The Movie Crimes in Crimes of Grindelwald

November 16th, 2018 was a date that Harry Potter fans have looked forward to since Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them hit theaters. As one of those Harry Potter fans, I rushed to the movie theater on the night Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald premiered. This new series, taking place in the 1920’s and before the Harry Potter series even begins, adds to the immersive world. But, I have to say, there are multiple areas where this movie could have been improved.

First, Nicolas Flamel (played by Brontis Jodorowsky). I loved his character immediately. This is the man Harry Potter fans have been familiar with since the very first book in the series. We know he created the philosopher’s stone and turned himself immortal and, even if you didn’t know that, the character was portrayed perfectly. He looked and acted ancient, living up to expectations of what he would look like being hundreds of years old. It seemed that he would be an integral part of the film. However, this was not the case. His only role was at the very end where he united with other characters in a counterspell against Grindelwald (in my opinion, that spell could have been done without him). For a character with so much potential, he was completely unnecessary to the plot.

But how was the plot? The word I would use to describe it would be choppy. In the first movie, the plot was simple but managed to be full of excitement and suspense. Its sequel, on the other hand, attempted to do so much at once. The movie would jump from one character explaining their backstory to a new scene so rapidly I had a hard time keeping track of what was happening. At one point two characters woke up in Nicolas Flamel’s house and I am not entirely sure how they got there in the first place. At another point, Leta Lestrange (played by Zoe Kravitz) revealed her backstory and when she was done, another character was in the room who I swear was not there before.

Adding to the confusion was the brief reference to the Harry Potter character, Professor Minerva McGonagall. She makes an appearance in a couple scenes which was strange considering many devoted fans did the math and concluded that she couldn’t have been born yet. Yeah, it has been widely accepted that she wasn’t born until the 30’s. So why does she appear in a movie taking place in the 20’s? Perhaps there will be some big revelation in the following films but as for now, it simply seems like a glaring mistake.

The worst part about this movie had to be the loss of focus. The movie series is intended to focus around Newt Scamander and his magical creatures, but they hardly played a role. I get it, Dumbledore, Grindelwald and Credence are all very important characters, but I was under the impression that Newt was the main character. I found myself missing the iconic group of four-- Newt, Tina, Jacob and Queenie. In this movie, they were separated for most parts and hardly received screentime.

Yes, there are parts that need some major improvement. But it’s very hard to make a movie about the Harry Potter universe bad. The Crimes of Grindelwald featured many details, making for an intricate addition to the franchise. A phoenix is shown at the very end of the film, making fans speculate as to whether it could be same phoenix named Fawkes who appears in the Harry Potter movies and books. We catch a glimpse of the actual philosopher’s stone and have been provided the backstory of Voldemort’s snake, Nagini. Ultimately, this movie is worth giving a try. Just be aware that the series is becoming a movie for Harry Potter fans with extensive knowledge on the universe. A casual viewer may be lost but a die-hard fan will think the action, shocks and revelations are worth the ticket price.