Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald Film Review

Scattered Criminality

Despite many audiences and critics' qualms over the first Harry Potter spin-off feature being merely a prequel that no one asked for and didn't really add any supplementary contextual value to J.K. Rowling's lauded book & film franchise, what was was pleasing to see of Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them was its inherent ability to digress from what fans and cinema-goers already know and delve deeply into this knowing magical world from a different perspective. As arguable as it didn't uphold a cast of characters that were instantaneously likeable in their own way, as noticeably seen in the fray of past Harry Potter films, and how it didn't have an undergrowth of severity to the story-line in comparison to preceding tales, David Yates' film was a joyous prequel to see since it never got bogged down in needlessly showcasing references that people already know. It told a different and more mature story that was necessarily illuminated by not only the time and setting of 1920's New York, but also embroidered by character in the form of Newt Scamander who shows a clear affinity for peculiar creatures and is inevitably wrapped-up in a serious tangent involving Gellert Grindelwald. The latter involvement subsequently prosper's into this latest story entry, in the form of Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, where the beguiled villain himself plots his grand-goal with Newt and his estrange friends resolving and discovering new and catastrophic mysteries and revelations along the way. Yet, for all that's shown and revealed in Yates' 2nd entry into this franchise, does this film cohesively harmonise each of the meandering sub-plots into one single whole?...

Having recently published his book on magical creatures & beasts, Newt Scamander has become somewhat of a celebrity in the wizarding world. However, with the the threat of Gellert Grindelwald (Jonny Depp) rising, who's attempting in raising pure-blood wizards to rule over non-magical beings, it's up-to the Magizoologist to thwart his dangerous plans. Enlisted by Albus Dumbledore himself however, Newt, along with his estranged friends of Tina (Katherine Waterston), Queenie (Alison Sudol) and Jacob (Dan Fogler), soon discover that there are more severe dangers that lie ahead. With Credence Barebone (Ezra Miller) trying to discover who he really is and new characters of Leta Lestrange (Zoë Kravitz) and Theseus Scamander (Callum Turner) trying to find and stop Grindelwald, lines are drawn as love and loyalty are tested on both sides in an increasingly divided wizarding world...

As one cinema-goer might expect from watching the trailers for this film, or even reading the quick synopsis just above, it's rather fair to say that this second adventure in J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter spin-off franchise inevitably focuses on a much darker and sombre turn than it's preceding tale. Whereas the first Fantastic Beasts adventure balanced its context from Newt's time collecting his magical beasts within the urban-jazzy setting of 1920's New York to sequences of the American Ministry of Magic investigating other strange disturbances in the famed city, The Crimes of Grindelwald majorly emphasises its own time the divergence of a now divided wizarding world which is a story-aspect that bliss to hear, yet executed poorly in terms of its exhibition. As much as it's important for this spin-off film series to divulge into the nooks and crannies of the Harry Potter lore - who Gellert Grindelwald is, what his motivations are and what relationship he had with Albus Dumbledore - it's this very divergence which has inadvertently side-swiped one of the aspects that made the first film so enjoyable - the beasts themselves. While there scenes where we're presented with new creatures that once again wreak havoc in the beautifully designed setting of 1920's Paris this time, there're only seen far and few between in light relief moments which don't significantly add to the predicament of the story, which is a shame. What's always important for a continuation entry of a popular franchise is to always retain the aspects that worked from the get-go and it's apparent from the dismissal of scenes featuring these beasts, that Rowling's franchise has, in some ways, taken a seat backwards rather than forwards. Much of the same can be said of the formalities that make-up of the story and character intricacies that we've never seen before. Yates' continuation lovingly includes specific references to Hogwarts and younger versions of older characters that we've come to know and appreciate - which in ways showcases it to be more or a 'prequel' entry than the previous cinematic outing since there are clear hints of origin and myth. From a spectacular opening - showing Grindelwald's escape from the Ministry of Magic, to the wonderfully exquisite production design, from the timely costumes and the inviting architecture of Paris, The Crimes of Grindelwald has all the ingredients to be a fantasy adventure that put the lesser Harry Potter films to shame. Yet, for the amount of things it exhibits, one of the biggest problems that The Crimes of Grindelwald faces is its uneven narrative structure and how the myriad of varying sub-plots, from Newt and Tina interacting with one another again, to Grindelwald beguiling characters to his cause and delving into the pasts of Dumbledore and Leta Lestrange, becomes rather hampered and bogged down in its own story-telling. Unlike it's past counterparts, in the forms of the previous nine Harry Potter related features, which diligently concentrated on their own respective story's whilst interweaving sub-plots through the running-time, it's odd to fathom how Rowling here adopts a narrative structure which doesn't always have cohesion and rather jaggedly cuts back-and-forth between story-lines that don't always uphold well. As much as it's interesting for the film to delve into Dumbledore's teaching days at Hogwarts, there should have been more emphasis on these specific moments since it makes-up for awkwardly begrudging moments in the form of Queenie inevitably meeting Grindewald or Jacob meeting Nicholas Flamel. It's as if when watching that Rowling her self doesn't no which characters to primarily focus on which results in this fragmented structure. Even when all the sub-arcs converge near towards the end, much of the context feels strangely messy since characters coincidentally show-up for the sake of showing-up; without any explanation. Of course, there are going to be at least three more films in this franchise, but it doesn't help when your second feature of the series doesn't necessarily digress into aspects of Dumbledore and Grindelwald as many would like to see. 

