Newt is suspended from traveling but gets to go with his brother, Theseus, to find Credence Barebone, who is in France. His American companions, Tina, Queenie, and even no-maj, Jacob, reunite with him. Newt also meets Albus Dumbledore and works together with him. Things intensify from there.
The overall tone was a little too dark and intense for me, especially when Leta had swapped her baby brother, Corvus, with another one (who happened to be Credence), and Corvus died. I found it odd that she didn’t get arrested, even though she was only supposed to be, like, 4 years old.
Speaking of which, the actress who played 4-year-old Leta was the same one who played her as a Hogwarts student. I know some say realism isn’t supposed to be dwelled upon—but that’s about a ten-year difference as in the flashback scene where Newt and Leta were at Hogwarts.
Eddie Redmayne also played the same character as a student, which made me assume Newt was a little older than Leta. Nope—he and Leta were both third-years at Hogwarts simultaneously.
That’s a bit too bizarre, especially since Eddie Redmayne was in his 30s when this was filmed. Yet, the actress who played 14-year-old Moaning Myrtle in the main “Harry Potter” movies was also in her 30s, and early 40s later. And she had to “flirt” with Daniel Radcliffe, who was between 12 and 15 when he had to act with her. Didn’t that make child actors’ parents’ uncomfortable, even though they were just acting?
Like many fans, I noticed some inconsistencies with this movie, such as disapparating onto Hogwarts grounds, which isn’t supposed to be possible. Some people guessed that maybe it used to be allowed and then changed before Harry Potter arrived at Hogwarts. But J.K. Rowling said that it was always there.
Others include the Obliviate spell only erasing bad memories, probably so that audiences could be satisfied to see Jacob reunite with Newt, Tina, and Queenie. Nice try, creators, but the memory-wiping spell erases pretty much all memories, including the good ones, as shown in “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.”
And let’s not forget that Professor McGonagall made a brief appearance in both the current moments of the film (1927) and the past ones (1910’s) as a woman in her late twenties or early thirties. I hear she was there because J.K. Rowling says she isn’t that good at math.
Hey—a lot of people aren’t, including myself. Still, Professor McGonagall shouldn’t have been born for several years, not until 1935.
Unless she was lying about her age this whole time (which is not un-common for older women to do as well as hide their real ages), this was just sloppy, even for someone who isn’t very strong in math. I’m sorry. It’s no wonder some people presumed that maybe that was a different Professor McGonagall, who happened to be similar, but unrelated to the one we know. However, it’s the same one.
While I enjoyed the main “Harry Potter” franchise as well as the first “Fantastic Beasts” film, I’m afraid this didn’t really do much for me. It left me a bit scared—to the point where I wanted to watch something more lighthearted, and I did. I watched a “Mickey Mouse” cartoon.
I rate “Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald” 3 out of 5 stars.