Skip To Content
  • Viral badge

14 Reasons Why "The Crimes Of Grindelwald" Made Us Want To Obliviate Ourselves

Let's just say this installment was less than fantastic.

Warning: this post contains... yup, you guessed it: SPOILERS!

Warner Bros.

I mean, duh.

1. Okay, so FIRST OF ALL, there has never been a single mention of an Aurelius Dumbledore in the books.

Warner Bros.

Throughout the Harry Potter books and movies, as well as in Pottermore, there was never any mention of Aurelius Dumbledore. Which means J.K. Rowling decided to pull a new character out of thin air??

2. And the film is absolutely cluttered with subplots for each character — most of which seemed totally irrelevant?

Warner Bros.

Jacob and Queenie were essential characters for the story in the saga's first movie... but now, their narrative arcs are weak and lack depth. All they do is make an already packed film feel even more cluttered. This also means that everything that happens with their characters makes very, very little sense. Example #1...

3. Literally everything that Queenie does is confusing.

Warner Bros.

She goes from being a lovely, rebellious woman in love, to supporting a murderous, megalomaniac dark wizard in a matter of days. Why?????

4. And her own sister doesn't seem to care that she's losing her mind just a lil?

Warner Bros.

Ok, yes, Tina is very busy trying to figure out what Newt is up to, but... SHOULDN'T SHE HAVE GOTTEN WORRIED WHEN SHE SAW HER SISTER JOIN GRINDELWALD? I'm just saying. This is NOT sister of the year material!!

5. As if that weren't enough, the movie throws in a bunch of new characters who seem important but who aren't ever properly introduced to us.

Warner Bros.

Such as Grimmson, who appears to be one of the main villains during the first half of the movie, but who later vanishes just like that.

6. And don't get me started with the characters who did deserve more room and got pushed to the sidelines instead, like Nagini.

Warner Bros.

She's a very important character in the Harry Potter saga, despite being, well... a snake. This was the opportunity to reveal a lot more about her, but she only got two lines — and her entire character boiled down to comforting Credence.

7. The entire Lestrange drama (which seems straight out of a Jerry Springer episode) ends up being an "actually never mind" kind of moment.

Warner Bros.

They spend the entire movie developing this big family mystery... which culiminates with a revelation that seems like it was pulled straight out of a daytime talk show ("I KILLED HIM!")... but none of that even matters because, well, Credence wasn't a Lestrange, I guess, so nvm??

8. Not to mention that Leta's sacrifice feels completely unnecessary.

Warner Bros.

Yeah sure, it was meant to help save everyone else, that's very noble and all... but Grindelwald's blue fire thing almost killed everyone anyway?? She could have escaped and helped everyone outside.

9. Speaking of having to inject some drama into the story... let's discuss the appearance of ol' Nicolas Flamel!

Warner Bros.

On more than one occasion, the Crimes of Grindelwald plot only seems to get interesting when they throw in references to the Harry Potter saga, even if they feel forced or out of context. Which, tbh, this one does.

10. Even Dumbledore's young self doesn't seem to quite line up with the Dumbledore we know...

I’m mostly interested to know at what point Albus Dumbledore decided smart, grey three-piece suits were out, and embellished, jewel-coloured robes with a matching hat were in #FantasicBeasts

Twitter: @LucyJaneWood

Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of seeing Jude Law in a three-piece suit. But it feels pretty out of character for our kooky, wise headmaster to have been like, oddly hot and put-together even at that age??

11. The existence of **that** blood pact came out of nowhere, and it seemed like an excuse for simplifying the plot.

Warner Bros.

We'd never even heard of a blood pact spell, and pulling it out of nowhere seems to oversimplify the most interesting conflict in this entire saga.

12. Also, wouldn't Grindelwald, in his desire to face Dumbledore, just destroy the blood pact to begin with?

Warner Bros.

Hold on a sec... If he wants to end Dumbledore so much, and he also happens to have the most powerful wand of all, why doesn't he destroy the pact? And how come Dumbledore IS able do so? The way this spell works and its consequences aren't very clear. In the past, when Rowling used to introduce a spell, she would be very clear in regards to the rules about how it worked. Here, not so much.

13. It's disappointing how ambiguous the relationship between Grindelwald and Dumbledore is.

Warner Bros.

J.K. Rowling has long since already stated that Dumbledore is gay, and the movie implies that the affection they had for each other had made them "closer than brothers." This was a great opportunity to start a conversation about the characters' sexualities, but it was left almost annoyingly vague.

14. And finally, this movie might be the second installment of the "Fantastic Beasts" storyline, but it mostly leaves the actual magical animals by the wayside.

Warner Bros.

The most nonsensical part of the movie? The actual "magical beasts" are nothing more than an exciting set piece, and they play no real meaningful role in the plot. It's mostly just one big CGI flex, and nothing more.

In conclusion: The Crimes of Grindelwald was kind of a big, hairy mess, and we're not sry.

Warner Bros.

Better luck next time, Potter?

This post was translated from Spanish.