Written by J.K. Rowling and directed once again by the Harry Potter cinematic universe veteran David Yates, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is a fantasy film that acts as a prequel to the Harry Potter series and is the second installment in the Fantastic Beasts series.

Its predecessor, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016), was a flawed but intriguing film, especially for Potterheads, with some interesting things to offer in terms of world-building and questions to fans who had been clamouring for more. The Crimes of Grindelwald, on the other hand, and please excuse the pun, simply lacks the magic, suffering more gravely from the issues that plagued the first piece in this series.

Though not nearly as good as the books, the Harry Potter films were fun and interesting cinematic adaptions. They worked partially because experienced and talented screenwriters took sometimes wordy plots by J.K. Rowling and chiseled scripts out of them for the silver screen. For the most part, these writers knew what passages from the story to use, and what bits to sacrifice for the greater good of the film. Sure, some of this was heavy-handed and left fans fuming, but at least the films kept the narrative moving in a medium that say, unlike a TV series such as Game of Thrones, has the luxury of only a few hours to effectively tell the tale.

The Crimes of Grindelwald casts a yawning spell and a hex of frustration on the audience, showing that J.K. Rowling is a better writer of books than screenplays

It is now clear from the Fantastic Beasts series that the immensely talented and often brilliant J.K. Rowling is a fine writer of books, but not the greatest screenwriter. The biggest crime the The Crimes of Grindelwald commits is that it is needlessly convoluted. I’m not sure why, for this film, J.K. Rowling did not take the assistance of a professional screenwriter to the point where the said person was given a co-credit, but the film sorely misses a writer that understands how the medium works.

There are just too many narrative threads in The Crimes of Grindelwald. Many aren’t even interesting and some, I daresay, are quite boring. Moreover, the storytelling employs exposition too heavily, with characters standing around lecturing to us about the plot. Such scenes can potentially work but The Crimes of Grindelwald isn’t clever enough.

There are just too many narrative threads in the film. Moreover, the storytelling employs exposition too heavily, with characters standing around lecturing to us about the plot.

This is a pity, because other aspects are exceptionally good. As the titular powerful evil wizard Gellert Grindelwald, Johnny Depp delivers a memorable performance. The character has the usual Depp quirk, with something of a chilling dark streak. Meanwhile, Jude Law handles the weight of a young Albus Dumbledore nicely, portraying the legendary character with the subtle strength the role requires. Meanwhile, Eddie Redmayne continues to impress as the hero of the series, Newt Scamander, who is a British Ministry of Magic magizoologist in charge of some impressive beasts. There is also Ezra Miller as the neglected Credence Barebone, another important character in the film. Disappointingly, pivotal female characters continue to get the cold shoulder.

The production values are also excellent. James Newton Howard delivers yet another haunting and whimsical score while the special effects on offer are at times a technical marvel with some gorgeous imagery of the fantastical. Sadly, none of this is enough to save the many scenes in The Crimes of Grindelwald that cast a yawning spell and a hex of frustration on the audience, answering few of the questions from the first film but leaving us with more, especially with a disappointing plot twist at the end that reeks of desperation. If J.K. Rowling isn’t careful, by the time the next chapter rolls around, no one will care.

PG13 for some sequences of fantasy action

Published in Dawn, ICON, November 25th, 2018