FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE CRIMES OF GRINDELWALD

                      Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes Of Grindelwald.

In an effort to thwart Grindelwald's plans of raising pure-blood wizards to rule over all non-magical beings, Albus Dumbledore enlists his former student Newt Scamander, who agrees to help, unaware of the dangers that lie ahead. Lines are drawn as love and loyalty are tested, even among the truest friends and family, in an increasingly divided wizarding world.
Basically with J.K. Rowling serving as writer and producer, this movie was set to be a hit, and as true to the original work as can be. The cast on the face of it looked incredibly weak, with only two out of the ensemble assured of delivering in any role they are cast. Jude Law and Johnny Depp never really came into being what you are used to. Johnny Depp may have delivered one of his weakest on screen performances in a long time and it's easy to spot why.

  J.K. Rowling set out to tell a story, the rise of the Dark Wizard before the time of Lord Voldemort, and though delivering a story worthy of an origin story, it never truly captured the Fancy of the fans of the wizarding world. We are inclined to conclude that apart from Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban, this may be the next weakest movie in the franchise. We will markedly point to the choice of cast as our first point of reference. The decision to cast Johnny Depp as Gellert Grindelwald had to be a negative factor. Depp is one actor who thrives in the freedom of the character he portrays, and thus having him portray a conservative and non expressive Grindelwald short circuited his talent pool.
Eddie Redmayne on the other hand seemed to always get his expressions wrong, his body language poor and overall his reaction to every situational occurrence was abysmal. At least we can turn to Zoe Kravitz to save the day once again. Her character already is an enigmatic one, it immediately caught the Fancy of fans of the Franchise based on the historical relevance of Bellatrix Lestrange. That notwithstanding, the portrayal of character was astonishing as usual. Her ability to adapt to every character idiosyncrasies has seen her being cast in the most impossible of roles, and it does good things to her resumé.
   Asides the characters, let talk about the story, the plot and the conflict element. J.K. Rowling is a story teller, and we were not disappointed. The ease with which the entire story was brought together was reminiscent of Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets. Having to tell the origin of the Grindelwald as well as unravelling the secrets of Credence may have seemed a little too complex to bring home, but she did. The plot however is another thing entirely. The plot seemed jumbled and riddled with a lot of inconsistencies and that is totally uncharacteristic of J.K. Rowling. The Conflict is a solid one, the type of conflict that allows for creative freedom, and it could be made to go any way and no single way of resolving it. The type of Villain that Grindelwald is, is the type of villain that can stand the test of time, one around which the entire plot could be developed around, which begs the question, why was that not done? Why bother with Credence so early in the journey?    A strong conflict and a strong villain usually allows for a very brilliant plot, but surprisingly, the decision to diversify the point of conflict meant that some aspects of the plot were weakened. Attention shared between Grindelwald and Credence, and it totally made no sense. Further, what is the usefulness of Newt? He is a bystander, and we wonder why he is the lead point of the protagonists. It's understandable that he has the trust of Dumbledore, but such unexplained trust ends up coming off as a misdirection or at best a waste of some potential unexplored dimension. Newt is resourceful, but he just doesn't have that resolve or wherewithal to earn the trust, the kind of which Dumbledore reposed in Harry Potter. We rate J.K. Rowling a meagre 4/10 for that choice. He could at best have been a foot soldier in the battles against Gellert, and not the one sent alone to confront the Dark Wizard.
   Having said that, perhaps we should turn our attention to the costuming team, absolutely horrible work, it is mediocre and not what we would come to expect from the wizarding world. It came off as confused and did not know it's place in history. That's how poor the costumes were.
   What was a young Minerva McGonagall doing at Hogwarts? As at the point sometime in Harry Potter's 5th year, she had retorted about having taught at Hogwarts for just 39 years? Then how is she already a professor at Hogwarts in the 1920s? It's preposterous that J.K. Could screw the timeline so badly. What are the odds that professor McGonagal has an older relative with the exact same name? Near 20%.
   Again, why bother with Dumbledore's family and Credence? We already know Dumbledore had 2 other siblings, Aberforth and Ariana, and Ariana was young when they lost their mother, so where could Credence have manifested from? It's another irregularity that the movie didn't need. Though we do posit that it may all just be falsehood, perpetrated by the silver tongued Grindelwald to seduce Credence to the dark side.
  Again, why were Wizards aparating and disaparating inside the Hogwarts grounds? There had better be an explanation for why the school that is so iconic has been made to look so ordinary.
Enough with the negatives, the story of Nagini, no one expected it, but it immediately caught the attention of fans of the franchise. We all know she will go on to become the lifelong companion of Lord Voldemort, but the revelation that she is a Maledictus all the more made it ever more compelling.
   In a nutshell, The Crimes of Grindelwald is a movie with uneven tones, with a story and plot that left the constant flatline and the very occasional highs. It is one great with entertainment, and a lot of 'wow' moments, but a movie burdened by over elaboration in anticipation of future sequels.
  It is still a movie that old timers and ardent followers of the Wizarding world would no doubt covet. It's a movie that will bring you euphoric memories, names such as Nagini, Leta Lestrange, Grindelwald have such deep roots to the Wizarding world of Harry Potter, and thus, it will always provide a viewing spectacle regardless of the weakness of the plot.
  We would obviously love to see more of Gellert and Dumbledore, and a whole lot less of Newt Scamander. Nagini is another character who ought to get more screen time before her final transformation, if for nothing more, at least for her Iconic death

Eddie Redmayne: Newt Scamander
Katherine Waterston: Tina Goldstein
Dan Fogler: Jacob Kowalski
Alison Sudol: Queennie Goldstein
Ezra Miller
Zoë Kravitz: Leta Lestrange
Callum Turner
Claudia Kim
William Nadylam
Kevin Guthrie
Jude Law : Albus Dumbledore
Johnny Depp as Gellert Grindelwald

Directed by David Yate.
Written by J.K. Rowling

Produced by:
David Heyman
J. K. Rowling
Steve Kloves
Lionel Wigram

  With few and very few iconic moments, Barring the Protego Diabolica scene, everything just didn't live up to expectations, and it is bound to suffer heavy disappointment. It may also not be unconnected with the fact that the all time highs of the Harry Potter franchise may be hard to achieve ever again, not matter how hard J.K tries. Furthermore with a budget of 200m USD, and a box office mojo of 556.6m USD, it's a Flop, and we so conclude.
FCA's AppR: 6.7/10