Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald

For some reason, a comparison that comes to mind when I think about the first Fantastic Beasts movie is that of the recent Solo: A Star Wars Story. 

Both felt largely unnecessary at the time of their announcement. 

Both were lighthearted romps as opposed to the heavy, iconic stories they came from. 

Both had a last minute reveal that left you just interested enough to want to come back. 

Sure, in general they were two widely different films, but still similar in many ways. If they ever get around to what they really had planned with Solo (you can't just drop that cameo and not have a bigger plan), it'll be interesting to see if it follows in the footsteps of Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald. 

This new film set in the "Wizarding World" gets us slightly closer to the iconic and heavy nature of the Harry Potter films (particularly the latter ones) but struggles to do so in a handful of ways. 

One of the most interesting things to me about these Fantastic Beasts films, of which there are supposed to be five (!), is that J.K. Rowling is the sole writer. Truly, that's a big deal given how popular her actual books of the Harry Potter series were. This is essentially her way of continuing her universe and writing another 5-book series for us. It makes me want to beg for her to write these as books and release them first as her novels have a way of truly coming to life, but that's likely not to happen. Even more impressive is that long-time Harry Potter director, David Yates, remains on board for this installment (and future ones?). He's easily the best Potter director (sorry, Alfonso) because he truly gets this world, its magic, and its feel. Some of his typical pitfalls follow him here -- some sloppy action editing for one -- but by and large we can count on him to get the job done. 

Unfortunately -- and I promise this is a small unfortunately -- Crimes of Grindelwald is a story with so much, well...story, that it's hard to keep up. I certainly don't consider myself a Potter elite expert, but I know my fair share of the lore and the history. Even still I was considerably lost in the tale for a majority of the runtime. Some of that was intentional by Rowling; saving reveals for the last minute, but some of it was just because there's so much previously unearthed lore packed in here. It's hard to keep up and I dare say the film almost needed more exposition. It's clear throughout that they're trying to connect to the world of Harry Potter that we know and love and while some elements feel a tad forced, in general I liked the way that this series intertwined with the original. Plus, Harry Potter doesn't have a Death-Star-esque crutch like Star Wars leaned on for 8+ films, so in general the story still feels fresh, but connected. 

Albino Jack Sparrow?

I also don't feel as connected to these characters as I did with the original series. Before you roll your eyes and say, "No duh, idiot. You had 8 films to do that with Harry Potter"...I get that. But it's almost as if the film expects us to be as connected to these characters as we are to the rest of the Wizarding World. Perhaps there are viewers like that and I'm just speaking from my cold, dead heart but when there are (NO SPOILERS, PROMISE!) deaths or choosings of sides, or even some big reveals, they feel much more empty than I think was intended. Yes this is just film 2 out of 5 so I could be singing a different tune 3 films from now, but for now I get this weird sense that the film is trying to blow my mind with connections or death and I'm like...."Okay...?"

Who sits with their hands in their pockets?
Dumbledore is a weirdo!

Now that I've sufficiently gotten all my issues out of the way with our Fantastic Beasts sequel, I can tell you what I loved about it because I genuinely enjoyed the film. For starters, coming back to this world will always be a treat and there's still an inventiveness and imagination here that exists only in the most expansive of worlds. The "Wizarding World" has little competition in that regard. And, although I haven't connected with them as much as I would have liked to by now, it still features a fantastic (pun intended) cast of characters. Eddie Redmayne remains our focal point and he's as odd but endearing as ever. Aside from him, Jude Law, Johnny Depp, Zoe Kravitz, and Ezra Miller get the most to do and each brings a lot to their characters. Jude Law in particular will grow to be an awesome choice for Dumbledore and you can tell he's taking the role very seriously. Johnny Depp, despite his crazed appearance, is a pretty even-keel villain who gives a controlled performance. Whether or not Grindelwald grows into an iconic villain remains to be seen, but he has the potential makings. Zoe Kravitz gets the biggest increase in "stuff to do" here and proves more than capable. Her character comes with a lot of mystery and heavy ties to the original series so much of her backstory is an interesting one. Ezra Miller remains the "X-factor" in this bunch as there's continued mystery about who he really is, his powers, etc. Each character, including the ones I may not have mentioned, have a role to play in the story and while we may not be super close with them yet, I can see them becoming nearly as iconic as the original cast. 

This darker, more connected sequel is also a ton of fun and its 2-ish hour runtime flies by. Other than not really being able to keep up, I enjoyed the playfulness of the many beasts and the action that stems from the wizarding world. It's all accomplished with wondrous CGI and accompanied by a really impressive original score. This film feels a bit more confident in itself than the first and it definitely feels more important. At times the light-and-breezy tone of all the beasts stuff conflicts with the heavier lore, but as I thought about it, there were always elements of that in Harry Potter too, save for the final 2-3 films. 

There will always be something special about returning to the Wizarding World and Crimes of Grindelwald does nothing to disparage that notion. It may be strange that the film's biggest strength of having a more serious tone and heavy connections to the original series, are also its biggest drawbacks, but when I'm essentially asking for more exposition in a world I love, you know that J.K. Rowling has done something special in terms of crafting a universe.


CONS

• Has a lot going on. I'm no Harry Potter newbie, and even I felt behind on what I should already know
• Could have taken more time to set the stages and or explain a few things
• Introduces a lot of new lore that almost feels too early for the series. I didn't care about XYZ as much as I feel like I should have
• The breezy tone of Beasts sometimes conflicts with the darker tone of the core plot
• Key moments fall flat-ish because we're not as heavily invested in these characters...yet
• Moments of sloppy action editing

PROS

• The fact that these films are written by J.K Rowling is still so cool to me. While I wish there were books of hers to act as companions to the film, you can bet that my butt will be in a seat if she's the writer of a wizarding film
• David Yates, in it for the long haul, continues to prove that he's the man for the job in this universe
• Superb cast across the board. These characters are memorable and unique. That's partially because of Rowling's writing, but also because of the performances behind them. Redmayne, Miller, Depp, Law, and Kravitz stand out
• Pockets of laughs
• Feels darker and more important than the previous entry. The lore, while heavy, offers a lot to be interested in
• An ending that will ensure you're seeing the next one
• Awesome CGI often coupled with an incredible original score
• Fun, intriguing, and an easy, worthwhile excuse to spend more time in the wizarding world

Rath's Review Score | 8/10