Crimes of Grindelwald
Dec. 5th, 2018 08:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lunabee34Emma and I went to see Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald this weekend. I didn't think it was a perfect movie, but I mostly enjoyed it.
So, let's get the nitpicks out of the way first:
1. I really wish that Jude Law more closely sartorially matched the Dumbledore we get in the books. I get that book!Dumbledore is waaaay older than movie!Dumbledore and that people's style changes as they age. Not a lot of 30 year olds walking around in Alfred Dunner pastels or sporting Christmas sweater vests festooned with poinsettia appliques. But I do wish Jude Law had worn a pair of silly socks or a flamboyant tie or something. On the other hand, Jude Law should pretty much always dress as a dapper Edwardian, so I get where the movie was coming from. Everything else about his portrayal of Dumbledore I liked. I felt like he was very meddly and cryptic but also that he genuinely cares about his students, and I swear that his eyes straight up twinkled in one scene.
2. I really wanted to see Grindelwald be more charismatic. He definitely commits a bunch of crimes (and since the murder of a child is among them, we know he's just as evil as the first movie told us); he's also shown to be extremely powerful (he has subverted his guard in the jail and managed to get around all of the prison safety measures). But in order for the story the movie is telling to work, he has to be charismatic and persuasive, and we don't see that at all.
3. I don't quite understand how the Lestrange backstory fits into Grindelwald's story. I think it's interesting. Leta is a very compelling and interesting character; she acts out as a child because she's been through trauma (an unloving father who kidnapped and raped her mother; never knowing her mother; thinking she's responsible for her brother's death). But I don't get how that fits into the big picture of Grindelwald's arc. He and his henchmen plant the family tree for Credence to find, so I guess the Lestrange backstory was just for Credence's benefit? To deny him one more chance at knowing his identity so Grindelwald could swoop in and tell him he's a Dumbledore and have Credence primed to believe it?
4. IDK about Credence being a Dumbledore. The Dumbledore family backstory is already convoluted and tragic enough without a stolen baby. We'll see. I'll have to reserve judgement on that for the next movie.
5. There seems to be a continuity error with Jacob. I think he shows up at the cemetery, gets grabbed, and then he just kinda pops out of nowhere when the wall opens. Was that an error, or are we missing something? Did they do something to him? IDK
Now for the positives.
1. Excellent creatures. I loved the baby nifflers and the kelpie and Chinese dragon.
2. Visually stunning. Incredibly beautiful.
3. Epic costuming--Queenie, Leta, and Tina are exquisitely dressed.
4. Likeauthor_by_night says in her review post: when we first see Hogwarts and the score starts up, my heart just soared.
5. I absolutely loved New and Leta as kids at Hogwarts; their relationship is fantastic. And I adored pining adult Leta and Newt. They are clearly still in love with each other, and that part really of the movie was the most emotionally moving to me. Ate it up with a spoon. Hope the next movie explains why they didn't end up together and why she's with Theseus instead (I suspect it has something to do with her father wanting her to be married to someone in the ministry).
6. Loved Theseus and Newt. They clearly love each other even though they are very different.
7. That boggart scene was beautiful and beautifully frightening. I have always thought that is a terrible, terrible thing to put children through. First of all, it's traumatic to face your deepest fear. Secondly, it exposes to a room of potential bullies the most horrible weapons they could use against their classmates.
8. Loved Tina and her dogged determination to find Credence. I love that she is dressed in badass black like a ninja witch.
9. Loved Tina and Newt. They are so adorably awkward in the same way. I love that she gets his salamander reference instantly.
10. I totally think Leta isn't dead. We don't see her actually disintegrating, so I expect her to appear in the next movie.
And now for the ambivalence.
1. I do not like Queenie joining Grindelwald's ranks. At all. And yet I get what they were going for here.
First, Queenie is an uncontrolled Legilimens. It's unclear whether she could actually control it with the proper training, but she's the sister of an Auror, so I suspect that if something could be done to "treat" the issue, she would. So she's spent her whole life hearing everything everyone has ever thought about her, every unkind thing, every time someone was annoyed with her, etc. She's clearly doing at least some sort of shielding because those shields fail her in France, and she has a moment where she can't handle all the sensory input. Clearly she's been called crazy before, and that's a sore point with her.
Next, she and Jacob are in love but prohibited from being married. She's angry about that, angry enough to put Jacob under a spell to compel him to marry her in France. Tina is off chasing Credence, so she doesn't have the mitigating influence of her sister.
She is a prime candidate to be swept up in the thrall of a persuasive evil Grindelwald (if we actually saw him being so).
I know the whole point of Grindelwald and Voldemort is that they didn't just attract the evil villains cackling maniacally in their dungeons but that they also drew in people who were disaffected and marginalized and angry about all sorts of things. She's supposed to represent that.
I just wonder what happened when she met Grindelwald's flunky and then Grindelwald himself. Are they Occulumens? Are they shielding their minds from her? Or perhaps projecting what they'd like her to see? You'd think Queenie would be the one person they couldn't fool. IDK
I suspect she will have a change of heart in the next movie, and I sadly suspect she will sacrifice herself in some way.
