Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald

Here's what I said to conclude my review for "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them": "This spin-off may be a financial and critical success but one of two things could happen with the sequels. The story could get better now that the characters and relationships in this spin-off have been established, allowing for the plot to thicken. There is potential for that to happen with the inclusion of Gellert Grindelwald but more likely, the sequels will fall short because the filmmakers might not feel the need to take story risks to earn money." Now that "Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald" has been released, I would say I was pretty accurate in my prediction. When Johnny Depp made his short appearance at the end of the last film, I was interested in seeing the sequel but it was hard to get really excited because of the flaws with "Fantastic Beasts". The sequel is only as good as its predecessor and that's because it has the same flaws: the story was complicated, it is hard to become emotionally invested and the show seems to be made only for die-hard fans of the "Wizarding World". I even took the measure of watching it in IMAX 2D to prevent me from being distracted by the 3D gimmicks and special effects. That didn't help change my opinion.

Besides the convoluted plot, there were additional flaws with the story of "The Crimes of Grindelwald". Most of them have to do with ignoring what happened in the climax of the preceding film. In that show, Credence is killed (quite easily I might add) Jacob's memory is erased and Tina & Newt part ways on very good terms. I don't object to having Jacob in this sequel because once again, he is the best character in the film. What I do object to is how he got his memory back. It's the same kind of lazy storytelling that erased his memory in the first place. Secondly, Credence is alive. Not only was his death too easy in "Fantastic Beasts" but there appears to be no evidence that he survived. We are only told that he survived without any explanation (not that any explanation would have made sense). Finally, a rift between Newt and Tina is fabricated and it happens between the events of both films. That wasn't necessary at all because their relationship was just getting started and didn't need to be reset. There was plenty of drama to be had when they start to have feelings for each other. Whereas the previous film had a lot of problems with its climax, this show had a good climax but a poor start as they seem to be "apologizing" for mistakes in the last film. One thing I remember from my improv club days is that once something is established, it cannot be taken back. You shoot yourself in the foot by doing that. Some might compare this sequel and its opening story flaws with "Back to the Future: Part II". In that film, Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale had to spend the opening of the film digging out of a hole they had put themselves in thanks to the very end of the first film. One difference between that sequel and this one is that Zemeckis & Gale didn't think they would be making a sequel when writing the first film. Considering that "Back to the Future" was an original movie and that its ending scene was originally conceived as a joke, the few flaws in "Part II" can be forgiven. Zemeckis and Gale also weren't lazy in trying to deal with their "leftover baggage" but instead came up with some logical and fun ways to get rid of it before moving onto their central conflict. There is no excuse for the filmmakers behind "The Crimes of Grindelwald". Watching the start of "The Crimes of Grindelwald" with all these plot mistakes, you would think that filmmakers weren't expecting to make a sequel for "Fantastic Beasts" but this is the "Wizarding World" franchise for crying out loud. Johnny Depp's appearance as Grindelwald proves that a sequel was all but inevitable anyways. I agree that more attention was given to the rest of story but only to keep the franchise going. I was impressed with what happens to Queenie but the revelation of Credence's real name was a bit of a stretch. It seems the filmmakers are attempting an "Empire Strikes Back" cliffhanger because there is the possibility that Grindelwald is lying. From what I have heard, the filmmakers are not just setting up another sequel but three! The famous duel I was hoping for in this show will still be a long time coming and by then, will it be worth the wait? I don't expect so.

Now that I have seen Depp perform a whole movie as this villain, I can't say it was a complete home run. I don't think anyone wanted or expected this bad guy to outshine "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" but Grindelwald was too "Depp-ish" and what I mean is that Depp's fame got in the way of a unique character coming to life. As for Jude Law's version of a younger Albus Dumbledore, I was impressed. I saw bits of Michael Gambon in the performance but not only did Law stay pretty true to the character that we love but made it his own in a way. Dr. Watson was never in my mind as I watched this show so that is a testament to his talent besides his two Oscar nominations. However, I am curious as to what we would have got if Jared Harris (son of Richard Harris) had been cast. I have said it before but Ezra Miller had a much better character to play in "Justice League". As a final note, I like how there was a small cameo of Professor McGonagall.

Because I didn't see this film in 3D, I don't know whether there were any gimmicks with the technology such as with Dumbledore's glove but that doesn't matter. If you are going to start a spin-off franchise to Harry Potter, you can't just make it for the "Potterheads" because you need new fans to maintain the success. You also need some genuine drama and this sequel was lacking in that department, just like its predecessor. The most important similarity between "Fantastic Beasts" and its sequel is a plot that is below par and hard to follow. The original series of films were easy to understand because they were adapted from a larger source material. In the process of sincere adaptation to a shorter format, the simplification came about naturally. The Harry Potter book series was for children and young people so it wasn't complicated to begin with. I had hypothesized that maybe the two-hour time limit of a film screenplay could be holding J.K. Rowling back from her full potential. I was willing to give her a second chance with "Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald" but I'm going to find it hard to give her a third chance.

3 Stars out of 5