FILM REVIEW – Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald
On its own terms, 2016’s Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them was a positive entry aimed at strengthening out the greater Harry Potter universe.
This film took Eddie Redmayne’s Newt Scamander on an adventure set sometime around 60-70 years before Philosopher’s Stone in 1920s New York.
Along the way, it strengthened out the American wizard community, bought in a wide assortment of magical creatures, and hints at the villainous Grindelwald, who had been hinted at in the original book series.
If it was self-contained, it would have been charming enough. But as is the way with the grand entertainment franchises of our time – think Lucas and his CGI-to-the-extreme Star Wars prequels – that was probably not going to be enough.
Initially, Fantastic Beasts was to compose the opening entry in a trilogy. More recently, J.K. Rowling has said this full production will eventually make for a five film extravaganza.
A lot of the “what does the future hold?” feels like it therefore weighs heavily. A lot of Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald therefore feels like a placeholder. Which is not to say stuff doesn’t happen – the ending in particular goes big.
But where this falls down is that it fails to flourish as a film in its own individual right. When the third part is released in 2020, it may well be the case that what is laid on here makes a bit more sense. As it is, however, a lot of it feels cluttered.
Set a few months down the line from the original, the film begins with a sweeping manoeuvre where Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) breaks free of a convoy attempting to transport him from New York to London, and flees to hide in Paris.
Soon following him to the French capital in a covert manner is Scamander (Redmayne). Initially, the exposition reveals he was given a ban from leaving Britain after the events of the first movie, and despite getting a deal from the Ministry of Magic to join the search for Grindelwald, but he says he doesn’t want to be drawn into conflict and elects to retire to his flat with his creatures.
But an encounter with Dumbledore (Jude Law), along with the first film’s duo of Queenie (Alison Sudol) and Jacob (Dan Fogler), as well as the hope of rekindling a romance with Tina (Katherine Waterston) sees Newt sneak off to France, where the majority of the film takes place and brings them into the orbit of the bad guys, who are effectively the historical fore-runner of the Death Eaters and a Mr Tom Riddle.
In terms of building out the plot established by the first movie, it does well enough. There are plenty of interesting moments, and a lot of it still maintains the feel of consistency with the remainder of the world.
Indeed, part of the praise to be associated with the Harry Potter series and the spin-off has always been the sense of building a fully functional world, and it does well to continue in the fine tradition.
However, it is worth noting that while it does well to build stuff, a fair amount there is a fair wedge of retroactive continuity contradicting stuff, which some fans may find off-putting. On top of this, there is a fair criticism this world-building that looks good on the page sometimes comes to the detriment of getting the film places.
As a special effects extravaganza, it delivers. The Fantastic Beasts are disappointingly dialled back, but they do get their moments to shine throughout, while the film does have the pathos of a big blue fire spectacular at the end.
In terms of performance, there is also some stand out work. As the titular villain, Depp does well to give Grindelwald suitable menace as the film’s bad guy. His associates are as well, with a fair wedge of the drama given over to fleshing out their world and its associated sinister ethos.
While he’s not really in it all that much, Jude Law’s Dumbledore makes for a compelling presence. For the Hogwarts end of the production, Zoe Kravitz makes a fine opening run as Leta Lestrange and gets to show a wide range of talents.
Its the gang from the first film, by contrast, whose parts have a more uneven run. Sudol’s Queenie gets a strangely unfulfilling emotional pivot, while in the grand scheme of things, both Waterston and Fogler don’t get as much to do as they possibly could.
Redmayne is a fairly peculiar presence. He does a good performance that is in the vein of what came before, but it does feel at times that he is shoe-horned into a greater plot that the character itself really doesn’t want to be involved in, or at least involved in by choice.
It may well be this draws a greater historical allegory, as the film series does by implication of the 1920s setting and a later reference to the 1940s, but it often feels like this film in particular is trying to work out what exactly it is to do with the character without conviction.
There are others, however, whose great issue is the ending. What to make of it is a bit of a strange one, given that the resolution is to be withheld until the next instalment in two years or so, and the further use of tinkering with the established Harry Potter world.
Certainly, one has to wonder what pivot they’re going to need to use in order to explain this entire saga, or indeed if that follow-up film is going to stick the landing.
It all adds up to a puzzling film. But in truth, its a film that has the odd effect of feeling like it could be more than it is. With a fine cast list, the bankable franchise, great production values and enough spectacle, there are moments in the Fantastic Beasts sequel that work very well. But equally, there is too much that doesn’t feel like it is able to fulfil the expectations foisted upon it.
It is tempted to look at it as part of a picture that is still being painted, but in all truth, there’s little indication as to what the end result be, and equally, little sense if seeing the mechanics of a 5-film franchise being established will lead to a truly whole experience.
3/5