Skip to main content

Magic blooms… only in rare souls.

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald
(2018)

(SPOILERS) First things first: that title. Or rather, subtitle. Since it's indicative of some of the broader issues with the movie(s). Let’s ignore for a moment that Fantastic Beasts, as a prescriptive main title, is entirely unrepresentative of this developing prequel universe, as out of place as the nominal protagonist who comes with it. The Crimes of Grindelwald is an inert, passive, unimpressive slab of nothing. The Harry Potter sequels presented themes, mysteries or goals in their subtitles; they incited interest. Here we have a statement, regarding which we'll be none the wiser when we've watched it. You could perhaps see a movie The Crimes of Jack the Ripper and know you’re getting something eviscerating in return, but then you'd only really need his name to get that. There's no hook here. If you want to impress upon the viewer urgency to see your movie, throw in a "strike" or "attack" or even, slightly more soporifically, "awaken". Is it coincidental that the response to the movie reflects its title's lack of vitality? Crime's financial prospects may turn out to be significantly less rosy than its predecessor, which were noticeably short of the Potters. If so, that's only fair, as despite a few flourishes of ideas and performance and a distinguished scene here or there, this is a sprawling, ungainly, faintly underwhelming beast of a sequel to a prequel.


I don't count myself as one of the Potter faithful, however, so my expectations for this prequel series are probably slightly at variance to those who hung on every development in the original saga. I enjoyed the first Fantastic Beasts, for a start, significantly more than several entries in the founder series, and I liked Eddie Redmayne's aspergic Frank Spencer-but-capable Newt Scamander well enough. Which is not to say I necessarily thought him suited to headlining (four) further movies. But even liking that movie, it was clearly stapling together several different plots and elements that didn't necessarily want to share the same room. Crimes compounds that, and there's a persistent feeling that various characters and subplots that might previously have been excused – because, well, they’re fleshed out in the novel and so there’s good reason, even if you can't fully gather what they are as a muggle movie viewer – are now introduced with the same assumption but meet a decidedly less rapturous reception.


In terms of the clashing titans of the story, Albus Dumbledore is very much eased in on the side-lines as the mentor figure who can't get involved (I don't really know what the aggrieved were expecting with regard to the – lest we forget, retconned at a late stage anyway in the original series – Dumbeldore-Grindelwald ancient history romance, but no one's going to be under any illusions as to the nature of their relationship). Law's an underplaying standout, the most likeable he's ever been, probably, and certainly, as things play out, he's being geared up for a more action-orientated role in later instalments.


Of course, many – well, the numbers are moot, even if their loudness isn't – have had it in for Crimes ever since Rowling & co stood firm behind the (alleged) Crimes of Johnny Depp. Who didn't do his standing any favours earlier in the year when he was the subject of an out-of-his-gourd piece in Rolling Stone. I've enjoyed a number of Depp's critically lambasted movies (Dark Shadows, The Lone Ranger, Mortdecai) even before his personal fall from grace, and it's only really a couple of Burton roles (Willy Wonka, Mad Hatter) that rankle as indulgently misjudged. The problem with Grindelwald, however, is the same one afflicting a number of his straight roles, even though there's the opportunity for villainous flourish; there’s not enough "business" for him. Sure, he goes to town on a blonde wig, pancake makeup and contact lens, and dusts off his well-used RP intonations, but there's nothing much to dig into, the odd quip aside. There's some smart manipulation and a decent speech – of which more later – but nothing that couldn't have been furnished by the discarded Colin Farrell. Nothing that makes you think Depp was particularly right for the part, so as a result, he's merely serviceable. 


Which is more a problem in overall context; so little here stands out. Even Newt, perpetually failing to make eye contact like a Norman Wisdom minus the presumptive pratfalls, has been cast adrift. We're told how necessary he is, but aside from failing to acknowledge a trio of ladies harbouring lusty thoughts towards him and a bit of nominal detective work, Rowling goes out of her way to give him nothing to do. Some obligatory fantastic beasts are shoehorned in – gotta justify that title – but by the time he should be breaking out and showing his mettle in the third act, he has square-jawed brother Theseus by his side (Callum Turner), so there's precious little opportunity.


I liked both Kowalski (Dan Fogler) and especially Queenie (Alison Sudol) in the first movie, but Jacob's never more than an unnecessary appendage here (Fantastic Beasts' Jar Jar Binks?), while Queenie's forced into siding highly unconvincingly with Grindelwald (on the basis that she wants to marry a Muggle, and Grindelwald tells her what she wants to hear). Katherine Waterston's Tina does nothing of note apart from eliciting a cringy compliment from Newt – "I think that might have been the best moment of my life" – when she zaps his brother. And the short straw is drawn by Zoe Kravitz's Leta in respect of observing the pointless but obligatory motivating death.


