Review: Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore
Another return to Potterville.

There aren't a lot of surprises in Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore. Even the long-awaited acknowledgement that Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law), the future Hogwarts headmaster, once had a gay schoolboy affair with future fascist Gellert Grindelwald (Mads Mikkelsen now stepping in for the departed Johnny Depp) is hardly unexpected. Potterworld creator J.K. Rowling already gay-conned Dumbledore for an approving book-tour audience back in 2007. ("I would have told you earlier if I knew it would make you so happy," she said.)
So the gay thing isn't much of a secret (although it will be in China, where the government demanded and received cuts of that plot point). What this third Fantastic Beasts movie does have, once again, is an overabundance of both characters and plot. Loyal fans will already be familiar with Dumbledore and Newt Scamander—the magical-creatures keeper played by Eddie Redmayne—and maybe Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler), the lovable Muggle baker who has blundered into Rowling's wild world of wizards and witches. But how many casual viewers, four years after the last Fantastic Beasts film, will clearly remember Jacob's love jones for half-blood sorceress Queenie Goldstein (Alison Sudol); or Queenie's sister Tina (Katherine Waterston), for whom Newt pines; or maybe the meaning of the term Obscurus (think Credence Barebone—played by Ezra Miller again, the darkly troubled young wizard who is actually, as we learn here, an unloved member of a prominent magical family).
Just the prospect of chasing around after all these characters is taxing in advance, especially since so many of them are scurrying very far afield, through the magical precincts of Paris, Berlin, New York, and—what the hey—Bhutan. And what are they scurrying after? Well, Albus wants them to lay hands on Grindelwald, who's plotting to steal an upcoming election to pick a new supreme wizard and then to go all Nazi (the year is 1927) and impose his will on both the magical and the Muggle worlds. Albus would take on this mission himself, but he and Grindelwald set up a blood pact in their youth that prevents them from ever fighting each other. So Albus dispatches Newt and his brother, Ministry of Magic operative Theseus (Callum Turner, Emma); the wizard Yusuf Kama (William Nadylam), who's been embedded in Grindelwald's dastardly circle; the baker Kowalski; and the elegant professor and witch Lally Hicks (Jessica Williams, bringing a lively jolt of sass to the proceedings) to bring the Grindelwald problem to an end. That's basically it, plot-wise.
What really distinguishes the film is the new heights of truly excellent CGI that it scales, with artistry so complex and seamlessly rendered that you can't help but be put in mind of the long-gone time when computer imagery really did seem to be a species of magic. There are callbacks to the old Harry Potter films (a sky-high shot of a locomotive pulling a train through snowy countryside, a majestic view of Hogwarts on its craggy cliff) and of course some fantastic beasts, too, like the tiny Qilin, a creature capable of peering into the future and into a person's soul as well.
It's the action scenes, though, that really dazzle—the chases through highly complex environments, often through swarms of swirling detritus, are marvels of painstaking digital animation, as are many passing effects, like the brief reflection of a character's face in a small pool of blood.
Then there are Colleen Atwood's knockout costumes—miracles of high-end drape and texture that are a wonder from beginning to end of the picture.
But who really needs this movie? That's a question that's been harped on ever since the Beasts franchise was willed into being by Rowling six years ago, and this film raises it again. Since Warner Bros. took in endless stacks of money over the course of the 10 years it took to produce the eight Harry Potter films, there was zero chance the studio would turn away the author of the books on which they were based when she wished to keep her Hollywood adventure going. Rowling scripted the first two Fantastic Beasts films herself, and when they were found by some critics to be wanting, Potter vet Steve Kloves was brought in to punch up the writing. Unfortunately, the result has continued to be problematic. The story—which is projected to produce two more installments—still feels like a faint echo of the Potter series, with characters that are considerably less charming and a narrative that's faint of heart and not terribly interesting. And Secrets, marking the midway point of the series, naturally has no conclusion, either. Another letdown.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The problem, of course is that what fans want is a return to the Potterverse--emphasis on 'Potter'.
Written by Rowling.
But she is persona non grata these days, hated by those who identify almost as closely with her story as they do to their own gender mania.
These side tales do no good if the main story is over. Especially one that exists solely to cement her previous pandering to the people loathing her right now.
No amount of gay-conning will forgive Rowlings in the eyes of the Identitarian Left (which is pretty much all of her fans). This is what Rowlings said that got her into trouble:
"If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth."
And
"I respect every trans person’s right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them. I’d march with you if you were discriminated against on the basis of being trans. At the same time, my life has been shaped by being female. I do not believe it’s hateful to say so."
These aren't the words of someone who hates trans. These are the words of someone who recognizes that sex and gender are two separate things. Growing up female is different than growing up male and then decided to be female. This shouldn't be political. Both sides are wrong on this, and common sense has become the common enemy of both. Gender is NOT an ephemeral choice, and sex still matters. Gee.
Both sides are wrong on this
To be sure, Robbie, to be sure.
JK Rowling seems to have her head on reasonably straight, but the wokists have taken over Hollywood so much that I look askance at everything coming out of there, and when you add in how much they despise JK for daring to not march in lockstep .... well, sorry JK, there's nothing here for me that's worth the near-certain risk of having it ruined by wokeness.
So the gay thing isn't much of a secret (although it will be in China, where the government demanded and received cuts of that plot point).
Which means, just like in Disney's Jungle Cruise, it's useless pandering. If you can cut it out and no one would notice, it belongs on the cutting room floor. Contrast this to the original Star Wars where every scene moves the plot along and is necessary to the overall story
I thought '"I would have told you earlier if I knew it would make you so happy," she said.' itself was exceptionally blatant pandering.
At the time she couldn't have known the pandering would be useless. I mean, if she'd been paying attention she should have at least suspected it, but she couldn't have known. The left might not have taken that next step, it was in character but not guaranteed.
Read all the HP books as they came out, and there is, as I recall, not the tiniest bit of foreshadowing concerning this. So, while as a fictional character Dumbledore had no actual sexual orientation for anybody to lie about, it sure does feel like something she made up after the fact.
Whatever. The original books were pretty good, the movies, too, and I can just ignore all the new, woke stuff until she goes back and adds the foreshadowing in a vain effort to win her way back into the fold.
Scripts by the cookie cutter number: the gay, the black…
One problem that some golfers, often older, will have when it comes to Rangefinders is that their hands are too shaky to hold the rangefinder on the target and get an accurate distance to the flag, hazard or spot on the fairway they want to measure the distance.
I guess Hollywood is now OK with "Don't Say Gay" things.
JK Rowling has been trying way too hard after her harry potter franchise ended. She expected that some of the harry potter success would rub off on the fantastic beasts series but it didn't happen.