I don't quite know what to feel about this, despite finally having seen it after waiting the better part of two years waiting for it.
Anyone who knows me will know what this series (most notably the first film) means to me personally for reasons I won't go into now. Back in 2018, Crimes of Grindelwald disappointed me massively and was a massive step down from the first, which I still love to this day as a comfort movie with sentimental value. So going into this, I was simultaneously fearing for the worst whilst also still holding up hope that maybe this can fix it. And.... I still don't really have an answer.
Let me say this - it's better than the last, and it was enjoyable. I think this is partially due to the fact that Steve Kloves (an actual, seasoned screenwriter) was brought in to help co-write the screenplay with JK R*wling, who is a literature author and not a writer for the screen (as was painfully obvious with the mess that was CoG). One of my biggest problems with the last was the sheer volume of characters, jumping from place-to-place, nonsensical, plot-hole riddled exposition, and not enough balance between the light and dark moments - all of which are clearly just storytelling errors due to Rowling's screenwriting inexperience. This was done somewhat better (not great, but still noticeably better) here, which was nice. The plot flowed - given, it flowed like a river of treacle, but it flowed nonetheless - and it *was* more character-driven.
Despite what I just said, I am in no way overlooking this film's multiple problems. The plot, despite being a hair better than the previous film, is still a mess. This was probably due to the fact that this film suffered the same issue as the last one - instead of having a grounded and character-driven story set in one place (ONE PLACE), as we saw worked perfectly fine in the first film, we once again had to jump from London to China to Berlin to Bhutan to god-knows-the-f#£%-where. Not to mention the events in the plot itself were just Not Interesting. I mean, despite never being the biggest fan of Harry Potter, I can admit that the books managed to have a good mix of serious political stuff whilst still being actually interesting. This was two hours of a magical election. Yep. I think that says all it needs to say.
Another problem is that despite being called Fantastic BEASTS, there is, once again, minimal focus on Newt and the beasts and instead, it seems like the film is just unsure of who the protagonist actually is. The storyline keeps jumping from Dumbledore to Grindelwald to Newt and back again to the point that it's hard to get attached to any of the characters individually, because the second you actually start caring, you're whisked back to some other storyline you forgot was even happening. However, I appreciate the fact that they clearly realised withe the last film that their "Fantastic Beasts" film had stopped being about fantastic beasts, so the plot of this one revolves around one of said beasts, which gives it a nice link to Newt and his story (which up until this point had been serving as a Trojan horse of sorts for the whole Grindelwald thing).
Whilst not as bad as in CoG, this is partially due to the sheer number of characters. They do seem to work more cohesively here (I heard Eddie Redmayne described the film as a "heist film" in an interview and I'd say that sums it up pretty well) - as in, it's nice that we can see the characters together and interacting as part of a bigger united storyline as opposed to the last film where there were maybe five unrelated storylines going on at the same time which were impossible to keep track of. However, there are still too many damn characters! And they don't get anywhere near equal screen time. Listen, as much as I think Jacob is a great character, I think they're really pushing it trying to keep him in the films. And Jessica Williams is great as Professor Lallie Hicks, but she don'ts get anywhere enough time or character development on screen. And then I forgot that Ezra Miller was even supposed to *be* in this film. You get what I'm saying.
And the thing that has upset me the most - the *blatant* erasure of one of the strongest and most interesting characters - Katherine Watherston's Tina Goldstein. I'm aware of the stuff she said about JK Rowling, and I also know that she had COVID during the filming period, and if it really is the former, I think it's a horrendously petty thing to do, especially when she's supposed to be Newt's primary love interest for the remainder of the series.
Annoyingly, this was all done very well in the first film, I have no idea what happened (a smaller number of more developed characters, a nice straightforward interesting plot, a good mix of dark and light, etc). Maybe the thought of all of the money that these films are supposed to generate made Yates forget basic aspects of cinematic storytelling. But it's unfortunate, because this series had potential before it completely nosedived. I think that the first film should have just been a standalone. It was ridiculous to try and make a five-film series based off of a goddamn textbook. I'm telling you, if anything, they should have made some kind of limited series about The Mauraders era of Harry Potter - it seems to be the most popularly requested thing among fans and there's enough backstory for that time already given in the books. Again, I'm not even a big fan of Harry Potter but I know people who are, and as much as I enjoyed the first film, I don't think making it into a series was a good move.
I'm not going to spend the whole review raining on the parade, though. I've got to admit that as a fan of the first film there were plenty of enjoyable moments in this film. As pissed as I was about the whole Johnny Depp situation and the way it was handled, I think Mads Mikkelsen gave a very good performance (even though his presence took a bit of getting used to), and so did Jude Law. And Eddie Redmayne was excellent as always. I think that the whole Dumbledore-Grindelwald plot line was very well developed, which is something I wasn't expecting to say, and despite the limited presence of the titular beasts, their appearances were heartwarming, accentuated with the magic-realism style CGI. I absolutely adored the ending, though. Not to spoil anything, but I think that the last ten minutes are what the whole film should have been like.
All in all, it's a mixed bag - it's enjoyable, and it's a definite improvement, but I just don't like the way that this series has been handled so far. This whole film feels like it's trying so hard to be better but only getting a third of the way there.
