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

Following a decent start with the first film, the "Fantastic Beasts" series continues with the first of four sequels. Is it on-par with the first or possibly better or worse?

"Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald" is the second "Fantastic Beasts" film and picks up not long after the ending of the first where Newt and MACUSA captured Grindelwald. In this film, Grindelwald escapes MACUSA's custody and puts his plan of magical domination into motion. Enlisted by Albus Dumbledore, Newt sets out to stop Grindelwald and encounters new and familiar faces along the way.

Eddie Redmayne returns in the role of Newt Scamander. Also reprising their individual roles from the original are Katherine Waterston as Tina Goldstein, Dan Fogler as Jacob Kowalski, Alison Sudol as Queenie Goldstein, Ezra Miller as Credence Barebone, and Johnny Depp as Gellert Grindelwald. The new cast members include Zoë Kravitz as Leta Lestrange, Callum Turner as Theseus Scamander, Claudia Kim as Nagini, and Jude Law as Albus Dumbledore.

"Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald" is directed by David Yates, who directed "Harry Potter" entries "Order of the Phoenix" through "Deathly Hallows - Part 2" as well as the previous film in this series "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them." Just like the last one, J. K. Rowling is the sole screenwriter and served as one of the producers. David Heyman, Steve Kloves, and Lionel Wigram also produced this film. Warner Bros. Pictures distributed it.

Introduction

I'm not the biggest fan of "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" although I do like it a lot. That may or may not be evident in my review of the original, but the fact that it was my third-favorite film of 2016 tells you all you need to know. (Take those facts with a grain of salt. I had "Now You See Me 2" on that list. I didn't know much of what I was thinking then. I standby only a few of those selections.) Regardless of what I said then, nowadays, I like it better than some of the "Harry Potter" films. The characters were good, the performances even better. I loved the creatures and their individual designs. Initially, because the film was not based on any preexisting novel like the "Harry Potter" films, I found the story to be shallow and fragmented. My current view is less harsh, though I still feel as if the film became a little like a checklist until the final act where greater things came into play.

With this sequel, I'm not expecting too much of a difference in tone or direction. Maybe the plot can be stronger than the original, but still, that wasn't a big issue. My biggest fear is of the expanded roster of characters. I hope that whatever J. K. Rowling conjures up will be sufficient to carry the numerous characters. Does the creative team band together and pull it off?

Overall Thoughts

For starters, "Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald" succeeds in differentiating itself from its predecessor. It's not retreading familiar beats, it's a whole new story with new additional characters as well as most noticeably, a different tone. Even for a film set in the Wizarding World, this film is dark and I think director David Yates overdid it here a tad. A great example of this is Newt's trench coat. Colored a bright blue in the first film, the piece of clothing is now not a solid black, but is a black and white weave. I understand that with higher stakes than the first, you have to up the seriousness, but you don't have to dilute the colors as well. I applaud the director's different style for this sequel, but I would've appreciated more vibrancy to the color choices which is one of the elements I love in these movies - how it makes great settings using appealing and distinct color schemes - and unfortunately, the grayness of the picture isn't that appealing.

What's also unfortunate is the story. "The Crimes of Grindelwald" does not have a narrative that's woven together as fluent as I had hoped. The sequel has far more on its plate with more characters to juggle than the first film did and I feel as though that the story is not built to support the packed roster. A few of the characters, mostly the new ones, are left in the dust because the story concerns itself with many different archs which make up the main story. It's all sub-plots, there's little in the way of a connective through line. It's characters wandering around different places, trailing other people or objects, and when all these people meet, it's at the end. It's slow moving and doesn't go anywhere until the end. I will say that the film ends well, but has trouble doing so since so much is left on the table. It's hard to follow at times, but the rest of what the filmmakers offer makes this film worth it.

