Review of Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) by Filipeneto — 26 Jun 2020

The Harry Potter universe is one of the most lucrative and striking cinematic phenomena ever and has faithful admirers. Personally, I am one of many teens who read all the books and saw all the films but I was very disappointed with “Fantastic Beasts”. However, I decided to watch this film and see if there would be any improvement here. And I'm glad I did. Far from being wonderful, its much better than its predecessor.

After the events of the first film, Newt Scamander is sent by Dumbledore to Paris in order to look for Credence, who survived. Also alive and gone missing is the fearsome Gellert Grindelwald, responsible for many deaths and atrocities, committed to starting a war for global dominance in which sorcerers are to dominate non-sorcerers.

Its a generally better film than its predecessor, as it has a lighter pace and takes much less time to develop. The story told seems to have gained a logical thread and that's a good thing. The use and appearance of magical creatures was not as intense as in the first film, and this may have helped to focus the film on the story which, until now, was too weak and uninteresting. However, too much creativity is also a problem as some ideas in the plot end up useless. The development of the characters improved and the material given to the actors was certainly better. David Yates did a good job and takes advantage of all his experience, as he directed the most adult and developed films in the Harry Potter franchise.

The cast, certainly due to a better script and material to work on, achieved better results. Despite all this, it continues to make unforgivable mistakes. Some sub-plots, sequences and even characters, like Flamel for example, are totally unnecessary. Eddie Redmayne finally manages to give Scamander a certain attitude and leadership, although he is still uncharismatic and boring. Katherine Waterston also improves here. Callum Turner is good, Zoë Kravitz was a good addition to the role of the psychologically complex Leta Lestrange and Jude Law shone as the intelligent and young Dumbledore. Less positive was Dan Fogler, who is no longer as funny as in the first film. If this ends up being compensated by gaining dramatic depth, the film gives a terrible excuse to justify his presence, given that the character had been “obliviated”, that is, had his memories erased at the end of the first film. On the negative side, I would highlight the poor performance of Alison Sudol. It was not her fault but the fact is that her sweet and stupid character stopped being sweet and became just stupid. Finally, we need to talk more about Johnny Depp. If the cameo in the first film achieved to hide what his participation was going to be, this film shows us the greatness of the actor in the role of another fearsome villain, who is not far behind Voldemort in malice and cruelty. The actor is good and brought his character to life in a brilliant way. If everything goes well for Depp in the films that follow, this could become one of the most outstanding characters in his career, who has left us great jobs before.

Technically, this is a very visual film, thanks to tons of very high quality CGI, as we would expect in the Harry Potter universe. Cinematography has good colors, a good use of light and dark and clear footage. To add aesthetic quality we have the charm of the Thirties, with its props and clothings. Much of the film is set between London and Paris, with a brief and unnecessary passage through Hogwarts, and the sets, in all these moments, were meticulously done. The soundtrack, by James Newton Howard, is good and epic, but not surprising.