Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindewald - Deciphering the Ending - Has JK Rowling Lost Control of the Ship?

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindewald - Deciphering the Ending - Has JK Rowling Lost Control of the Ship?

**MAJOR SPOILERS FOR FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE CRIMES OF GRINDEWALD AHEAD. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.**

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindwald brought forth more confusion than good in the Harry Potter community. With the shocking reveal that Credence Barebones was not, in fact, a Lestrange but rather a Dumbledore, the entire Potterhead community was left wondering: how does this make any sense at all?

At the end of the film, when Queenie, Grindewald, and Credence are hiding out at Nuremgard, Grindewald reveals to Credence that he is the brother of Albus Dumbledore. At least, that is what is implied when he says "Your brother" to Credence. But does this make any sense? Grindewald then reveals that Credence's real name is not Credence, but in fact, Aurelius Dumbledore.

What?

Many people online have spoken to the fact that, genetically, this doesn't make any sense. It is impossible that JK Rowling has decided to make Credence a true blood brother to Albus, because their father, Percival Dumbledore, died many years before it was even possible for Credence to be alive. So genetically, it does not make sense that Percival Dumbledore could have been the father. So that begs the question - what about Albus' mother? 

There have been theories floating around that Dumbledore's mother had an illegitimate child. This is a possibility. Another possibility is that Credence is not Dumbledore's brother, but rather a cousin or maybe even Ariana's son. Something of that nature. Here is what we (think we) know for certain:

1. Credence is a Dumbledore. Unless Gellert Grindewald can magically create phoenixes out of ravens, Credence is a Dumbledore. Albus even foreshadowed this by mentioning that anytime there is a Dumbledore a phoenix will come to their aid.
2. JK Rowling has an answer. In interviews, Ezra Miller has confirmed that there is an answer to this and JK should be trusted.
3. Aurelius/Credence has the power to kill Dumbledore. Whether or not he is related to him doesn't really matter in this case. Credence was recruited by Grindewald solely because he has the power to kill Albus.

But really, that's all we know for certain. So this begs to the question to me; why would JK do this? There are a few distinct possibilities, and to me, none of them are good. One of them is that JK is retconning the series, which is not out of the realm of possibility. She is, however, known to have a plan at hand, and retconning doesn't seem like something that she would do. So what's up? Another possibility is that she has an elaborate plan that she is going to reveal in the next film. Which is great - except it's going to take a lot of exposition and a lot of explaining for both the Potterheads and the normal audience members. 

Maybe JK has an elaborate plan. Maybe JK knows exactly what she's doing. But here's the thing - I'm not so sure anymore and it has to do with one thing that the filmmakers added to the film. Professor Minerva McGonagall. It makes no sense that she would be teaching at Hogwarts during The Crimes of Grindewald because she wouldn't have been born then. Maybe if everything else had made sense I would have bought the fact that she has this huge elaborate plan IF NOT for the fact that it doesn't seem like she has any grasp on her continuity. This could possibly mean one thing; if Grindewald lied to Credence about his heritage, the entire movie of Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindewald is obsolete. It doesn't matter. And that is the most disappointing revelation of all.  

The Lion King (2019) - Trailer 1 Review

The Lion King (2019) - Trailer 1 Review

The first trailer for live-action iteration of The Lion King has arrived. Does it deliver? 

Thoughts: Let's make something abundantly clear; this was a movie that I was looking forward a lot before this trailer came out. It was definitely in my top 10 most anticipated movies of 2019, because I loved the animated Lion King and thought that if they were going to make a "live-action" version, Jon Favreau, after what he did with the Jungle Book, was the perfect guy to do that.

This is now my second most anticipated film of 2019. 

The visuals and "cinematography" of the trailer are absolutely stunning. The visuals brought back memories of the original animated film without drawing too close. There were a lot of shots that were copied straight from the animated film, but it was done stylistically that worked so beautifully.

Disney didn't pull any punches for this film; they brought back James Earl Jones who did the opening narration to this trailer. It was so amazing to hear, especially when he said "remember" at the very end.

There isn't anything else to be said for this trailer. This is one of the BEST trailers that I've ever seen. 