The beasts are far less crucial to the plot than the title suggests. It's more focused on the human characters. Though they are less crucial to the overall story, they still are immensely lovable when they do show up. The Niffler continues to be my favorite and it, out of the creatures returning from the first film, has the most important role to serve. The new creatures help expand the Wizarding World and shows some clever designs that the effects team came up with. My favorite being the Zouwu, a lion-like creature that's actually native to China. The beast may seem to be an intimidating creature, but like all the beasts Newt encounters, it's not completely untamable. To help separate it from the rest, it has this breathtaking ability to travel long distances by warping reality, enabling the Zouwu to be the unquestionable highlight of the new magical creatures.

While I'm on the topic of expansion, one of the strongest features of "The Crimes of Grindelwald" is seeing how vast the Wizarding World is. With the "Harry Potter" films, the location was mostly kept to England. As Rowling rolls out these "Fantastic Beasts" films, we're getting heavy amounts of world-building with Ministries in the United States and now Paris. Part of this movie plays like a sight-seeing trip. The narrative takes us through Paris, showing how the wizarding community works in accordance with the non-magical world. Though the story isn't all that strong, the familiar locations it takes us to, such as a short yet sweet return to Hogwarts, allow us to fathom how wide this world has gotten since its inception.

The Cast

On the matter of characters, I have a mixed opinion because while "The Crimes of Grindelwald" isn't a story-driven film, the performances and a percentage of the character-arcs are so compelling that some of these characters manage to stand out.

Initially, I wasn't a huge of Newt Scamander, but having revisited the original "Fantastic Beasts" shortly before watching this new movie, I conclude that I love Newt. Despite saying that this film doesn't have enough material to develop all it's characters, it doesn't mean that none of these people aren't developed. After learning that he's an introvert and that he's only able to express himself with these creatures, his journey in this film allows us to see him build strong bonds to the people he interacts with and Redmayne is made even more relatable as we see him to change himself for the better.

"The Crimes of Grindelwald" is stuffed to the brim with romances. The first being Newt and Tina's on-and-off flirtations. Though they developed their relationship rather well in the first movie, this film can't escape the seemingly inescapable ditch that is retconning relationships already established between characters. They're not together when the film begins and the reason for it felt pretty immature coming from adult characters and awfully convenient from a screenwriting perspective. The two don't get back together until the film is well underway. It doesn't help Kathrine Waterston's character, Tina, who doesn't have much to do in this film, other than to continue her relationship with Newt.

For me, Jacob and Queenie were the most entertaining characters in the first movie. I loved the relationship that they built there and for a brief minute in this movie, I thought that that was going to be retconned also. Luckily, it wasn't and both characters were allowed grow as individuals and as a couple. Their drama became significantly more profound than in the original and it paved the way for a powerful moral dilemma. Dan Fogler is causing less laughs in this film, but it's a welcome trade in exchange for him to be more than just the fun guy that he was in the first film. I still have some questions about the convenience that comes from the explanation of why he remembers the events of the first film. Alison Sudol's role is completely different now. Her acting dramatically changes for the best as her character makes unexpected decisions and choices that you'll either love or hate. I find myself falling on the former side.

Callum Turner as Theseus Scamander, Newt's older brother, has little-to-no part in the story. He's more of a yes-man to the Ministry and doesn't have any attributes that make him a character worth following. Seeing as the movie doesn't follow him much, it obviously agrees too. His fiancé, Leta Lestrange, receives far more development than him and the story dedicates time to chronicling her backstory, varying between the showing and telling method. The showing part is far more effective and this movie delivers on displaying what kind of relationship she had with Newt at one time. It's briefly shown, but that's all the time it needed.

Ezra Miller's Credence is once again the plot device. As he sets out to learn more about his history, he's also more in control of his obscurial, though it's sadly not seen much. Credence is more of a soft-spoken individual, a man with a tortuous past just trying to find some closure. Although watching him uncover his past isn't as entertaining as it seems, Miller makes himself completely unrecognizable by tapping into his rarely-seen dramatic skills. It's unclear what relationship he shares with Claudia Kim's Nagini who makes her debut in this film. She sticks with him an awful lot, so I'm not sure whether the two share an underplayed romance. Either way, she adds nothing to the movie. She present in many scenes. She just doesn't have a lot of dialogue. In the end, her role in this film is similar to Grand Moff Tarkin's in "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story." An in-your-face easter egg to fans who know the lore, just without the uncanny CGI.

