Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) - Review

At the very beginning of Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, the new logo for JK Rowling's Wizarding World appears - a reminder (or perhaps threat) of the fact that the Harry Potter series no longer consists of just Harry's story, but now that of a variety of other characters. A spin-off series was inevitable, but Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them was a lovely little film in itself: a quirky little adventure film with likable characters, jokes and monsters. It may not have been up there with the likes of the Harry Potter series, but it was never going to be. It didn't feel like an awkward franchise-starter, first-and-foremost, with references to Grindelwald and Dumbledore kept somewhat at arm's length. Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, however, very clearly establishes itself as a franchise film, the follow-up to the previous Fantastic Beasts entry and a prequel to the Harry Potter series, and ultimately falls apart because of it.

No longer is JK Rowling interested in fun adventure stories with magical creatures, but instead forces buried secrets, prophecies, heritage and fate all into one big, sprawling narrative that never seems to quite understand what it's about. On the one hand, it's a story about various characters trying to find a remarkable wizard and put him on the path of good or evil. On the other hand, it's also a story about a man who seduces wizard-kind into believing themselves to be the "superior race" to Muggles. On the other hand, it's also a film that never really focuses on either of these two ideas.

The long and short of it is that JK Rowling has written a huge, three-hour epic in Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, exploring a variety of locations, characters, and aspects of this Wizarding World that we haven't seen before. The problem is that the film runs for two hours and fifteen minutes, meaning that a huge selection of scenes, dialogue and moments are completely absent. Each scene feels horribly short, as though trimmed to within an inch of its life, while many awkwardly cut to the next with no sense of narrative flow. Characters jump from location-to-location with little reason and no transition - and that's not them just Apparating. The story splinters off in so many directions that in 135 minutes, there's no real opportunity to just slow-down and take the time to get to know these characters. Many key characters barely say a thing in this film, which is frankly incredible, given how important they supposedly are to the plot.

The film introduces us early on to Newt Scamander's brother Theseus, whom he doesn't see eye-to-eye with. Quite why Newt doesn't get along with Theseus is never really explained, especially given how friendly and likable Theseus is. There's no real reason for their conflict, making their scenes feel quite odd all the way through. Newt's ex-girlfriend (although never explicitly referred to as such) is dating his brother Theseus, but Newt seems completely fine with this, and Leta seems to have no real interest in Theseus. She also may or may not work for the Ministry of Magic, but never seems to actually do anything for them. Leta herself is given more development than most of the other characters, but her big reveal scene towards the end is horrific. Jacob Kowalski, meanwhile, has had his memories restored (after being Obliviated in a heartfelt scene at the end of film one) and is secretly dating Queenie, who has had a falling-out with Tina. For the record, Tina and Queenie never share a scene together in the film, relegating their conflict to expository dialogue at the start. Jacob re-joins Newt on another adventure, but has absolutely nothing to do, while Queenie's arc feels awkwardly underdeveloped (it doesn't help that a key scene with her is cut short and left unresolved). Tina, on the other hand, is considerably less proactive than in the last film, and seems to have been left as Newt's love interest. Not that Tina and Newt really get to talk much, because those scenes appear to have been mostly cut. Instead their relationship never really develops. They're left with just one scene to develop their romance, and even that feels like it's been cut to bits in the edit.

Credence returns from the first film as The Crimes of Grindelwald's MacGuffin, a key character whom the story revolves around, but he barely does or says anything. He seems to have some kind of relationship with Nagini, but the two barely talk with each other, and their introductory scene is so awkwardly cut that their actual relationship is never established. When the two face their ultimate conflict at the end of the film, there's no weight, because they've just stood next to each other in a few scenes. Nagini herself seems to say about two lines of dialogue in the whole film, with no hint of back-story or personality. Her and Credence are initially involved in a Circus, but it's never explained why. Credence also has two scenes with Grindelwald, but no mention is made to their relationship in the first film - when Grindelwald was disguised as Percival Graves. How has their dynamic changed since Grindelwald's betrayal? How does Credence recognise Grindelwald if he never saw his real face? Questions like this are left unanswered because the film never takes the time out to answer them, instead inter-cutting scenes and Credence frowning. At one point he looks after a bird, which would be a nice little scene if it didn't suddenly become the biggest plot-point the film has to offer. Why does he have a bird? Where did he find it? What was the bird doing between scenes? The answers seem to have been edited out of the final cut of the film.

There is also a cameo from one Nicholas Flamel (the titular philosopher from Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone), who initially shows up for a gratuitous, if humorous cameo, and then has a big hero moment in the third act for absolutely no reason. He's far too underdeveloped for it to be a key character moment if that was the intention. Oh, and there's some guy who's supposedly really important to the plot whose motivations are kept a secret so that they can be revealed in the worst expository scene ever - in which he and Leta basically shout each other's back-stories to one another while everyone else shuffles around a really small room. It's just as baffling when the door magically opens and the characters just stroll into the next scene as though they've just read the script.

The only characters left virtually untouched by the horrible editing are Newt Scamander (another charming performance from Eddie Redmayne), Albus Dumbledore (played to perfection by Jude Law) and Gellert Grindelwald himself (whose crimes are left unexplained, for the record). Johnny Depp's performance is remarkably restrained, at points even potentially charming, but one can't deny how bizarre his look is in the film. With his ultra-pale skin, funny eye, quirky dress and weird hairdo he looks more like a 50-year-old hipster trying to look evil as opposed to a threatening or even compelling antagonist in the film. That being said, Rowling writes the character with a lot of charisma and screen-presence, making him a very interesting villain to watch on-screen.

Oh, and for those wondering why this series is still the Fantastic Beasts films, some magical creatures show up throughout the film, often for one or two scene cameos, as opposed to becoming key elements in the plot (like in the first film). At least their scenes are still in the film - probably because they're the most expensive.

If you're after an otherwise well-made blockbuster though, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald will not disappoint you. David Yates directs the film a fantastic sense of visual flair, the production design is wonderful, the special effects are top-notch and James Newton Howard's soundtrack is truly fantastic. The script itself - or what's left with it after the horrible editing - is quite good, if very convoluted. Given how long the film actually is, many plot-points could've been cut, and small scenes rewritten to simplify (and shorten) the narrative. Because so much of the film revolves around its big ending, we really needed more character development, more humour and more fun leading up to it, as opposed to endless exposition and running to-and-from locations without motivation or transition.

Ultimately, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (missing an 'and' for some reason) is an absolute mess of a film. While JK Rowling may have written a very good (if convoluted) film, the horrible editing makes the whole piece feel disjointed and difficult to invest in. When the big twists are revealed, it's very difficult to feel any kind of emotion because you just can't quite invest in these underdeveloped characters and story-lines. It's a fantastic production on a technical level, but Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald just isn't very good, even if it is promises great things for its sequels (the ending to which is already revealed if you read any of the Harry Potter books, losing most of the dramatic weight or tension). This is without a doubt the worst film in JK Rowling's Wizarding World, and I'm absolutely gutted at how poor this film was. The best solution now would be to release a full extended cut on Blu-ray, because this film really needs one. Had they just made a fun adventure film though, I think Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald would've been much better. 5/10

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation (2015) - Movie Review

Doctor Who: The Power of the Doctor (2022) - Review

Doctor Who: Revelation of the Daleks (1985) - BFI Event Review