Did it Raise Excitement? My excitement to see this trailer, let alone the movie, was through the roof. I was looking forward to seeing how Jon Favreau delivered on his promise of a photorealistic Lion King film, one of my favorite animated films growing up. This trailer hit all the feels, every single one of them, and promised a faithful adaptation brought forth into a new light. I LOVED this trailer. It was hard to raise my excitement any further than it already is, but this trailer did it. Well done. 

Trailer Rating: INFINITY/10

Venom - Review

Venom - Review

Directed By: Ruben Fleischer

Rating: PG-13

Starring: Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams, Riz Ahmed, Jenny Slate, Scott Haze

Expectations/Background: A Spider-Man world without Spider-Man? From the start, it looked like Sony was making a mistake. The character of Venom was intrinsically tied with the web-slinger, but a ew years ago, Sony announced they would be building an entire cinematic universe on characters from the Spider-Man mythology without Tom Holland or Peter Parker anywhere in sight. The Venom film was the first to be green-lit and went into production shortly afterwards, but again, nothing much was heard about it. Through it all, people speculated on the potential box office shortcomings, critical failure, and mass disappointment that this film would be. What would this film mean for Spider-Man in the MCU? The sharing arrangement between Sony and Marvel only lasts until Spider-Man: Far From Home, which will debut in July of 2019. If Venom succeeds, will Sony look to take Spider-Man back into their Sony-verse, or will they allow him to exist in the MCU and continue with their films? Things didn't look so good as films like Silver and Black were cancelled and pushed around this way and that. As trailers came out for this film, fans still wondered what a film based on a Spider-Man character would look like without Spider-Man. And as October creeped up on us, the answer became increasingly evident. 

The Movie: Despite everything that was said about this movie, this movie works. It has many, many problems that hinder this from being a truly great film, but on a fundamental level, this movie works, and I think it even knocks on the door of a well-done, good movie. 

The movie hinges arounds the misfortunes of reporter Eddie Brock, played by Tom Hardy, who encounters a symbiote named Venom. The two bond and become one and have to stop an evil force from accomplishing his goals. Rather standard for a superhero film these days. A lot of reviewers have pointed out that this film feels like it belongs in 2004, and I can't disagree. This is an origin story, through and through, and the film pulls no punches with using some of the classic superhero origin story tropes. Eddie Brock has it all. He loses it all. He becomes a superhero. Sounds a lot like films such as Iron Man, Doctor Strange, or Batman Begins. It's tried and true, and it works here as it did in the other films, but it doesn't bring anything quite original to the table. 

Michelle Williams is the only real side character of importance of this film. The movie really only centers around three people, Eddie Brock, Anne Weiying (Michelle Williams), and Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed), which is fine. It doesn't need any more extravagant side characters or subplots spinning around, which would have only served to convolute the movie. Michelle Williams comes in, plays her part with a level of competency, and exits the movie. She acted more as a plot device and motivation for Eddie rather than a full, 3-Dimensional character on her own. 

More on Riz Ahmed's villain later, but I will say this about him. Riz Ahmed was given some horrendous dialogue, especially for 2018 standards. BUT, he made the most out of every scene that he was in; he gave it his 100 percent, making some of those awful lines sound somewhat tolerable. 

But speaking of awful lines, this movie is full of them. The dialogue in this movie was rushed and as a result, seems either forced, corny, or just plain bad. There are moments in the movie where you look at the character and go, "Would anyone every actually say that in real life?" But they did. The dialogue did no service to helping this movie feel like a modern superhero film because it set the movie back a decade or so. 

The first act in particular was extremely rough. The first thirty minutes or so delves into some necessary exposition that, yes, we do need as an audience to understand character backgrounds and motivations, but there has to have been some better way to display this kind of info-dump. I found myself losing interest very quickly in these characters and wondered why I did. But the reason that the first thirty minutes or so of the film don't work is because Venom is not in there.

Venom saves the movie. Which is a very odd thing to say considering that he is in only in about twenty minutes or so but his presence is felt throughout the entire runtime once he and Eddie bond. The dynamic between Eddie Brock and Venom is truly the highlight of this movie and is exceptionally well done. If the studio had to get only one thing right, it would have been the dynamic between Eddie Brock and his counterpart, and they nailed it. Right from the very second that Venom speaks a word. Their dynamic is entertaining, it is even heartfelt at certain points, and it proves that you just need good characterization and a good actor to make a dual character like that work.