It's not easy to follow in the footsteps of Richard Harris and Michael Gambon, but while Jude Law doesn't disappoint as Albus Dumbledore, he has little screen time in the film. Oh, Albus' presence is felt throughout the story. After all, he is one of the main orchestrators of the plot, pulling the strings from behind the scenes. The character just needed didn't have a substantial amount time devoted to him. He doesn't need any development as we already know who Albus is. The lack of many scenes makes it hard to form an opinion of his part. I think he was a little over-advertised in the marketing because you've seen most of his scenes in the trailers. Still, I look forward to seeing what he does in the upcoming films.

Finally, we have Johnny Depp playing the titular villain himself, Grindelwald. Following the ending of the first, I was unsure of what to think of his casting. Having seen this sequel, I think that while his performance is okay, what J. K. Rowling writes for his character is even better. Depp isn't doing anything particularly menacing or scary with what's supposed to be the big bad of this film. It's actually J. K. Rowling's script that makes the character shine, not Depp himself. She comes up with thoughtful reasons for his viewpoint. Reasons that also tie into the period setting of this film. Sadly, that is in the last-third. Until they make that clear, the character is just there. He does make a great first impression with his escape scene, but from then on, he's not noteworthy. He wanders around Paris, visits with a few people, and that's it. There's not much to him until we reach the end. If this is to be the primary antagonist of this series, I hope that Depp makes Grindelwald a more interesting villain to follow

Action/CGI

For a film that had trailers that teased lots of action set pieces, (either that or the fast editing fooled me into to thinking so) "The Crimes of Grindelwald" has very few action sequences in reality.

After the opening sequence, in which Grindelwald escapes from his prison transport, there are no real action sequences that follow. There are a few chases and wizards shooting simple spells, but that lasts for a minute, maybe less. In the trailers, I was expecting some epic duel against Grindelwald, something akin to Dumbledore's fight with Voldemort in "Order of the Phoenix," but we end up getting one fighter slowly shooting spells at the other who constantly uses other uses various spells unconvincingly. I don't know what to say. It's probably the most disappointing thing about the film next to it's lack of substance in the story department.


At least it looks great. The Wizarding World has never looked better. The wand effects are just right and the creatures continue to have wholly new designs that only fit this fantasy world. You can see the artists pushing themselves to make new designs for this world and its inhabitants. Nothing about the CGI looks fake or out of place. It's mixed together with the practical props and buildings to provide for an immersive dive into this world of witches and wizards.

Score

After "The Nutcracker and the Four Realms," I was eagerly seeking a James Newton Howard score that actually stands out and makes an impression on the film at large. Thank you, James Newton Howard. You've delivered a score that I can sing the praises of for the remainder of this review.

You'll recall that he also scored the first "Fantastic Beasts" film and with this score, he maintains the quality of his initial work, adds new music that adds makes you feel the drama, and on top of that, incorporates familiar music when appropriate. All of these elements form a score that helped make scenes so good, that my audience applauded in certain moments. What a powerful composition. This finally does the combination right where a lot of other recent scores in similar positions went wrong. Perhaps, Howard is that talented or maybe it was just dumb luck. In any case, the score's a highlight of seeing this movie in theaters.

Grade: B

Though short on story and action sequences, "Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald" continues to expand the Wizarding World while adding a healthy dose of suspenseful drama as well as complex and interesting themes, making it nothing more than another feather in this franchise's cap.

I would recommend seeing this film in theaters, especially if you're a fan of the franchise. If you don't know much about this franchise, you might want to familiarize yourself before you see this. Now, whether or not you see this in 3D, I'll leave it up to you to role the dice.

Conclusion

I'm glad that you decided to read my review of "Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald." If you have seen it, I welcome any opinions on the film and/or my review in the comments below. For those of you that haven't, does this review encourage you to check it out or dissuade you from such a decision. As always, feel free to suggest a film for me to review next. Thanks for reading, I'm Dallin, your resident Film Fanatic, and I'll be back with another editorial soon.