FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE CRIMES OF GRINDELWALD: Overstuffed & Messy Sequel Fails To Impress

A prequel to an already successful series is an inherently difficult task. Not only does backstory have to be filled in, and in a way that doesn’t interfere with continuity, but the stories and characters also have to be interesting on their own, without over-reliance on name-dropping or hinting at those that we already know. One notable example within the past year that has done this well, though obviously of a different genre, is the series Better Call Saul, which gave us a season of television that brought our characters closer to the ones we knew, but presenting an incredibly engaging story at the same time. But for every Better Call Saul, there’s a The Hobbit; for every X-Men: First Class, there’s a Star Wars prequel.

The first Fantastic Beasts film was at least headed in the right direction. Though off to a somewhat bumpy start, in that it didn’t quite seamlessly blend together the stories of a lesser-known Harry Potter character with the wider conflict of the world around him, it nonetheless opened up the past in a way that could potentially be expanded upon in future installments.

This subsequent film, though, subtitled The Crimes of Grindelwald, makes the first one look pristine in comparison. It introduces a plethora of new characters, attempts to do too much with them, and then, in a way I hoped would be avoided, overly relies on the nostalgic factor of the original films to create any kind of resonance. It is an unfortunate step in the wrong direction for the series.

The Sequel Problem

The Crimes of Grindelwald begins not too long after the events of the first film. Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) is still being held prisoner in the United States after his covert attack on New York City. Upon his transfer to a new prison, however, he not unexpectedly manages to escape. A short time later, we are reintroduced to Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne), who has been stuck in England for the past few months after being revoked his right to travel due to his involvement in those aforementioned events.

Soon we are introduced to more characters, including: Newt’s brother Theseus (Callum Turner), Theseus’ fiance Leta Lestrange (Zoe Kravitz), who also has a past history with Newt, and soon thereafter, the reintroduction of Queenie Goldstein (Alison Sudol) and Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler), and Queenie’s sister Tina (Katherine Waterston). Also, the young Albus Dumbledore makes an appearance, charmingly portrayed by Jude Law.

If all of this sounds a bit overwhelming, well hang in there, because there are many other plot threads that I didn’t even touch on, and won’t for spoiler’s sake. Not since Captain America: Civil War or this year’s Avengers: Infinity War has a film attempted to bring together so many characters and expect you to care about them. But at least in those films, they had the benefit of past movies to fill in their backstories. Here, you either have to have impeccable knowledge of the Harry Potter universe, or instead stay glued to your screen for the film’s entirety, perhaps even requiring multiple watches, to understand everything that is going on. It’s all just a bit much for a series that previously focused on four core characters.

And as for those four characters, which included Newt, Tina, Queenie, and Jacob, here they’re all pretty much lost by the wayside. All but dissipated is the awkward charm of Eddie Redmayne‘s Newt, or the bumbling antics of Dan Fogler‘s “No-Maj” Jacob. Alison Sudol‘s Queenie is taken in an unexpected but ultimately ill-fitting direction, while Katherine Waterston‘s Tina doesn’t have nearly enough screen-time.

Even the newcoming characters don’t have much room to move around. Jude Law‘s Dumbledore, for example, appears for a few minutes at the most, while Johnny Depp‘s Grindelwald, controversial casting aside, has really only one major scene, showing Depp at his sneeriest and most compelling. Their lack of involvement, Dumbledore especially, leads one to believe that the film is merely meant to establish that they exist in this world, and moving forward they will be more involved in the story itself.

Yet, instead of character development, the film would prefer that we become invested in the backstory of one person in particular: that of Credence Backbone (Ezra Miller), who survived his attack in the events of the original film. Both the evil Grindelwald and the Ministry of Magic want to win the powerful Credence over to their side. What may be key to unlocking his allegiance, though, might just be the discovery of his mysterious family background.

Mythology in Place of Character

Such brings me to The Crimes of Grindelwald’s next major pitfall: attempting to make you care about the backgrounds of characters in place of adequately developing them. The immediate comparison here is that of the original Harry Potter series. The mysterious connection between Harry and Voldemort is a major focus of the story, which is slowly uncovered as the books and movies progress. Yet, what differentiates it from here is the fact that you actually care about Harry Potter first and foremost. You’re emotionally invested in both Harry and his friends, such that his eventual fate has real stakes behind it.

Here, the film attempts so hard to make you care about where Credence comes from. But for almost the entire film, I just kept wondering: why? Shouldn’t it be more important that we actually gain more of a sense of who the character is? In the first film, his mysterious powers seemed to be a metaphor for suppression and the damaging effects of a tragic childhood. But now, what seems to have taken the place of that, or really any other discussion of the film, is who his parents are. To give you just a snippet of how prominent this has become, do a Google search of The Crimes of Grindelwald (but be wary of spoilers), and see how many articles pop up that talk solely about the film’s final twist.

The only reasoning I could come up for why this is so be important is that it will addressed in future installments. So then, the film once again just seems like a stepping stone to get there. Such was also my issue with Star Wars Episode 7, in that all anyone seemed to be talking about afterwards was who the character Rey’s parents were. Thankfully, in The Last Jedi, they turned this on its head, but my suspicion is that a similar trend will not happen here.

Where’s the Dazzle?

Flaws aside, the original Fantastic Beasts at least lived up to its name. There were numerous scenes of dazzling beauty, infused by some inspired creations of magical creatures. Here, in The Crimes of Grindelwald (which, amusingly, is a larger subtitle than the original title on the film’s poster), the beasts appear to be secondary. Sure, I loved seeing the cute little niffler come back once again, and the new giant cat creature is an impressive creation, but nothing comes close to the sheer wonder of our first descent into Newt’s vast suitcase in the original film.

It’s not only the beasts that are notably absent, though. Gone with them is any sense of fun. The film, penned by J.K. Rowling and directed by David Yates in his now sixth Harry Potter entry, appears to have forgotten what makes the Harry Potter world so enticing in the first place. These are films that aren’t afraid to convey darker themes, but they don’t hesitate to wow us either. There are but a few sequences that have this effect here, including the final fiery battle. In addition, James Newton Howard‘s score is thrilling without being overly intrusive. But for the most part, lost in the machinations of its convoluted plot, The Crimes of Grindelwald becomes too self-serious for its own good.

Nostalgic Factor

Not coincidentally, the best parts of The Crimes of Grindelwald are those that remind us of the original Harry Potter series. There is a return to Hogwarts, for example, which introduces us to some familiar, albeit younger, faces. And of course, there is the building suspense that, after Grindelwald, Voldemort will somehow come into play.

As mentioned, though, this is yet another pitfall of a prequel: overly relying on the nostalgic factor of the original series to latch us onto a story that should, first and foremost, stand on its own. There’s just too much going on in The Crimes of Grindelwald, and in such a scattershot way, that simply “inserting reference here” of characters and places we know isn’t enough to distract us from the otherwise confused series of events.

Conclusion: The Crimes of Grindelwald

To think that there are still three more movies before linking The Crimes of Grindelwald up to the story-line that we know seems superfluous, to say the least. With too much happening all at once and not enough focus on bulding characters we actually care about, the film fails to leave any sense of an impact, which makes me concerned that future installments will fall victim to the same trend.

I’m holding out at least a smidgen of hope, though, that the next film in the series will learn from the shortcomings of The Crimes of Grindelwald, and will be an apt return to the Harry Potter world that we all still know and love.

What are your thoughts on The Crimes of Grindelwald? Are you a fan of this prequel series? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below. 

The Crimes of Grindelwald is now playing in theaters worldwide.