And thus we arrive at the crux of this review: Eddie Brock and Tom Hardy. Not Venom, but Tom Hardy, because although there are a few scenes that they share together, there are also plenty of scenes that Tom Hardy has on his own. I will say this. Like Riz Ahmed, Tom Hardy is an exceptional actor. He gives his all in every part that he plays and does his very best. And this film is no exception. Regardless of how poor the dialogue may have been or how the story went, Tom Hardy delivers an A-level effort performance. And for the most part, it works. That being said, it only really starts to work when Venom appears on screen. Because for the first thirty minutes of the movie, Tom Hardy is overacting like nobody's business. He is spouting lines in a manner that seems almost directly out of a cartoon and doesn't have a care in the world. But the SECOND you introduce Venom into his life and into the movie, it injects this new life into those crazy lines that he was spouting earlier and all of a sudden, it starts to work. Because you don't need to act that crazy before you're bonded with an alien symbiote. But once he is, he goes off the walls with some scenes, and they really are entertaining. There are a few bits of humor in this movie, and I think all of it stems from interactions between Eddie and Venom. Their relationship is what carries this movie past mediocrity.

A few more noteworthy points to be made; the action in this film is extremely lackluster and boring. There is a car chase towards the beginning of the second act that had some life in it, but somehow, it just lacked that flair that it needed. The rest of the action, especially with Venom, is just fine. There's nothing else except that it's fine. It's shot in such a way that you can hardly tell what's going on half the time, but you have enough of an idea so your mind passes it off as acceptable.

There are also a few weird cinematographic choices made by the production. When Eddie and Anne are taking at a restaurant, the camera cuts at least 5 times on Eddie, who's saying one line. It's a very odd decision to make. Additionally, a lot of the movie is very monochromatic. Each setting has their distinct color but nothing else. The film doesn't really go into other settings very much and, just like its characters, sticks with a few settings.

So again, I need to emphasize; this film is not bad by any stretch of the imagination. I would put it higher than the recently released Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindewald. Story is THE most important part of a movie, and far as story goes, this film does fine. It's not the most novel story, but for what it's worth, it works. This movie is almost good; and for me, that's a huge win when talking about a Venom film. 

The Villain(s): I will say this about Riz Ahmed. I thought his villain was better than most in today's day and age of comic book movies. He would be right up there with a Phase 1, 2, or maybe even 3 MCU villain. He has awful dialogue, but that doesn't stop him from giving a solid performance. He may not have the most commanding figure or voice, but he chews up scenery, and I really appreciate that from a villain. But again, his villain's development was very flat, very bland, and had no dimensions to it at all. He wants to accomplish an evil goal, Eddie Brock is in the way of his evil goal, so he has to get rid of Eddie Brock. That's about as simple as you're going to get.  

The Music/Score: The music in the film is the epitome of standard. There's absolutely nothing noteworthy to talk about. It was there, it served its purpose, and it was gone. It rose when the action id, it tried to be emotional, and just served as background noise in most cases. 

In Conclusion: Is Venom worth seeing in the theaters? I think if you're ingrained in the comic-book "ecosystem" and want to take a look at a film that does introduce an interesting, and possibly very relevant new character to the comic book world, then by all means. But if you're looking for an inspiring story, three-dimensional characters, and intrigue or nuance, this is not the film. The first thirty minutes are extremely dull, but once Eddie and Venom bond, the film picks up immediately and it's almost smooth sailing from there. It's not great, but it's good enough. 

**DISCLAIMER**: This is a subjective, opinionated article that does not have, nor should have any affect on your opinion on the given material. As such, my opinion is entitled to change over time and whatever is written here at this given point in time may not and should not be held to me in the future. You are not meant to agree with me 100 percent of the time, because the nature of subjectivity is we see everything differently. Please keep this in mind. 

