Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald

Prequel installments of bloated franchises have the difficult challenge of expanding their universe in terms using its events to respect the history of the lore involved and entertaining its audiences. Unfortunately, many of these (such as The Hobbit trilogy) fall apart due to studio interference, screenplays trying to satisfy both the fanbase and casual viewers, and/or events/characters not feeling natural but rather as rushed puzzle pieces. This brings us to Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, the second of the quintet film series of The Wizarding World (yes...5 contracted movies), directed by David Yates (Harry Potter 5-8, Fantastic Beasts 1) and written by the author of the franchise JK Rowling. I've become less of a fan of that magic universe than I was before when looking back on those 8 movies in regards to how the book quality actually was but I still respect them for their impact. Rewatching the 1st of this quintet reminded me of how forgettable and okay it was due to its noticeable problems. Upon its release, this was met with a mixed critical reception and I felt the obligation to give it a fair chance to see how the quality would progress from before, which I regretted doing after watching this project become such a sloppy disappointment.

Plot: Taking place 1 year after the events of the predecessor, the titular villains escape from prison prompts a chain of events that lead to multiple story arcs that converge onto a doomed meeting. The biggest weakness of the film is the cluttered rushed screenplay. The film wants to promote its central conflict but because it’s overloaded with numerous character arcs, the momentum is disrupted with 3 or 4 romantic subplots that either feel half finished or with a lack of effort that just wasted the actors involved. As a result, the pacing is incredibly sporadic as the movie wants to be different angles yet it doesn’t feel earned or coherent from the script. The worst aspects of the story is where it “comes to a head” and gives the pie loads of exposition that ultimately means nothing more than a red herring, which is funny since the film focuses on them quite a bit. The best way to remedy this would be the same solution that The Last Jedi needed: cutting out the unnecessary materiel that doesn't go anywhere in the grand scheme of things and showcase stakes that feel investment in instead of becoming a bloated mess (aka less is more).

That being said, there are some moments worth acknowledging that show creative visuals fans of the series tend to adore within the wizarding world. There are a few Easter Eggs that can bring joy to the audience...as long as they don’t think about how details surrounding them might not add up timeline wise. Visiting Hogwarts in a flashback sequence does add a nice breathe of relief for 10 minutes that almost helps forget how messy the rest of the runtime is. The action sequence in the beginning is pretty much the best scene to watch, which makes it hilarious to note that it reveals its strongest piece right away then to be followed by the convoluted nature of an incoherent story.

Characters: I would typically mention which people to focus on here but because many of them lack enough screen time amount or anything memorable to pay attention to, instead I will mention those who are among the solid performers against those restrictions. In regards to improvements among the returning players, those honors go to Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne), Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler), and Queenie Goldstein (Alison Sudol). Newt does deserve credit for having some semblance of improving his mannerisms as an autistic wizard whose inability to socialize with potential romantic interests helps him be more likable here (despite Eddie's trademark "whisper" talking in his lines getting on my nerves to where he needs subtitles). Jacob, once again, holds his own well with his demeanor and positive attitude to where the progression in his arc with Queenie is a delight to watch, despite the limited usage of it (Fogler's charismatic and endearing acting is solid). Queenie is almost better than before as she's given the best story/romantic arc that's fascinating given her abilities and desire for more (Alison's performance deserves a much better film to be in).

As for the "newbies", those honorable shoutouts go to Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law) and Grindelwald (Johnny Depp). Anytime Dumbledore is around, the energy just livens up by this Hogwarts Headmaster in his younger but primed state that it's a shame he's incredibly underutilized (Jude's acting is comforting to watch). As for the titular villain, (ignoring the controversies in the actors life) the threat imposed by this antagonist is only limited to the opening sequence and the third act climax (if his followers do a crime, it doesn't count on his kill list). It's not so subtle how it's essentially Johnny portraying a Donald Trump figure (in this case, make the Wizarding World Great Again) complete with his own rally in the end, which Dumbledore advised against going to (the acting is what you would expect from this experience veteran in the business where it's not as good as it could have been since he doesn't have much to do). A dishonorable mention goes to Leta Lestrange (Zoe Kravitz) for being written to hog too much screen time that ultimately ends up being a huge red herring that didn't matter (though Zoe is trying her best).

Overall Consensus: Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald suffers from a problematic script, terrible pacing, and lack of investment in the stakes, though it shines through nice visuals and solid music. ⭑⭑💻 Runtime: 2 hours 14 minutes

Reasons to watch it: You like any of the aforementioned actors. You want to see any amount of the Wizarding World. You don't mind a complicated script that has no meaningful investment and lack of stakes.

Reasons to avoid it: You dislike any of the aforementioned actors. You don't want to see anything from the Wizarding World. You hate a complicated script that has no meaningful investment and lack of stakes. You hate antagonists who portray a Donald Trump figure.