie focused on his background, then you would expect to see it occur. There was even a suitor for Dumbledore, his childhood friend Grindelwald. There was a small moment in which Dumbledore was looking at the Mirror of Erised where we saw him holding hands momentarily with Grindelwald. That was it. No hints at all toward a relationship or anything about Dumbledore’s real sexuality. J.K. Rowling can’t make a claim like that and then provide the audience with no other proof. It’s offensive to the LGBTQ community. It is their way of life, not a cheap ploy used to appeal to certain demographics.
The ending was completely ridiculous. Credence is a Dumbledore? The plot twist that made absolutely no sense except for another reason to make a third installment. One of the biggest cinematic universes relied on one of the most cliche movie twists ever; someone secretly is related to a main character. It’s overused and has lost its charm. There is a difference between giving the story a meaningful ending and making a dramatic twist just to extend a series. It seems that J.K. Rowling or the other writers were grasping at straws, looking for anything that could connect Credence to the Harry Potter world. This connection failed, as the cliche feeling overtook the scene. It’s either time to stop this magnificent series or put more thought into the twists.
I think I should restate that I enjoy this series immensely. I’ve been watching the movies for years now, entranced with the magic. I love Newt Scamander and his awkward hugs with his brother. I loved his confession to Tina how he isn’t engaged, my favorite part was the salamander comment. At its core, the plot and the movie was a good idea. However, the execution was not sufficient enough to be engaging. If a third movie is produced, and I hope it will be, there are a lot of things that need to be improved on.