Wreck-It Ralph 2: Ralph Breaks the Internet - Review

Wreck-It Ralph 2: Ralph Breaks the Internet - Review

Release date (US): November 21st, 2018


Directed By: Rich Moore and Phil Johnston

Rating: PG

Starring: John C. Reilly, Sarah Silverman, Jack McBrayer, Taraji P. Henson, Gal Gadot, Jane Lynch

Expectations/Background: These days, the sky's the limit on animated feature length films. There's almost no emotion that an animated film can't make you feel that a feature length film can't. We've seen it all with Pixar alone, and lately, Disney Animation has been stepping it up as well. Back in 2012, a small animated film called Wreck-It Ralph was released and took the world by storm. Nobody saw how big this film would become, and immediately people knew there was potential in this film for a sequel. It had heart, charm, laughs, and above all, genuine heartfelt emotion. I, personally, was too young to truly grasp these concepts and ideas. I only remember a fun time at the theater with my friends, but 6 years later, I think I, as well as the world, am ready for a return to this world. The trailers thus far have looked phenomenal, taking FULL advantage of the Disney IP - showcasing Star Wars characters, Disney princesses galore, and so many other properties (including Google, Twitter, and Snapchat). If done right, this movie has the potential to transcend the genre of animated "kid's films" and can become one of the best animated films of the year.  

The Movie: As I mentioned before, animated movies are now at a point where they can be as good, if not better and more mature than live-action movies. And while this movie does try to be more adult than other animated genre films, and in some ways it does transcend the typical "children's movie" genre, I found that it fell short to the next level and in the end, was only an entertaining animated film.

It was good to see a lot of the cast and voice actors returned to the movie. John C. Reilly perfectly embodies the gentle giant of Ralph, which his voice encapsulates. Something that I had not anticipated going into the movie was the character growth. I hadn't realized it had been six years since the first film, and it turns out that in the movie (minor, minor spoiler) six years have also passed. And because of that, characters like Ralph have grown a little more - in the six years following the events of the first film, he's developed a life style that he maintains and considers normal and routine. And through the movie you really get to see him grow even further as a character as he faces new challenges. He has dimensions, unlike a lot of animated characters, which is always something that I love to see. Speaking of characters, Ralph's best friend Vanellope, voiced by Sarah Silverman, returns and is more of a constant presence throughout this movie. She, in many ways, is actually the main character of the movie, which took me a couple seconds to adjust to. But once I began to realize where the character arcs were going, it became clear and I began to appreciate what the filmmakers were going for.

In terms of side characters, we have some new additions such as Shank, played by Gal Gadot, and a couple returning characters, namely Fix-It Felix. But those returning side-characters are relegated to fun cameos and sight-gags. They don't have much to do at all, which was fine; the story didn't call for them in this particular narrative. And really, at the core of this movie, this is a film about Ralph and Vanellope. There are a lot of surprises, some given away by the marketing and some hidden away, but at its heart is Ralph and Vanellope.

I always say that a movie stands on the story; without a good story, even good characters cannot hold a movie up. Let me say this about the story; I understand that it was not trying to appeal primarily to adults. As an animated film, yes this is aimed towards the younger demographic. So I understand, then, why the story came off as very simplistic, because it did. The story structure had very, very little nuance, and while it used its situation and setting to create some interesting spins on cliches and tropes, at the end of day, I could predict almost everything that was going to happen. That's one of the movie's biggest downfalls - it's predictable. It's cliche in many spots where it could have been something more and it doesn't bother trying to break the mold of the tried and true hero's journey.

HOWEVER - this is not a bad thing. I think that the story focuses more on character development and growth as well as moments. The story is more of a vessel that feeds the characters and serves them. Sometimes this doesn't work, especially if your characters aren't strong. But in this case, watching Ralph and Vanellope is enough to carry the story forward. There is a driving catalyst and motivation, or a MacGuffin if you will, but it actually gets ditched about halfway through the third act, showing that it really was never the main focus of the storytellers.

And because the filmmakers chose to spend more time with the characters, we have some great moments. Again, some of the character development is very cliche. There are tropes that the filmmakers don't bother subverting. But then again, I'm glad to see that the directors and writers are attempting to develop and grow these characters at all. The two protagonists learn a very valuable and hard lesson at the end, even if it is kind of spelled out for you in dialogue. I appreciate when a film of this genre tries to do something like that. Kids will pass it off as something "sappy", but I feel that when the movie tried to go for emotion, it mostly hit, though perhaps not as hard as they would have wanted.

