JK Rowling's Wizarding World saga continues with Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, the sequel to 2016's Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them which was in turn spawned from the Harry Potter franchise five years after its conclusion. As recognisable names from the mythology return with new faces (to account for its 1920s setting), is this new adventure as fantastic as the title suggests, or is this spell absent of the magic it needs to succeed?
In 1927, powerful dark wizard Gellert Grindelwald escapes a high-security prison and restarts his promotion of wizarding superiority across the globe through mass violence, terror and hysteria. Albus Dumbledore, aware of Grindelwald's power but restricted by their past relations, summons Newt Scamander to find Credence, who has resurfaced in Paris and is believed to be the last survivor of a long pure-blood line of wizards. David Yates returns to the franchise for the sixth time as director, with an ensemble cast in tow featuring Eddie Redmayne, Katherine Waterston, Dan Fogler, Alison Sudol, Zoë Kravitz and Ezra Miller alongside new-starters Callum Turner, Claudia Kim, Jude Law and Johnny Depp.
I firmly believe that it is always worth knowing where a reviewer stands with a film series when reviewing a new instalment, particularly one with as rich a history as the Wizarding World's. While my knowledge of the source novels is limited at best, I regard Harry Potter as one of the strongest (and certainly most consistent0 franchises of modern cinema and undoubtedly one of the superlative Young Adult series of recent times, behind only The Hunger Games. I enjoyed Fantastic Beasts greatly upon its release, although found my enthusiasm wain on a rewatch shortly before Grindelwald's release. Fantastic Beasts is a series I want to succeed while fully acknowledging that it probably won't hit the heights of its sister roots. How disappointing this sequel is, then.
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is essentially a 134-minute trailer for the third instalment in this series - but for those not already invested in seeing it through, it'll be an earlier-than-anticipated curtain call for passing audiences. It is both overstuffed and hollow, frenzied yet tedious at times, and while you may be able to glean surface-level thrills and entertainment, it is easily the weakest link in this extended universe to date. It's deeply, deeply frustrating.
The Crimes of Grindelwald's biggest problem is that although JK Rowling is a terrific author, she's not a strong screenwriter; she tries to cram into this film the same volume of plot and number of characters that she would into a full-length novel, but without the time or resources to explore them efficiently. As such, her writing lacks both depth and quality and she struggles to deliver a cohesive story worth telling. These problems were evident in the first Beasts' film but in being the opening chapter, it primarily concerned itself with world-building, where she typically excels. Now, as the narrative is coming into focus, those flaws are more difficult to cover up. It's clear that the Harry Potter films benefited from being adapted by a third-party, where someone could pick and choose what made the transitions from page to screen; someone needed to cast an eye over her writing before the script made it to production, because this feels like an unrefined first draft in need of tightening.
Crimes' scattershot narrative spends more time setting the table for future chapters and therefore neglecting the abundance of characters both returning and newly-introduced, barely developing them over this two-hour-plus affair. When emotional endings need to hit, they struggle; when the plot revolves around one character that we barely spend 20 minutes with, the desired results aren't felt as strongly. It's damn-near tricky to follow at times, with half-baked ideas piling on top of each other and making it increasingly difficult to wade through, most especially when we reach the contrived (but entertaining) finale. Movies with complex plots work when they are built on sturdy foundations; with such flimsy materials though, it collapses as this does.
Thankfully, despite some disappointingly bland characters, the performances are as strong as they could be. Jude Law and (off-set controversies notwithstanding) Johnny Depp give terrific performances as young Dumbledore and the titular villain, respectively, with the promise of an interesting dynamic to explore moving forward. Law is particularly underused but fills Michael Gambon's shoes superbly. Eddie Redmayne is as charming as ever, even as he gets shafted in his own series; it's worth noting that Joshua Shea, who plays a younger iteration of the character, marvellously captures Newt's mannerism with nuance.
All returning members - Waterston, Fogler, Sudol, Kravitz and Miller - do a fine job with the material they are given, which, frankly, isn't a lot to sink their teeth into. Fogler and Sudol muster a few hearty laughs and, despite feeling incredibly rushed, Kravitz sells the emotion effectively enough with her storyline. Whether it needed to come so soon into the five-film franchise is another matter entirely but it is a relief that one element is out of the way henceforth.
Thankfully, despite some disappointingly bland characters, the performances are as strong as they could be. Jude Law and (off-set controversies notwithstanding) Johnny Depp give terrific performances as young Dumbledore and the titular villain, respectively, with the promise of an interesting dynamic to explore moving forward. Law is particularly underused but fills Michael Gambon's shoes superbly. Eddie Redmayne is as charming as ever, even as he gets shafted in his own series; it's worth noting that Joshua Shea, who plays a younger iteration of the character, marvellously captures Newt's mannerism with nuance.
All returning members - Waterston, Fogler, Sudol, Kravitz and Miller - do a fine job with the material they are given, which, frankly, isn't a lot to sink their teeth into. Fogler and Sudol muster a few hearty laughs and, despite feeling incredibly rushed, Kravitz sells the emotion effectively enough with her storyline. Whether it needed to come so soon into the five-film franchise is another matter entirely but it is a relief that one element is out of the way henceforth.
An attached $200 million production budget certainly means that the film looks the part. With some stellar special effects, showcased especially well in the stuffy finale, it is matched by some strong production and costume design. Fantastic Beasts won the Academy Award for the Costume Design two years ago and while unlikely to repeat that achievement here, you cannot argue that the sets don't look splendid on screen. James Newton Howard's score is tremendous, honouring musical cues from the Harry Potter series while leaving an impression of its own, particularly in the more tender moments. It's stirring and potent, brilliantly used in the movie.
David Yates is a competent director but he's not doing much to set these films apart anymore. Some may argue that that is a good thing - a consistent tone, some may say, that reverberates throughout the wider franchise - but it means that the film lacks an identity of its own. A purposely muted colour palette only really springs to life in a Circus-set sequence and in the VFX-aided finale, otherwise close to looking drab and dreary. Hindered by choppy editing from Mark Day who faces the unenviable task of streamlining this dense, unfocused jumble, the sporadic editing only reinforces how messy this sequel really is.
David Yates is a competent director but he's not doing much to set these films apart anymore. Some may argue that that is a good thing - a consistent tone, some may say, that reverberates throughout the wider franchise - but it means that the film lacks an identity of its own. A purposely muted colour palette only really springs to life in a Circus-set sequence and in the VFX-aided finale, otherwise close to looking drab and dreary. Hindered by choppy editing from Mark Day who faces the unenviable task of streamlining this dense, unfocused jumble, the sporadic editing only reinforces how messy this sequel really is.
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is a cluttered yet hollow spectacle which, despite the occasional flashes of genius and humour, is an otherwise wholly disappointing experience; this is as close to 'bad' as the Wizarding World has come. It burdens itself with plot intent on setting up future chapters of this series, teasing good things moving forward at the expense of the 'now'. It relies on nostalgia but fails to capture any of magic. Is there a spell to go back a fix a film?
Summary: Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald lacks the storytelling magic crucial to the Wizarding World's success, with this disappointing sequel overcluttered with too many plot strands more concerned with setting up the franchise's future than developing interesting characters or a cohesive narrative in the present.
★★★★★☆☆☆☆☆
(5/10)
Summary: Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald lacks the storytelling magic crucial to the Wizarding World's success, with this disappointing sequel overcluttered with too many plot strands more concerned with setting up the franchise's future than developing interesting characters or a cohesive narrative in the present.