Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore

By Jonah Naplan

April 15, 2022

I can already tell how controversial “Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore” will be, and not just because of Ezra Miller’s arrest and Johnny Depp’s allegations. It’s a film with tones so different than those present in the previous Newt Scamander adventures, that it’s often surprising in its ideals. I enjoyed the movie because of its unique livelihood, but not everyone will. My own brother, for one, hated it, thinking it was even worse than the former, “Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald.” After leaving the theater, my brother described it as a film that could have easily been condensed into a single first act. He complained about the bad writing, the slow pace, and how, apparently, not a single action scene was exciting.

However, I’m not totally surprised that my brother and I had differing opinions. “The Secrets of Dumbledore,” is in fact, a slow movie, and I can’t blame him for not liking that. For a film that promises big, flashy, exciting action, it’s not unreasonable to be disappointed when the credits begin to roll on a film that focuses more on the strength of relationships than anything else. Regardless of what the heads of marketing over at Warner Bros. may have proposed, “The Secrets of Dumbledore” tends to veer more towards the frenemy relationship between Albus Dumbledore and Gellert Grindelwald, than any “fantastic beast” the title may suggest. This makes for a movie, unlike anything else in the Harry Potter universe, and I would say that, for the most part, it’s successful in its own right. I notice that as I start to turn to my teenage years, I like slower films more than I used to. Granted, that doesn’t mean this new Wizarding World iteration is an immaculate movie, because it’s not. But it is a perfectly watchable piece of entertainment to pass the time on a Saturday afternoon. It expands the Wizarding World in ways we haven’t yet seen done before, while still having its own flaws when looking at the bigger picture.

“The Secrets of Dumbledore” is certainly better than “The Crimes of Grindelwald,” in that it fixes many of the mistakes generated by that film. “Crimes” was unfocused, and didn’t know what it wanted to be. Sometimes it was about Newt, sometimes it was about Grindelwald, and sometimes it was about Credence. This film is about none of the above, presenting a narrative with more direct focus towards two characters with surprising depth. In this film, the friendship between Grindelwald and Dumbledore feels genuine. Much of this is probably due to the good performances by Jude Law and Mads Mikkelsen, the latter of which is a significant improvement over Johnny Depp.

Mikkelsen plays Grindelwald as if he were a real, decent man. He feels human, like his true evil lies within. Depp, on the other hand, played Grindelwald with a heavy over-reliance on white makeup, crazy hair, and a classic “villainy” accent. Depp’s Grindelwald seemed to be more of a mustache-twirling villain, whereas Mikkelsen’s is a human troubled by the past. Now I ask you this, which sounds more profound?

“The Secrets of Dumbledore” is, in many ways, a film revolving around politics. It does a nice job of explaining the economics of the Wizarding World, and the entire movie revolves around an election. However, this is also where the film loses its footing and falls short of producing consistently entertaining scenes. In a key moment leading up to the climax of this “election” the action should be exciting, but isn’t. There’s a scene that takes place in a village/marketplace with wand dueling galore, and it’s just not visually interesting. For so much of the movie, “The Secrets of Dumbledore” is slow-paced, but it does go a bit overboard on occasion, stretching out a runtime that flies cleanly over two hours. And it doesn’t need to.

Like my brother said, the movie could have been squished into a single act. It really didn’t need to go on as long as it did. But I do admire the risks the film takes in many instances. Credence is not the center of the movie. Most of the time he’s seen lurking in the corner with his long hair, given nothing better to do than sulk. I’ve never understood the hype surrounding the character of Credence, so putting consistency out of the question, I suppose I like that he wasn’t included as much in this third film.

Sparks fly, bonds are broken, and characters go in different directions than they normally would. I’m not crazy about a few of the decisions made, so I reckon this film is a “mixed bag,” but the Wizarding World still doesn’t fail to be exhilarating to return to.