Like Its Predecessor, 'Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald' Is Wonderful but Sloppy

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is set a year after Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.  The powerful dark wizard Gellert Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) has escaped from custody, and has begun amassing followers in Paris.  The Obscurial Credence Barebone (Ezra Miller) is also in Paris, desperately searching for answers regarding his ancestry.  Meanwhile, Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) is tasked by Prof. Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law) to locate Credence before Grindelwald does.  This leads him to reunite with his American friends Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler), Tina Goldstein (Katherine Waterston), and Queenie Goldstein (Alison Sudol), as they find themselves thrown into the middle of Grindelwald’s brewing plot, which is forcing the wizarding world to choose sides in an impending war.

Critical consensus for Where to Find Them was mostly positive (as of writing, 74% fresh rating in Rotten Tomatoes) while The Crimes of Grindelwald is mostly negative (38%).  I find the significant discrepancy of ratings between the two films a bit ridiculous since, for me, the latter is just more of the same of the former.

This means what I liked about Where to Find Them are the same things I like about The Crimes of Grindelwald, and what I disliked about Where to Find Them are the same things I dislike about The Crimes of Grindelwald.  I like Newt Scamander, and his dynamic with Jacob Kowalski; the Pokemon-esque appeal of the various magical creatures, and Newt’s rapport with them; and the oozing creativity of the worldbuilding.  I also notably like one new thing in this movie: Jude Law’s young Dumbledore.  I like him to the point that I now want an entire movie centered on him.

On the other hand, I dislike the needless bloatedness of the narrative, the unearned BS developments (a major example in the miscellaneous musings below), and everything related to the Obscurial (actually, it seems like almost every problem in its writing can be traced back to this particular plotline).

Moreover, one thing that kept me optimistic while watching the movie was the great potentiality being emitted – you know, the subtle feeling that something awesome is being set up.  However, playing a huge part on stopping me from getting completely engrossed is the execution regularly falling short in giving justice to this potential.

All in all, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is all over the place at parts, but it does entertain as a whole.  And though the two movies so far have not truly live up to the potential of the series, the potential remains intact, and I’m still excited for where it will go.

Miscellaneous musings (w/ SPOILERS):

• Change my mind: Newt Scamander is a better main character than Harry Potter.  Harry just has the benefit of being in a better story.
• As I’ve already mentioned earlier, one of the best things about this movie – and the series, for that matter – is the eponymous fantastic beasts.  But for a series titled Fantastic Beasts, they mostly play second fiddle to other things.  Yes, they have notable scenes, and they do give some contribution to the main storyline, but they really come off as afterthoughts to the plot.
• In relation to that, for a title like The Crimes of Grindelwald, the movie shows very little focus on his supposed crimes.

• Queenie joining Grindelwald is total BS.  Sure, Grindelwald was portrayed as a master manipulator – convincing people to do what he wants them to do just by talking to them – but the writing never really sold me the idea that there was already a strong case established for Grindelwald to win Queenie over.  She’s indeed a bit on the dumb side, but it’s unbelievable that she’s that gullible.  Seriously, I don’t buy that Queenie is unaware of the implication that joining Grindelwald would mean she has to start killing at his bidding – or, at the very least, rub elbows with murderers – down the line.
• We already know that the “Global Wizarding War” occurred simultaneously with World War II.  The Fantastic Beasts story so far is still in 1927.  That means that this film series will cover two decades’ worth of events.
• So, about that vision of WW II that Grindelwald shared… Does that mean he can see the future?

• Merlin’s Beard!  Nagini is in this movie.  Apparently, before she was Voldemort’s Horcrux, she was a human woman.  She was cursed to transform into snake, a form that she would one day permanently remain in.  And not only that, she was also one of the good guys (!), and she met Dumbledore!  Why wasn’t this acknowledged in the Harry Potter series?  (Answer to my rhetorical question: a case of prequel retcon.)
• My main concern now for future Fantastic Beast movies is if the writers will succeed in giving Nagini a strong, convincing “face-heel turn” character arc.  Anything less would probably be tantamount to the total failure of this series as a Harry Potter prequel.
• Aside from the mystery of how Nagini turned from a sweet girl into a murderous reptile, it’s also very critical for the series to answer why Dumbledore’s fashion taste changed from suave suits to garish robes.