But as I alluded to before, this is a film of moments. There are so many memorable scenes in the film. This film, in a typical three act structure, is actually shaped like a mountain in my eyes. The first act is not quite that strong. The story is trying to gain its footing and you're launched back into a world with these characters. But the second act is really where the film takes off. I think the second act contains some of the best scenes in the movie. The Disney IP is taken full advantage of, as you see (as seen in the trailers) Disney princesses, Stormtroopers, and some Marvel characters.There is one scene in particular involving a surprise that amazed me and made me laugh so hard in the theaters. 

And speaking of, this film has humor, and lots of it. There is an abundant amount of reference to Internet platforms like (as seen in the trailer) Twitter, Google, and a search engine, as well as the Disney website, but unlike The Emoji Movie, these aren't blatant product placement moments shoved into a movie. They have real value and purpose. And most of them are used to comedic effect. This film has jokes for days; and a lot of them hit for me. Again, this is subjective, because I found that I was the only one laughing at a couple of the jokes, but they were right in my vein of humor and I loved them. A few of them will fly over kids' heads because they are about topics that are more heavy, or are simply more clever jokes, but I think kids will find a lot of the movie's humor to be amusing.

But what about the third act? The film is rising on a dramatic incline for the first two acts and is ready to end the film with a bang, except it doesn't. To me, the film's weakest third is the third act. There were so many different directions in which the filmmakers could go, but they decided to go a very different, yet predictable route. They made some questionable choices and threw something in that seemed very last minute. Granted, the third act wasn't terrible, but it added in elements that were not even relevant in the first couple acts that I found to be annoying and somewhat distracting. The message that the film is trying to give seems to jump out of nowhere in the beginning of the third act, and from there, the movie becomes a lot of predictable nonsense.

Really, my major complaints stem from the story and the focus. What does this movie want to be? At a certain point, I was even questioning if a kid would enjoy this movie. Yes, it has colors and animated goofy characters, but the way they talk is sometimes very adult, and the things they talk about are as well. It doesn't seem to know where it wants to head, and like I mentioned before, it's a story of moments, albeit, very good and funny ones.  

The Villains: Heading into the film, I had no idea who or what the villains were. And let me say this; while in the first two acts I thought the villain was something that I rather enjoyed, the third act introduces a couple of elements that threw me completely off guard and took me out of the movie for the remainder of the run time. The third act "villains" (no spoilers) did not need to exist at all, in my opinion. It felt very lazy and ham-fisted, that I didn't know what to make of it. It's very hard to talk about this without spoiling, so all I will say is that the villains detracted somewhat from the movie, but not enough to leave a sour taste. 

The Music/Score: The music, as I expected, was very heavily influenced by a synthesizer. There were  a lot of electronic keyboard tones, and that fit with the movie. But overall, nothing to really talk about; nothing good, nothing bad.

In Conclusion: For a film that's directed towards kids, this film addresses themes that can be relevant to almost everyone. That being said, it goes about it in such a way that is cliche and utilizes many classic tropes. The story is a little muddled and doesn't know where it wants to go after the second act, which is vaguely connected to the third act by a loose string. But the strong characters of Ralph and Vanellope, whom you learn to love throughout the film, carry the movie to the finish line without any major hiccups. The laughs and heart of this film are what lift it up over the top for me, and I think that the big heart of both Ralph and the movie cover up the flaws and imperfections.

**DISCLAIMER**: This is a subjective, opinionated article that does not have, nor should have any affect on your opinion on the given material. As such, my opinion is entitled to change over time and whatever is written here at this given point in time may not and should not be held to me in the future. You are not meant to agree with me 100 percent of the time, because the nature of subjectivity is we see everything differently. Please keep this in mind. 

300th Post!!!!!!!

300th Post!!!!!!!

I think it's appropriate to celebrate these milestones as they come. I think the fact that 300 is a number that's even in question is something to be thankful for. As Thanksgiving rapidly approaches, I find myself thankful for this opportunity to be able to express my thoughts and write about what I enjoy most on this platform. It's been a real joy and escape for me to be able to sit down and write out my thoughts on something that means so much to me - movies. Here's to another 300! 