Rowling's clearly trying to write with cinema in mind – kicking off with a daring escape that might have been more effective if it had seemed genuinely clever, daring and surprising – but later appears to throw in the towel at a crucial point in third act developments. Indeed, the movie drawls along for the first two-thirds, from New York to London to Paris with various stop-offs at Hogwarts, never really galvanising but never quite self-imploding either; there's always a promise that something may happen, and when all-important object of Grindelwald's attentions Credence (Ezra Miller, a fine actor who has been consistently either misused or underused by blockbusters) is located, the picture seems poised to make good.


Instead, we dive into successive cumbersome flashback sequences, the first courtesy of Yusuf (William Nadylam) regarding who he thinks Credence's parents are, followed by a corrective remembrance from Leta regarding who she thinks they actually are (or rather, who she knows they are not). I'm sure this would have amounted to several hundred pages of engrossing text across several novels had they been fully planned and integrated that way, but as it stands, they operate as reveals the movie(s) failed to take sufficient time to set up to become mysteries. I can see what Rowling wants to achieve, but structurally she hasn't done the work to get it. They're unearned. 


I might suggest, following all this talk, that Johnny Depp giving a speech is merely compounding the problem, but on one level it's easily the smartest move of the picture; persuading his audience of the rationale for avoiding another WWI unless they take decisive action is a no-brainer and a strategic masterstroke (from our position of hindsight, obviously), however manipulative for his own ends it is on Grindelwald's part. I don't really go with the idea that this kind of thing is de facto distasteful and disrespectful to real-world events (see also X-Men and its appropriation of Auschwitz). If you're taking that position, you should rationally reject any fictionalising narrative. 


Unfortunately, after Grindelwald's bombshell, director David Yates (who is surely spent on this franchise by now, six movies and more than a decade in; perhaps his biggest legacy is now making the series' magic seem mundane) singularly fails to knit drama from the various ensuing betrayals, confrontations and deaths, particularly when it comes to a big banal CGI magic show in the Paris sky that signals the grand climax. The picture is so intent on hitting its marks and reaching its prescribed physical and structural locations that it forgets to create its own character and atmosphere. At an early point, there’s a character called Grimmson (Ingvar Eggert Sigurðsson, who reminded me a little of a younger Julian Glover), tasked to fulfil the Ministry role Newt refuses; he appears to be set up for a conflict role and has a neat Dark City thing for passing through walls, but then Rowling simply drops any long-term potential by revealing him as one of Grindelwald's flock and so his usefulness evaporates; there's a perfunctory quality throughout Crimes that leaves you feeling uninvested.


The big talking point, mythology and future of the series-wise, has been the final retconning reveal that Credence is none other than hitherto unknown fourth Dumbledore sibling Aurelius. To such an extent that various sites are floating the idea that this might be a lie on Grindelwald's part, as the established dates don't add up. Which is, let’s face it, kidding themselves, the idea that Rowling might waste a grand climax on a lie she's going to recant a movie or two later. Particularly since we've been here before, doubt-wise (albeit under more feverish circumstances: Vader as Luke's father). Really, it represents the series prematurely victim to the kind of continuity gorging that has enabled various siblings of Spock to appear post the fact who mysteriously passed unmentioned for all those years.


For all it's flaws, not least that it fails to find sufficient footing as a movie in its own right, I wouldn't say I disliked Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald.  It has left the series with a significant task, however, a ship to right if the pentalogy is going to work going forward. Without a "Luke" character, whose journey we're invested in (the closest is Credence, and he's dealt short shrift), there's little to pull us along with the haphazardly episodic flow.


The biggest concern for Warner Bros will be how viable the series remains once the final grosses come in; they've assumed there's a built-in audience here that will see them through, even with declining returns compared to the former star attraction (see previously The Hobbit), but if the initially voiced indifference to this one is any indication, a big rethink may be necessary going forward with a series that doesn't come cheap ($200m a pop). Whatever its merits, it isn't igniting the public's imagination as it needs to. Call it the curse of the prequel, or perhaps it's complacency and reliance on formula, but Fantastic Beasts needs a kick up the ass if it's going to arrive at its envisaged conclusion.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

You're waterboarding me.

