Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore

The magical world continues to negotiate a menacing combative destructive threat, as Gellert Grindelwald (Mads Mikkelsen) and his fascist minions seek the subjugation of muggles worldwide.

It was thought their bellicose movement would disappear if generally disregarded, but seditious sympathy at the highest levels mournfully led to political profligacy.

Dumbledore (Jude Law) stands against them but can't deliberately enter the fray, extremely powerful amorous magic heartbreakingly preventing him from taking part.

But he assembles a resolute team who synergistically subverts Gellert's monstrous flux, not with enough prowess to halt his ambition, but still with enough daring to make things interesting.

A magical beast takes the ceremonious stage as the magical elite gather in mystical Bhutan, a creature capable of discerning spiritual integrity, a virtuous quality sought by the magical world.

Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) was able to locate a Qilin mother just as she was about to give birth, but Grindelwald's devout disruptive subjects suddenly emerged and captured the youngling. 

Fortunately, unbeknownst to Grindelwald, the mother gave birth to twins.

While Grindelwald's magic somnambulizes one.

The other awaits felicitous fortunes.

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore makes bold strides in the fantasy realm, with Dumbledore's sexuality directly depicted, a groundbreaking step much like Marvel's Black Panther.

His tragic love maddeningly enduring frenetic devastating bland absolutism, as Grindelwald haunting proclaims, "but who will love you Dumbledore?", before retreating back to his despotic hideaway.

Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler) is also back at it with as much audacious reckoning as ever, somewhat hesitant and far out of his comfort zone, but still deftly clad in honourable bearing.

Not as many magical creatures to be found within this instalment, but perhaps a Fantastic Beasts series should be considered, with a dozen or so episodes that feature Newt searching the world for magical beasts like David Attenborough (something calm)?

I have to admit, as a personal addendum, when I'm writing my blogs I truly don't doubt myself, I often like many of the sentences or stanzas I create, and know that if I didn't have to work, they'd be even better.

But the real world is tough to negotiate and I keep expecting to find friends where I only meet adversaries. 

I suppose I'm supposed to get used to it.

But I just simply can't.

It's not a world worth living in. 

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald

You hear it often enough, or perhaps read it would be more precise, "no one is bigger than the party," no single woman or man is bigger than the political entity to which they belong, present predicaments, as interminable as they seem, tax ephemeral in relation to its longevity, whose preservation remains crisp and paramount, whose agitations are as speculative as they seem foregone.

It's not that the speculations aren't sound or qualified by alluring probabilities, but multidimensional environments, those multifaceted enough to withstand authoritarian attempts to corral them, constantly change, thereby introducing unforeseen characteristics which can modify projected estimates and tarnish reasonable assumptions, some of them as wicked as Rowling's Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) or as progressive as Bernie Sanders, the point being that unless your jurisdiction lacks variety, your best laid plans may resoundingly fluctuate.

If you can't manage the fluctuation.

Politics isn't an individual branch of Esso or a fast food chain, although I wish it was much more boring again after seeing what it's wildly become.

Grindelwald isn't like most populists.

He's respectful and sympathetic and calm and rational, at least when he first meets someone and goes out of his way to woo them.

He's like the populist who catches more flies with honey, likely because he's grown tired of hiring new staff and training people who may quit anyway.

His song's sweet and humble and unassuming and non-confrontational, and it appeals to many of the upset or lost or downtrodden wizards and witches he meets behind the scenes.

As the first Fantastic Beasts film and the Harry Potter novels point out, he's clearly deluded himself into thinking bureaucratic dysfunction should by divinely remedied, and his remarkable power should be the agent which foments healing, the storm he unleashes at the end of Crimes telling another story, although Rowling doesn't shy away from bluntly critiquing stubborn decisions made by ministries emboldened by systemic pride.

Thus, the derelict and the disaffected find the lure of the populists enticing inasmuch as they promise order and utility for those have been objectively cast aside, an order that would be impossible to control even loosely without an efficient bureaucracy, the absence of which would likely cause their followers to dreamily recall bygone days of ill-temperament.

In the aftermath.