Looking forward to the next movie.
So, let's get the nitpicks out of the way first:
1. I really wish that Jude Law more closely sartorially matched the Dumbledore we get in the books. I get that book!Dumbledore is waaaay older than movie!Dumbledore and that people's style changes as they age. Not a lot of 30 year olds walking around in Alfred Dunner pastels or sporting Christmas sweater vests festooned with poinsettia appliques. But I do wish Jude Law had worn a pair of silly socks or a flamboyant tie or something. On the other hand, Jude Law should pretty much always dress as a dapper Edwardian, so I get where the movie was coming from. Everything else about his portrayal of Dumbledore I liked. I felt like he was very meddly and cryptic but also that he genuinely cares about his students, and I swear that his eyes straight up twinkled in one scene.
2. I really wanted to see Grindelwald be more charismatic. He definitely commits a bunch of crimes (and since the murder of a child is among them, we know he's just as evil as the first movie told us); he's also shown to be extremely powerful (he has subverted his guard in the jail and managed to get around all of the prison safety measures). But in order for the story the movie is telling to work, he has to be charismatic and persuasive, and we don't see that at all.
3. I don't quite understand how the Lestrange backstory fits into Grindelwald's story. I think it's interesting. Leta is a very compelling and interesting character; she acts out as a child because she's been through trauma (an unloving father who kidnapped and raped her mother; never knowing her mother; thinking she's responsible for her brother's death). But I don't get how that fits into the big picture of Grindelwald's arc. He and his henchmen plant the family tree for Credence to find, so I guess the Lestrange backstory was just for Credence's benefit? To deny him one more chance at knowing his identity so Grindelwald could swoop in and tell him he's a Dumbledore and have Credence primed to believe it?
4. IDK about Credence being a Dumbledore. The Dumbledore family backstory is already convoluted and tragic enough without a stolen baby. We'll see. I'll have to reserve judgement on that for the next movie.
5. There seems to be a continuity error with Jacob. I think he shows up at the cemetery, gets grabbed, and then he just kinda pops out of nowhere when the wall opens. Was that an error, or are we missing something? Did they do something to him? IDK
Now for the positives.
1. Excellent creatures. I loved the baby nifflers and the kelpie and Chinese dragon.
2. Visually stunning. Incredibly beautiful.
3. Epic costuming--Queenie, Leta, and Tina are exquisitely dressed.
4. Like
author_by_night says in her review post: when we first see Hogwarts and the score starts up, my heart just soared.5. I absolutely loved New and Leta as kids at Hogwarts; their relationship is fantastic. And I adored pining adult Leta and Newt. They are clearly still in love with each other, and that part really of the movie was the most emotionally moving to me. Ate it up with a spoon. Hope the next movie explains why they didn't end up together and why she's with Theseus instead (I suspect it has something to do with her father wanting her to be married to someone in the ministry).
6. Loved Theseus and Newt. They clearly love each other even though they are very different.
7. That boggart scene was beautiful and beautifully frightening. I have always thought that is a terrible, terrible thing to put children through. First of all, it's traumatic to face your deepest fear. Secondly, it exposes to a room of potential bullies the most horrible weapons they could use against their classmates.
8. Loved Tina and her dogged determination to find Credence. I love that she is dressed in badass black like a ninja witch.
9. Loved Tina and Newt. They are so adorably awkward in the same way. I love that she gets his salamander reference instantly.
10. I totally think Leta isn't dead. We don't see her actually disintegrating, so I expect her to appear in the next movie.
And now for the ambivalence.
1. I do not like Queenie joining Grindelwald's ranks. At all. And yet I get what they were going for here.
First, Queenie is an uncontrolled Legilimens. It's unclear whether she could actually control it with the proper training, but she's the sister of an Auror, so I suspect that if something could be done to "treat" the issue, she would. So she's spent her whole life hearing everything everyone has ever thought about her, every unkind thing, every time someone was annoyed with her, etc. She's clearly doing at least some sort of shielding because those shields fail her in France, and she has a moment where she can't handle all the sensory input. Clearly she's been called crazy before, and that's a sore point with her.
Next, she and Jacob are in love but prohibited from being married. She's angry about that, angry enough to put Jacob under a spell to compel him to marry her in France. Tina is off chasing Credence, so she doesn't have the mitigating influence of her sister.
She is a prime candidate to be swept up in the thrall of a persuasive evil Grindelwald (if we actually saw him being so).
I know the whole point of Grindelwald and Voldemort is that they didn't just attract the evil villains cackling maniacally in their dungeons but that they also drew in people who were disaffected and marginalized and angry about all sorts of things. She's supposed to represent that.
I just wonder what happened when she met Grindelwald's flunky and then Grindelwald himself. Are they Occulumens? Are they shielding their minds from her? Or perhaps projecting what they'd like her to see? You'd think Queenie would be the one person they couldn't fool. IDK
I suspect she will have a change of heart in the next movie, and I sadly suspect she will sacrifice herself in some way.
Looking forward to the next movie.