Detective Pikachu - Trailer 1 Review

Detective Pikachu - Trailer 1 Review

The first trailer for Detective Pikachu has arrived. Does it deliver? 

Thoughts: The picture above says it all, does it not?

I absolutely thought the idea of this movie was one of the worst that Hollywood's ever thought up in its think-tank of blockbuster filmmakers. And yet here we are, with a trailer, and you know what?

It was charming.

Let me get a few things out of the way firstly. I think the acting does not look good at all. Save for Ryan Reynold's voice as Detective Pikachu, I think Justice Smith and company don't look good at all in their roles, at least from what I saw. I saw some glimpses of bad acting, and that scared me a little.

Additionally, the story looks like it has the potential to be very weak. I immediately smell a movie studio trying to take full advantage of the "cuteness" and marketability of a character, and while that can work in some cases, it usually doesn't end up in a good film.

But, my goodness, is Pikachu cute. If anything AT ALL is going to draw me to the theater, it's going to be seeing Pikachu onscreen voiced by the king of fourth-wall, nerd IP, Ryan Reynolds. 

Did it Raise Excitement? Considering I thought the idea of this film was absolutely ridiculous and unnecessary before this trailer, I think this trailer did exactly what it needed to. Even though I don't think the acting nor the story are very strong, Pikachu (Ryan Reynolds) alone is enough to bring me to the theaters (for now) on this one. I'm very much looking forward to this now. 

Trailer Rating: 7/10

Aquaman - Final Trailer Review

Aquaman - Final Trailer Review

The final trailer for Aquaman has arrived. Does it deliver? 

Thoughts: After the enormously long five minute trailer for the film, I was a little worried. I love trailers as much as the next person, but as much as I love films like these, if Marvel released a five minute trailer for Avengers 4, I would be in tears, and I don't think it would be for a good reason. The longer the trailers are, the more movie they give away. And while some argue that they can only give away so much in 5 minutes, I argue that the way scenes are intercut can reveal an entire movie in TWO minutes, much less five. 

But now, after having seen the final trailer for the upcoming film I'm here to say tow things: A) DC fix your marketing department because B) this is the trailer we needed rather than the extended one.

This trailer, while tonally and thematically very similar to the previous trailer, grounds Arthur Curry a little more, showing his backstory and revealing just enough of the story to interest the audience. Yes, the villains don't look that interesting (typical comic-book villains), and perhaps some shots of CGI sharks are questionable, but other than that, this trailer does exactly what it needs to.

There are a couple lines that are spoken that hopefully do not indicate a weak script, but as trailers go, this is paint-by-numbers; trailers usually like revealing the "epic" dialogue and I'm not surprised. Jason Momoa, regardless of what people have said, has made this role his own. Amber Heard, I'm still not quite sold on, but she's there. Willem Dafoe (he will die in the film) looks to play the mentor role well, and the other actors fill their roles as needed.

This trailer showcases enough of the action and story to get me excited for the movie. I don't anticipate this being the next Avengers or Wonder Woman, but I do anticipate this being a very solid film. 

Did it Raise Excitement? I think it raises my excitement about as much as it can get after the failings of the DCEu and my hesitancy on Jason Momoa's Aquaman. I'm looking forward to this film, and that's enough for me. 

Trailer Rating: 8/10

Once Upon a Deadpool - Trailer 1 Review

Once Upon a Deadpool - Trailer 1 Review

The first trailer for Once Upon a Deadpool, the first PG-13 iteration of the Merc with a Mouth, has arrived. Does it deliver? 

Thoughts: I had no expectations for this. I honestly thought that this was a heap gimmick to get more people to buy into the Fox-Marvel IP before the Fox/Disney was finalized. I was so wrong.

This trailer is one of the best pieces of marketing that I've ever seen. Granted, I don't know why I should be this surprised, considering that some of the OTHER best pieces of marketing that I've seen have come from Deadpool and Deadpool 2. But this trailer does not skip a single beat in hammering the PG=13 gags.

I love the classic Ryan Reynolds-opening narration that immediately tells you what you're in for. And the gags with Fred Savage, with the exact recreation from The Princess Bride is insane. The attention to detail just for the sake of a gag is insane. And the Up joke brought a huge grin to my face. 