-Sasha.
Anyone who knows me will know what this series (most notably the first film) means to me personally for reasons I won't go into now. Back in 2018, Crimes of Grindelwald disappointed me massively and was a massive step down from the first, which I still love to this day as a comfort movie with sentimental value. So going into this, I was simultaneously fearing for the worst whilst also still holding up hope that maybe this can fix it. And.... I still don't really have an answer.
Let me say this - it's better than the last, and it was enjoyable. I think this is partially due to the fact that Steve Kloves (an actual, seasoned screenwriter) was brought in to help co-write the screenplay with JK R*wling, who is a literature author and not a writer for the screen (as was painfully obvious with the mess that was CoG). One of my biggest problems with the last was the sheer volume of characters, jumping from place-to-place, nonsensical, plot-hole riddled exposition, and not enough balance between the light and dark moments - all of which are clearly just storytelling errors due to Rowling's screenwriting inexperience. This was done somewhat better (not great, but still noticeably better) here, which was nice. The plot flowed - given, it flowed like a river of treacle, but it flowed nonetheless - and it *was* more character-driven.
Despite what I just said, I am in no way overlooking this film's multiple problems. The plot, despite being a hair better than the previous film, is still a mess. This was probably due to the fact that this film suffered the same issue as the last one - instead of having a grounded and character-driven story set in one place (ONE PLACE), as we saw worked perfectly fine in the first film, we once again had to jump from London to China to Berlin to Bhutan to god-knows-the-f#£%-where. Not to mention the events in the plot itself were just Not Interesting. I mean, despite never being the biggest fan of Harry Potter, I can admit that the books managed to have a good mix of serious political stuff whilst still being actually interesting. This was two hours of a magical election. Yep. I think that says all it needs to say.
Another problem is that despite being called Fantastic BEASTS, there is, once again, minimal focus on Newt and the beasts and instead, it seems like the film is just unsure of who the protagonist actually is. The storyline keeps jumping from Dumbledore to Grindelwald to Newt and back again to the point that it's hard to get attached to any of the characters individually, because the second you actually start caring, you're whisked back to some other storyline you forgot was even happening. However, I appreciate the fact that they clearly realised withe the last film that their "Fantastic Beasts" film had stopped being about fantastic beasts, so the plot of this one revolves around one of said beasts, which gives it a nice link to Newt and his story (which up until this point had been serving as a Trojan horse of sorts for the whole Grindelwald thing).
Whilst not as bad as in CoG, this is partially due to the sheer number of characters. They do seem to work more cohesively here (I heard Eddie Redmayne described the film as a "heist film" in an interview and I'd say that sums it up pretty well) - as in, it's nice that we can see the characters together and interacting as part of a bigger united storyline as opposed to the last film where there were maybe five unrelated storylines going on at the same time which were impossible to keep track of. However, there are still too many damn characters! And they don't get anywhere near equal screen time. Listen, as much as I think Jacob is a great character, I think they're really pushing it trying to keep him in the films. And Jessica Williams is great as Professor Lallie Hicks, but she don'ts get anywhere enough time or character development on screen. And then I forgot that Ezra Miller was even supposed to *be* in this film. You get what I'm saying.
And the thing that has upset me the most - the *blatant* erasure of one of the strongest and most interesting characters - Katherine Watherston's Tina Goldstein. I'm aware of the stuff she said about JK Rowling, and I also know that she had COVID during the filming period, and if it really is the former, I think it's a horrendously petty thing to do, especially when she's supposed to be Newt's primary love interest for the remainder of the series.
Annoyingly, this was all done very well in the first film, I have no idea what happened (a smaller number of more developed characters, a nice straightforward interesting plot, a good mix of dark and light, etc). Maybe the thought of all of the money that these films are supposed to generate made Yates forget basic aspects of cinematic storytelling. But it's unfortunate, because this series had potential before it completely nosedived. I think that the first film should have just been a standalone. It was ridiculous to try and make a five-film series based off of a goddamn textbook. I'm telling you, if anything, they should have made some kind of limited series about The Mauraders era of Harry Potter - it seems to be the most popularly requested thing among fans and there's enough backstory for that time already given in the books. Again, I'm not even a big fan of Harry Potter but I know people who are, and as much as I enjoyed the first film, I don't think making it into a series was a good move.
I'm not going to spend the whole review raining on the parade, though. I've got to admit that as a fan of the first film there were plenty of enjoyable moments in this film. As pissed as I was about the whole Johnny Depp situation and the way it was handled, I think Mads Mikkelsen gave a very good performance (even though his presence took a bit of getting used to), and so did Jude Law. And Eddie Redmayne was excellent as always. I think that the whole Dumbledore-Grindelwald plot line was very well developed, which is something I wasn't expecting to say, and despite the limited presence of the titular beasts, their appearances were heartwarming, accentuated with the magic-realism style CGI. I absolutely adored the ending, though. Not to spoil anything, but I think that the last ten minutes are what the whole film should have been like.
All in all, it's a mixed bag - it's enjoyable, and it's a definite improvement, but I just don't like the way that this series has been handled so far. This whole film feels like it's trying so hard to be better but only getting a third of the way there.
-Sasha.