You can slowly take down a powerful establishment by gradually downsizing it for 20 years or so, but if you cut it all at once and destroy its infrastructure, the infrastructure your followers rely on to feed themselves and find shelter, their euphoria will quickly turn to disillusion when they realize there's nothing good left to eat.

Which they can afford.

Having a credit card bill that's hard to pay off is different from not being able to buy something.

The Crimes of Grindelwald paints a grim portrait upon which misfits are canvassed.

Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne), Tina Goldstein (Katherine Waterston), Queenie Goldstein (Alison Sudol), and Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler) persist interdimensionally within, as mad ambition contends with institutional privilege, and distraught lovers merge hopes and regrets.

I was sad when I realized "the greater good" was a double entendre, i.e., you can be altruistic like Spock at the end of Star Trek II, at all times really, which I initially thought was its sole meaning, or you can pursue good for the greater, or transfer all power and privilege to an unaccountable few.

The ministry may be somewhat obtuse but they maintain a peaceful mildly prosperous status quo.

And you can disagree with them.

It's quite strange, this disagreement that's supposedly so highly valued.

It's like if you disagree with the government you're delegitimized even if it simultaneously seeks profound criticisms.

The key is to not try to make sense of it, or at least not to think you've made sense of it, even if you've written or are writing a book that claims to have made sense of it, because it will never ever make much sense, at least for a very long time.

Keeps things interesting though.

Keeps things real.

Bewildering.

Mysterious.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

Seemingly eccentric fey dissimulated nuances underscore the symphonically seminal seductive Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne), his offbeat orchestrations xylophonically zephyring crazed ritzy zigzags, since, you see, he's aware, he's aware, he's aware of woebegone wizarding wilt as stern and dismissive as ridden-stricked guilt, stilted passionless unyielding observant trusts, where difference remains shunned, locked-up in cuffs, hufflepuffed heart a beating in menagerie, secreting repleting so dissidently, to see attitudes change having decoded blunders, a transmuted sideline's reformed as a wonder!

In thunderous.

Zoology.

I doubt Queen Hatshepsut encountered such disdain.

And don't really know if he hopes to start a zoo. Or, a, magizoo.

Sigh.

Nonetheless, globe trotting in search of versed beasties, Scamander lands in New York heading west.

But his briefcase disappears, is accidentally switched with another, some of its residents escaping into feisty urban playgrounds.

He's also arrested by a disgraced auror (Katherine Waterston as Tina) with whom he eventually strikes up a friendship along with her nurturing sister Queenie (Alison Sudol) and a curious flabbergasted muggle (Dan Fogler as Kowalski).

Before he can stun the wizarding world with his dashing discoveries however, he must first find his tacit treasures and prevent a newfound obscurus (Ezra Miller as Credence Barebone)(a destructive force created when a magical child's gifts are violently suppressed) from joining forces with a wicked exclamation (Colin Farrell as Graves).

All the while NewYork's magical community manoeuvres to hide their existence from suspecting No-Mages (American muggles), who are afraid of their tremendous gifts, and hope to see them enervatingly exposed.

A bit of a pickle.

Spiked X-Men style.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them impresses as it expands Harry Potter lore.

Demonstrating that Rowling and Yates can keep delivering fresh thoughtful and entertaining narratives which provide hungry fans with fertile feasts even if they don't involve Harry Potter, it enticingly develops new characters with innocent depth and capably composes multilevelled meritorious measures (ethics, politics, the individual, the general, the new, the newt . . .).

Apart from the ruminations regarding war between muggles and magicians.

That is way way X-Men and seemed somewhat too grandiose, too tacked-on for a story about Newt Scamander.

These are epic times!

And the collective mindwash is so Jupiter Ascending.

Eddie Redmayne may currently be my favourite actor, his commanding poise and dignity subtly electrifying animated eccentricities.

Undeniably.

Note: I would have added at least 10 minutes to the exploration of Scamander's domain and an additional cheesy scene near the end where he romantically shows Tina his life's work, possibly with Queenie and Kowalski courting within as well.

Probably being saved for a sequel.

I wanted more fantastic beasts, less armageddon!

Can someone cast the independent Newt Scamander American Honeyesque spell?

Quickly, before there are 6 more big budget end-of-the-world blowouts!

Is working at a University really that tumultuous?

For heaven's sake!