This really does seem like a test run for Marvel and Disney to see whether or not a Deadpool movie can work in PG-13. And while it may work much better in R, there is no indication that this cannot work extremely well as well. Looking at the marketing, the typical irreverent humor, and cynical humor, I think this movie has the potential to strike it big when it hits theaters. 

Did it Raise Excitement? ABSOLUTELY. 

Trailer Rating: 10/10

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindewald - Review

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindewald - Review

Release date (US): November 16th, 2018

Directed By: David Yates

Rating: PG-13

Starring: Eddie Redmayne, Katherine Waterston, Johnny Depp, Jude Law, Alison Sudol, Ezra Miller, Zoe Kravitz, Callum Turner, Claudia Kim, Dan Fogler

Expectations/Background: Harry Potter-craze is back, and in a big way. With the release of 2016's Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, the Wizarding World was reopened as audiences were introduced to new fan-favorites Newt Scamander and his team. And now, as with most big-budget sequels in Hollywood, the second installment conspicuously subtitled The Crimes of Grindewald, looked to step it up. Beginning with the return of Johnny Depp, a bold choice in the face of controversy and recent poor acting choice, the studio continued making choices that never fell on the line of ordinary, casting Jude Law as a young Albus Dumbledorre, as well as Claudia Kim as Nagini. Needless to say that intrigue surrounded this film and mired it in mystery as filming came and went, as did reshoots and post-productions. As the trailers came, they promised more of the excitement of the first film with a darker edge to it, placing a heavy emphasis on Johnny Depp and Jude Law as Grindewald and Dumbledore. I, personally having enjoyed the first Fantastic Beasts film amidst flaws that I saw, was extremely excited to see where this franchise would head next. And while I had trepidations that this film was simply using the moniker of "Fantastic Beasts" to tell a story of Grindewald and Dumbledore, I had no complaints with that. I felt that as long as there was a story to be told with the same characters as the first, there would be enough there to make an enjoyable movie, just as the first one was. 

The Movie: As I walked out of the theater, I couldn't help but wondering one thing: what was the point of this movie?

I can best describe it as such; as a writer, I realized and have noticed that when you place too much emphasis on one singular aspect of a story that you want to tell and try to wrap a narrative around that, you end up with a convoluted, jumbled, distorted mess. For example, say I were to write a story about M and M's, and the only reason I wanted to write the story was really because I wanted to make an M and M's and Skittle's crossover film. Thus, I attempt to weave an entire narrative around the idea that at the very end of the movie, there will be a huge reveal that Skittles and M and M's exist in the same universe. What we end up with is not a good story; we end up with a meandering first, second, and partially third act that end up at a point that doesn't make sense. This is Fantastic Beasts 2.

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindewald (no spoilers) has very little substance. It's aim is to reach the end of the movie, where JK Rowling and the screenwriters attempt to pull the rug out from underneath the audience in a glorious "aha! Gotcha!" moment. And yet, in doing so, they pull the rug out from under their own film because in reality, the entire first two hours of the 134 minute runtime was a bunch of mismatched, haphazardly thrown together story elements that somehow reached the big "reveal". 

This became quite evident to me at the end of the movie, in the third act climax, when we find everyone standing together. How did all of these disparate characters come to the same place at the same point in time? I honestly don't have much of an idea at all. But what I do know is that somehow, they end in the same place, despite having started the movie in completely different places, both literally and figuratively. 

That is not to say this film is entirely negative. Confusing, yes, but not entirely negative. I can honestly say that I didn't have a "bad time" watching these characters reunite. Newt Scamander, though not rogueishly handsome or brilliantly eloquent, is charming enough, played by Eddie Redmayne, to carry the movie along. Jude Law, albeit not on screen for very much, makes his presence immediately known. He entirely makes up for the fact that he isn't in the movie much by the fact that he marks every scene that he is in as his own. And to Johnny Depp's credit, he puts on a show of acting, showing nuance, subtlety, and a creepy aura that is suitable for a character like this. He is captivating and terrifying at the same time (more on him later.

However, the other supporting characters, who felt much more vibrant in the last film, feel very flat and two-dimensional in this. In particular, though I loved and still enjoy Dan Fogler's Jacob Kowalski, in this film, he was rendered to the "bumbling" character who tells jokes. Katherine Waterston's Tina Goldstein is not given anything to do, and Queenie, played by Alison Sudol, is an annoyance. Her character serves no real purpose in the movie and is on screen for way too long.