The Upside (2017)
(SPOILERS) The list of US remakes of foreign-language films really ought to be considered a hiding to nothing, given the ratio of flops to unqualified successes. There’s always that chance, though, of a proven property (elsewhere) hitting the jackpot, and every exec hopes, in the case of French originals, for another The Birdcage, Three Men and a Baby, True Lies or Down and Out in Beverly Hills. Even a Nine Months, Sommersby or Unfaithful will do. Rather than EdTV. Or Sorcerer. Or Eye of the Beholder. Or Brick Mansions. Or Chloe. Or Intersection (Richard Gere is clearly a Francophile). Or Just Visiting. Or The Man with One Red Shoe. Or Mixed Nuts. Or Original Sin. Or Oscar. Or Point of No Return. Or Quick Change. Or Return to Paradise. Or Under Suspicion. Or Wicker Park. Or Father’s Day.

What about the meaningless line of indifference?

The Lion King (2019)
(SPOILERS) And so the Disney “live-action” remake train thunders on regardless (I wonder how long the live-action claim would last if there was a slim hope of a Best Animated Feature Oscar nod?) I know I keep repeating myself, but the early ‘90s Disney animation renaissance didn’t mean very much to me; I found their pictures during that period fine, but none of them blew me away as they did critics and audiences generally. As such, I have scant nostalgia to bring to bear on the prospect of a remake, which I’m sure can work both ways. Aladdin proved to be a lot of fun. Beauty and the Beast entirely tepid. The Lion King, well, it isn’t a badfilm, but it’s wearying its slavish respectfulness towards the original and so diligent in doing it justice, you’d think it was some kind of religious artefact. As a result, it is, ironically, for the most part, dramatically dead in the water.

Would you like Smiley Sauce with that?

American Beauty (1999)
(SPOILERS) As is often the case with the Best Picture Oscar, a backlash against a deemed undeserved reward has grown steadily in the years since American Beauty’s win. The film is now often identified as symptomatic of a strain of cinematic indulgence focussing on the affluent middle classes’ first world problems. Worse, it showcases a problematic protagonist with a Lolita-fixation towards his daughter’s best friend (imagine its chances of getting made, let alone getting near the podium in the #MeToo era). Some have even suggested it “mercifully” represents a world that no longer exists (as a pre-9/11 movie), as if such hyperbole has any bearing other than as gormless clickbait; you’d have to believe its world of carefully manicured caricatures existed in the first place to swallow such a notion. American Beauty must own up to some of these charges, but they don’t prevent it from retaining a flawed allure. It’s a satirical take on Americana that, if it pulls its p…

You know what I think? I think he just wants to see one cook up close.

The Green Mile (1999)
(SPOILERS) There’s something very satisfying about the unhurried confidence of the storytelling in Frank Darabont’s two prison-set Stephen King adaptations (I’m less beholden to supermarket sweep The Mist); it’s sure, measured and precise, certain that the journey you’re being take on justifies the (indulgent) time spent, without the need for flashy visuals or ornate twists (the twists there are feel entirely germane – with a notable exception – as if they could only be that way). But. The Green Mile has rightly come under scrutiny for its reliance on – or to be more precise, building its foundation on – the “Magical Negro” trope, served with a mild sprinkling of idiot savant (so in respect of the latter, a Best Supporting Actor nomination was virtually guaranteed). One might argue that Stephen King’s magical realist narrative flourishes well-worn narrative ploys and characterisations at every stage – such that John Coffey’s initials are announcement enough of his …

Kindly behove me no ill behoves!

The Bonfire of the Vanities (1990)
(SPOILERS) It’s often the case that industry-shaking flops aren’t nearly the travesties they appeared to be before the dust had settled, and so it is with The Bonfire of the Vanities. The adaptation of Tom Wolfe’s ultra-cynical bestseller is still the largely toothless, apologetically broad-brush comedy – I’d hesitate to call it a satire in its reconfigured form – it was when first savaged by critics nearly thirty years ago, but taken for what it is, that is, removed from the long shadow of Wolfe’s novel, it’s actually fairly serviceable star-stuffed affair that doesn’t seem so woefully different to any number of rather blunt-edged comedies of the era.

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

Is CBS Corporate telling CBS News "Do not air this story"?

The Insider (1999)
(SPOILERS) The Insider was the 1999 Best Picture Oscar nominee that didn’t. Do any business, that is. Which is, more often than not, a major mark against it getting the big prize. It can happen (2009, and there was a string of them from 2014-2016), but aside from brief, self-congratulatory “we care about art first” vibes, it generally does nothing for the ceremony’s profile, or the confidence of the industry that is its bread and butter. The Insider lacked the easy accessibility of the other nominees – supernatural affairs, wafer-thin melodramas or middle-class suburbanite satires. It didn’t even brandish a truly headlines-shattering nail-biter in its conspiracy-related true story, as earlier contenders All the President’s Men and JFK could boast. But none of those black marks prevented The Insider from being the cream of the year’s crop.