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.

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Repo Man (1984)
In fairness, I should probably check out more Alex Cox’s later works. Before I consign him to the status of one who never made good on the potential of his early success. But the bits and pieces I’ve seen don’t hold much sway. I pretty much gave up on him after Walker. It seemed as if the accessibility of Repo Man was a happy accident, and he was subsequently content to drift further and further down his own post-modern punk rabbit hole, as if affronted by the “THE MOST ASTONISHING FEATURE FILM DEBUT SINCE STEVEN SPIELBERG’S DUEL” accolade splashed over the movie’s posters (I know, I have a copy; see below).

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.

This is one act in a vast cosmic drama. That’s all.

Audrey Rose (1977)
(SPOILERS) Robert Wise was no stranger to high-minded horror fare when he came to Audrey Rose. He was no stranger to adding a distinctly classy flavour to any genre he tackled, in fact, particularly in the tricky terrain of the musical (West Side Story, The Sound of Music) and science fiction (The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Andromeda Strain). He hadn’t had much luck since the latter, however, with neither Two People nor The Hindenburg garnering good notices or box office. In addition to which, Audrey Rose saw him returning to a genre that had been fundamentally impacted by The Exorcist four years before. One might have expected the realist principals he observed with The Andromeda Strain to be applied to this tale of reincarnation, and to an extent they are, certainly in terms of the performances of the adults, but Wise can never quite get past a hacky screenplay that wants to impart all the educational content of a serious study of continued existence in tandem w…

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018)
(SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop.