 |
| photo courtesy of inverse.com |
J.K. Rowling’s Wizarding World returns to the big
screen with Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes
of Grindelwald, the sequel to 2016’s Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. The
Crimes of Grindelwald picks up shortly after the events of the first film,
following Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) on a new mission from Dumbledore
(Jude Law): to locate and save the immensely powerful wizard Credence (Ezra
Miller). Unfortunately for Newt, he’s not the only wizard in pursuit—the notorious
dark wizard Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) also has his sights on Credence.
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, the first movie in this Harry Potter spin-off series, is really two movies squeezed into
one. The first half is a whimsical, delightful caper starring Newt, his oddball
friends, and the titular fantastic beasts, while the second tells a much more
ominous story about Harry Potter
notables Dumbledore, Grindelwald, and the new character Credence. In The Crimes of Grindelwald, however, the
filmmakers largely dispense with the pretense that this has anything to do with
Newt and his beasts, instead diving headfirst into a burgeoning wizarding war.
 |
| photo courtesy of youtube.com |
The choice proves to be
a regrettable one, because The Crimes of
Grindelwald is easily the worst movie from the Harry Potter-verse. Labyrinthine and soulless, it reads like a poor
fan-fiction sequel, complete with dead-end subplots and ill-advised narrative
twists.
The movie’s at its best
when it centers—in bits and pieces—on Newt, his creatures, and the relationship
between his friends Queenie and Jacob. The
Crimes of Grindelwald can be light-footed, funny, and touching in those
scenes; they even capture a bit of the adventurousness of the original Harry Potter movies. But for the
majority of the runtime, the movie relegates Newt and the gang to backseat
roles. Truth be told, Newt has very little to do with the plot of Grindelwald, so he’s often merely
present while other characters take the initiative.
 |
| photo courtesy of ew.com |
In fairness to Newt, he’s
not the only part of The Crimes of
Grindelwald that’s irrelevant. The plot winds around, developing too many narrative
threads at once, taking detours and teasing mysteries that don’t ultimately have
any bearing on the characters. A filmmaker could easily take the segments of Grindelwald that actually pertain to the film’s plot and fit them into fifteen
minutes—maybe an opening for a better movie, one that’s not just franchise
filler.
Eddie Redmayne, Alison
Sudol, and Dan Fogel each give characteristically charming performances as
Newt, Queenie, and Jacob, respectively. As in the previous movie, Katherine
Waterston’s Tina Goldstein is too underwritten to make much of an impression.
When it comes to the big names, Jude Law makes a convincing young Dumbledore,
but Johnny Depp isn’t right for the role of Grindelwald (even disregarding the
casting scandal that surrounds his performance). Skilled though he may be, he’s
far too recognizable and eccentric to make the character feel fresh or
dangerous. Claudia Kim’s Nagini, also the subject of a casting scandal, appears
in the film so infrequently that her role seems superfluous.
 |
| photo courtesy of rogerebert.com |
Its flaws aside, Harry Potter loyalists will likely want
to see Grindelwald, if for no other
reason than to check out the developments to the overarching story. They’ll
also appreciate a brief look at Hogwarts castle, some flashes of levity when Newt
introduces new creatures, and several promising new characters (underdeveloped
this time around).
But even Harry Potter fans should recognize that The Crimes of Grindelwald represents a
much lesser effort from Rowling and company. Compared to the other installments
of the series, which are animated by extraordinary energy, empathy, and imagination,
Grindelwald seems listless, lifeless.
It doesn’t have anything insightful to say about its characters, and it
certainly doesn’t develop them. As a result, there are remarkably few moments
in Grindelwald that carry any
emotional weight… and they’re sandwiched in between mindless, unmotivated action
sequences.
BEWARE: HERE THERE BE SPOILERS
 |
| photo courtesy of nerdist.com |
Two aspects of The Crimes of Grindelwald merit a
spoiler-friendly discussion. The first is positive: Queenie’s decision to join
Grindelwald. It’s the only piece of the film that’s surprising, the only piece
that’s really moving in any way, the only piece that develops the series’
central characters. One gets the sense that if the movie could spend more time investing
in her character, it might be convincing, too.
The second, Grindelwald’s last-minute revelation
that Credence is actually Aurelius Dumbledore, unknown brother to Albus,
represents a major narrative stumble. Rowling is giving in to the worst of
prequel impulses—the idea that a character needs to be related to someone or
something we already know to be worth our attention. In reality, the opposite
is true: the story becomes far more interesting if Credence is his own person,
developed to be a compelling character in his own right. It’s poor
storytelling, it’s troublesome for continuity, and it feels like a last-ditch
Hail Mary to save a collapsing franchise.
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is rated PG-13.
TRAILER
Watch the trailer here.
 |
| photo courtesy of teaser-trailer.com |
No comments:
Post a Comment