By Nadia Ranaputri
Director: David Yates
Cast: Eddie Redmayne, Katherine Waterston, Dan Fogler, Ezra Miller, Alison Sudol, Johnny Depp, Zoë Kravitz, Callum Turner, Jude Law, Claudia Kim.
The Wizarding World has indeed expanded into its own cinematic universe to the point where it has its own logo in the opening. Just when we thought the wizarding world had ended with the Harry Potter series, the release of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them five years after Deathly Hallows Part 2 provided a welcoming return to J.K Rowling's world of magic and wonder. Though I thought it had a couple of flaws, I did eventually warm up to the film more during multiple re-watches. It provided a sense of familiarity but a new kind of canvas to the world we all know and love. Like any other franchise starters, the first Fantastic Beasts film leaves a lot of room for us to speculate where our characters will be off to in the next story.
Picking up from where the first film left off, Grindelwald has escaped captivity and is on the loose in the streets of Paris, leading Dumbledore (Jude Law), unable to face against his former companion, no choice but to recruit Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) to ready his wand and fight against Grindelwald in his place. This isn't the only task Newt has to take, as the Ministry of Magic seeks his help to track down the person Grindelwald soughts after: Credence (Ezra Miller), an interest to both parties involved, who was assumed to have perished in the predecessor, and reach him before Grindelwald does. Meanwhile, in Paris, Grindelwald prepares a legion of followers with the means of providing justice and freedom to wizards by robbing the Muggles of theirs. In the midst of all this, Newt's journey is then sidetracked by Tina's (Katherine Waterston) return, having been sent to Paris for the same reason. With both Grindelwald and Credence on the loose, Newt is torn between doing what he believes is right and if he's willing to choose a side in the process.
Eddie Redmayne returns as the beloved magizoologist Newt Scamander, and while he still has those lovable cheerful moments, he's slightly lost the lively charm that made Newt endearing in the first installment, but the script would perhaps play a part in this. He's gone a little solemn this time around, caught in something much deeper and a little more personal. The first film managed to show his fascination and enthusiasm towards the fantastic beasts that he sought after, but because there isn't much interaction with the beasts and the film's decision to focus elsewhere, a part of that is missing. That's not to say it is entirely gone or that it's a bad thing. Some of that familiar lovable manner is still there. There would be moments where his loving charm stands out, such as how he expresses his excitement upon finding clues in search of the now reinstated Auror and former companion, Waterston's Tina Goldstein. "She has incredibly narrow feet, have you noticed?" Newt says in awe. "Can't say I have," Jacob looks upon him with a look of confusion while Newt carries along with his search.
The Crimes of Grindelwald has a much steadier tone than its predecessor, going for a darker tone for most of the film's duration. The palette is more saturated and muted, with the bustling and dim view of New York in a heavy rain, the much brightly colored Ministry of Magic in London (which is where Newt's story picks up), and the saturated streets of Paris. It is, like the installment before it, and most of the Harry Potter films; visually stunning. Whether or not the story excels, J.K Rowling through her script and Yates through his directing, they have imbued excellent world building, extending the wizarding world to new heights. The magic and wonder is still there, leaping in a constantly engaging manner. Secret magic portals, the return of the gold-loving nifflers, and a wizard's version of a circus attraction, carry the film's boisterous wonder that really makes you wonder why you can't enter the screen and visit such a world. The opening chase sequence that is Grindelwald's very own Great Escape is one of the more brilliantly directed scenes, immediately taking audiences by the hand to invite them over for what the film has in store. It's a compelling opening and introduction to the film's main villain. It has a lot of potential to build from there, the unfortunate thing is that if you look at the story, it doesn't seem to realize the kind of potential it has to do the visuals and the wonders justice.
So here's the main catch: it has too many things going on at once. The first Fantastic Beasts had solid world building with a much more cohesive main plot. While Rowling has a gift for world building and characters, it seemed that here, what goes on paper has not translated well on screen. The Crimes of Grindelwald lacks a cohesive buildup and an actual resolution. In fact, it lacks an actual story, the centre of what everything in the film is supposed to lead up to. Newt's adventures this time is muddled with sudden reunions and plot twists that had it not been placed with an array of the film's many arcs, would have made for a perfectly magical ride. Grindelwald, on the other hand, who is the main villain, mind you, is disappointingly bland, but it has more to do with the material Depp's given than his performance. You're first given a glimpse at Grindelwald's antics during the opening (which is a great start to the film, honestly), but for the rest of the film's duration, he's overshadowed and sidelined for other characters who frankly, end up not having any purpose in the film at all. Grindelwald may have been constantly refered to as one of the most powerful wizards in the wizarding world, which makes him a dangerous threat, but we don't see that here. For a film called Crimes of Grindelwald, it's quite baffling that they would focus on everyone else but Grindelwald.