"Magic Blooms...only in rare souls. Still, we must skulk in the shadows. But the old ways serve us no longer"

The silver-lining to all of this then would come in the form of the films production design, which again manages to convey a time-period that you want to experience with your own eyes. Like the last film, it's this ornate and timely punk-filled world which beautifully shines in every frame and naturally expands upon itself when the likes of Newt and his friends go to the French Ministry of Magic or Père Lachaise cemetery to uncover a startling revelation for all wizards alike (although, it's annoying that they didn't fully exploit Paris to its full potential in going to location such Notre-Dame or Sacré-Cœur). Indeed, every character and setting feel distinctive to one another and beautifully shine through every-frame. As the film series goes along it's time period, which will inevitably centre around Dumbledore's ultimate bout between Grindelwald in mid 20th century, I'm curious to know how much the characters costumes and settings will change in tangent with the times since the production design in this film and in the last have done a great job in evoking an engaging era. Nevertheless, if there's one formality to speak of which slightly diminishes the films lack of contextual fluidity, it's the awkward editing placements; how scenes and many action sequences clumsily match-up. As I've already stated, one of the biggest reasons why The Crimes of Grindelwald significantly lacks in comparison to past films of the same ilk is due to it's glaringly uneven narrative structure and this is down to the editing; not just Rowling's role as screenwriter. While it may not seem feasible to some, there are obvious moments in which you can see a simple-cut easily dysfunction a certain scene or sub-plot. A good example of this is a sequence involving Newt and Jacob rescuing Tina from an underground prison which hastily cuts to an exterior scene showing Newt suddenly taming a large magical creature. The build-up from one scene to next isn't always there, especially in crucial moments that aren't properly delved into as they should, which makes for an uneven structure. What this subsequently does is make for all the sub-plots to be fractured and leaving the ultimate synchronisation at the end to be rather messy. Having said that, what the story conjures-up near the end also has my interest peaked at the same time, making for a complicated experience. 

One of the more pleasing things, alongside the lavish production design, that made enjoy the first Fantastic Beasts film as much as I did was the characterisation and how each of the respective performers made their characters likeable and approachable to a certain degree. Comparable to how we see the interaction between Harry, Ron and Hermione in the 'Harry Potter' franchise of films, Rowling managed to manifest a similar construct and dynamic between Newt and his friends of Jacob, Tina and the mind-reading Queenie. While it's arguable that this construct is somewhat scrapped in The Crimes of Grindelwald due to the meandering narrative structure, what's pleasing to see that Rowling has consistently done in all of her stories so far is have characters that are not only distinctive from one another, with each of them respectively having a specific trait from Queenie's mind-reading or Newt's affection for magical creatures, but are also complex in their decision making; rendering them to be accessible to a lot of cinema-goers. One clear example which exceeds this is Newt Scamander who isn't your typical protagonist trying to save the day. As he states at the start of this film, he doesn't like "choosing sides" which is a decision that feels natural considering how much he loves to study and look after magical creatures. He's a soft-spoken wizard that seeks for the more reasonable solution rather than the more power-stricken decision and it's down Eddie Redmayne's performance of said character which gets that across through his unique walk or the shy-way he liaises with other characters. Ultimately, he's a likeable presence on the screen and it's no surprise really that he's become one of my personal favourite characters in the Harry Potter universe due to his decisions and mannerisms alone. Even the budding interaction he has with Tina Goldstein, wonderfully portrayed by Katherine Waterston, feels genuinely necessary and not cringe-worthy unlike other romances in equally bigger franchises. Much of the same can be seen through the relationship of Jacob and Queenie but instead of seeing a blossoming romance, we see discord between the two which has drastic consequences near towards the conclusion. While both of these characters/actors don;t equally have as much as screen time as they should have, both Jude Law and Jonny Depp as Dumbledore and Grindelwald respectively ensnare curious fans with their younger interpretations of fictional figure-heads that also share an interesting relationship as we learn. Understandably, as much as their's an argument to be made on Depp's character to be contextually weak, considering that he doesn't really do anything villainous as the feature title suggests and doesn't have a unique look in comparison to Lord Voldemort, he's an intersting villain non-the-less for his beguiling nature. Like Magneto from the X-Men universe, he solely believe that those with magical power should up-rise against muggles who are ignorant and dismissive of their existence and while it appears that Grindelwald doesn't do much in this film, it's his subtly of persuading others to his cause that makes him alluring. You only have to look at a certain character decision at the end of the film to realise the aforesaid antagonists power, even if it may seem abrupt at first. On the opposite end is a younger and much more spry Dumbledore who dons tweed to his rather twinkling and mischievous persona. While it's disappointing that there wasn't enough scenes with said character, considering how the film opts to focus on meandering sub-plots, Law evokes mysticism around Dumbledore that you're not disappointed with the scenes in which he is involved.  

Whenever a popular film or franchise needlessly or necessarily delves into it's own respective origins, it can't be helped to notice how many of them you expect to be a miss, rather than a hit. While they have plenty of opportunity to expand on an established narrative and shed some light on certain unanswered questions, much of these all knowing tales can sometimes unwind into other aspects of which audiences will be confused or disappointed by. As much as David Yates' second-outing in the Fantastic Beasts spin-off series doesn't necessarily fill that void, in further establishing it's likeable and complex character and imbuing wonder of J.K. Rowling's world through its timely production design, it can't be helped to point-out it's narrative flaws and how jumbled sub-stories clutter the film with needless moments and no cohesion. It's as if a die-hard fan of the Potter universe assembled the contextual pieces rather than Rowling who missed an opportunity in this tale to emphasise greatly on Dumbledore and Grindelwald specifically. With their being three more films to come, I can't hide the fact that I'm still intrigued as to where the series will go next, since revelations dictate unknown lore that no one knows of. However, this now places the third film in a predicament; a problem where it has to absolve the wrongdoings of this feature and greatly use it's narrative to hone-in on the aspects audiences want to understand in depth....

On that note, it's time for me to end this week's Film Review. As always everyone, thank you for reading my latest Film Review of David Yates' Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald and if you happen to have an opinion of the film or on my review, then you're more than welcome to comment down below. For next week, I will either bring you a Film Review of Bohemian Rhapsody or an Anime Review of Attack on Titan's 3rd Season. With that said, thank you once again for reading my latest Blog Post and I hope you're all having a nice weekend! Adieu! 😃☍🎆

★★★ - Alex Rabbitte