New introductions and old faces like Claudia Kim and Ezra Miller serve their part. They are given a bit of screen-time and their acting is well done. The problem with those characters is that they were written very poorly. These characters, especially Claudia Kim's, don't have any idea of where their story is going, partly because their story isn't going anywhere. Ezra Miller's Credence is there to serve one purpose, and the rest of the time he's on screen, I had no idea why he was. The same can go for Zoe Kravtiz's Leta Lestrange, who appears just to do one thing towards the end of the movie. 

A lot of the movie is told through exposition as well - there is a lot of characters saying "This is where I came from, these were my parents". Exposition is a necessary tool that writers use, yet when in excess, it becomes tricky to navigate, and by the end, I felt that I had watched two hours of exposition + action, and nothing more.

There are a couple key moments of fan service that were revealed in the trailer, but were regardless warranted. They fit into the story well and when they appeared onscreen, caused an audience reaction. I enjoyed them, though I think I didn't enjoy them nearly as much as the filmmakers thought I would. 

But, and I stick to this principle for nearly every film, the most important part of a film is story. You can have a two hour movie with my favorite characters and actors in it, doing their best work, but the fact of the matter is that if there isn't a good story around them, it's all for naught. JK Rowling made a pivotal mistake in writing this movie. As an author, she was so used to the idea of having thousands of subplots that she could begin, carry over, and resolve in a 1000 page novel. But in a feature length film, she does not have the luxury, and thus we have a prioritization problem. She acts as if though every single B and C-plot from the first film needs to be carried, when in reality it does not. I find it incredible that I am able to count the number of characters that I DIDN'T need to see return. If this really was going to be called "The Crimes of Grindewald", they should have focused their entire A-plot on Grindewald. Instead, he is relegated to popping in and out and then being the "big boss" at the end of the film. I'm not even quite sure that there is an A-plot in this film at all. 

I feel that for a movie that had so much potential, so much to offer for this franchise and a whole world to explore, the filmmakers and Rowling brushed over all of it just to set up a future "Grindewald versus Dumbledore". That's really what this film felt like. And while when that happens, it should be worth the wait, the fact of the matter is that this film does barely anything to set it up. 

The Villains: Let's be very clear. Just because the character of Gellert Grindewald had little to nothing to do in the movie, that's not to say I disliked him as a villain. As a matter of fact, Johnny Depp's performance was easily (in my opinion) the strongest out of everyone. Kudos to the makeup and costume design team for pulling off a design that perfectly matches his character. It's fascinating to watch and look at him onscreen, and when he is allowed to fully go for it in future films, I have no doubt that we will be impressed by the magnitude of both his acting and his character. The problem is that in this movie, he isn't given anything to do, partly because this film is just another set up to get to another point in the timeline on its way to the 1945 Grindewald vs. Dumbledore duel. 

The Music/Score: While the other parts of the film may have been lackluster, the score for the film works extremely well. If you are a true Harry Potter fan (Potterhead) you will recognize many motifs that occur throughout the film. They bring back memories that work very well with the scenes that they're in. And for what its worth, what truly made the final climax ascend past the first two hours of mediocrity was the music; the music hit the beats right along with the spells and swelled perfectly with the rest of the scenes. 

In Conclusion: As disappointed as I am with the film, that's not to say you won't enjoy it. Especially if you're deep into the lore of the films and books, there are reveals and lore in the movie that you may find amusing. But what disappointed me most about the second installment is that this was a placeholder through and through. There was hardly any reason for this movie to exist other than to get the characters from A-B and to reveal something at the very end. The writing is all over the place, as is the focus. Which ultimately makes for a film that, while charming in certain parts, has no idea where it's ultimately going. 

**DISCLAIMER**: This is a subjective, opinionated article that does not have, nor should have any affect on your opinion on the given material. As such, my opinion is entitled to change over time and whatever is written here at this given point in time may not and should not be held to me in the future. You are not meant to agree with me 100 percent of the time, because the nature of subjectivity is we see everything differently. Please keep this in mind.