The film becomes its own kind of obscurus, awfully muddled and unable to create a central story with everything that happens. It feels too much like pieces of a puzzle that had just came together, but still separate and incomplete. Think of it like a buffet where you constantly pick whatever looks good. You end up picking a lot of things and before you know it, you're unable to stuff your stomach with more food. That is essentially what The Crimes of Grindelwald is: overstuffed with subplots that eventually flood the main story, if the film has a clear story at all, to the point where it feels like it's been tossed aside or lost its way. The problem is, it really doesn't know which arc provides most to the story, so it puts as much arc as possible to give you a lot more than a full stomach and a headache at best. The constant revelations that serve as a twist are certainly a surprise, but not the best kind. Even when it's something you don't see coming, you start groaning in annoyance anyways because it has more to do with an obligatory setup for the next installments, but little to do with the story it's telling now, like the unecessary Justice League setup in Batman vs Superman.
There's cases of flashbacks, defining someone's legacy, figuring out the past, and chasing beasts, all arcs from the film's vault of several different characters; that are more of a distraction from the story than providing any real progression or relation to the main storyline, which really begs the question: what is the story trying to achieve here? Or the more dire question: what story are they actually telling here? Because it isn't clear at all of the endgame and the core story that the film is aiming for, leaving it muddled and unable to place its foot on the right stool, continuously going on different directions without a clear destination. A wider ensemble and bigger sheer of storytelling doesn't always mean a better sequel, and the issue with The Crimes of Grindelwald is that it doesn't know where the limit of arcs lie or when to turn down the noise, trapped in its own tornado of potential arcs that don't have a center to intertwine together. The first installment, despite having a similar problem, was at least able to tie most arcs together and have a clear story. Newt's coming to America, Credence and his adopted mother, Percival Graves and his obsession with finding the person behind the obscurus; they all serve a purpose to the main story.
But at least there's the beasts, right? Yes, but let's stop at that. They're simply decorations, admired but hardly play a part in the party other than to give the room (or the film in this case) some flair. They do provide some of the film's illustrious charm, but again, they're really just toppings on an ice cream. Other than the beasts, it is really the performances that are the film's shining beacon, particularly Jude Law as Dumbledore. In a muddled mess of a film with a one note villain, the return of a beloved character becomes the film's savior. This Dumbledore, a much younger and more active wizard, provides a much needed charm. Unfortunately, his part is fairly small here, perhaps saved for another film, because there are other things this film intend to focus on. But when he's on screen, his wit and calm demeanor is enough to leave audiences wanting more of Law's portrayal. When it comes to his scenes and at Hogwarts (Potterheads, you better be ready for a pang of nostalgia when this happens), there's always that speck of hope that the film does have its moments, and it actually does have its moments, enough for it to not fully be a mess, enjoyable at best. Hopefully with a more cohesive story at hand next time, it could lead future installments to a magical homerun.
Overall verdict: The Crimes of Grindelwald is certainly intriguing when it comes to charming audiences with its glorious wonders of the wizarding world. Redmayne, despite his character losing a little of that charm that made him endearing, is still quite excellent in the lead role. Jude Law as Dumbledore is perhaps the standout out of the cast, making the most out of his limited screen time. This installment still carries on the charm and wonder that the previous installment, and the Harry Potter films, had brilliantly brought, though it lacks the feeling of an actual adventure that the first Fantastic Beasts installment excelled at. The story however, however, is muddled and plucks arcs that seem interesting, and places them on a plate without any coherence as to where it's supposed to go. The revelations feel like a confusing setup for the next installments rather than serving the story it's telling in this one. Because it's overstuffed with incoherent arcs, it loses the story it wants to tell in the progress, which is unfortunate, especially since they have nearly every untapped potential, just waiting to discovered.
Stars: 2.7/5
 |
| Image source: IMDB |
Cast: Eddie Redmayne, Katherine Waterston, Dan Fogler, Ezra Miller, Alison Sudol, Johnny Depp, Zoë Kravitz, Callum Turner, Jude Law, Claudia Kim.
The Wizarding World has indeed expanded into its own cinematic universe to the point where it has its own logo in the opening. Just when we thought the wizarding world had ended with the Harry Potter series, the release of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them five years after Deathly Hallows Part 2 provided a welcoming return to J.K Rowling's world of magic and wonder. Though I thought it had a couple of flaws, I did eventually warm up to the film more during multiple re-watches. It provided a sense of familiarity but a new kind of canvas to the world we all know and love. Like any other franchise starters, the first Fantastic Beasts film leaves a lot of room for us to speculate where our characters will be off to in the next story.
Picking up from where the first film left off, Grindelwald has escaped captivity and is on the loose in the streets of Paris, leading Dumbledore (Jude Law), unable to face against his former companion, no choice but to recruit Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) to ready his wand and fight against Grindelwald in his place. This isn't the only task Newt has to take, as the Ministry of Magic seeks his help to track down the person Grindelwald soughts after: Credence (Ezra Miller), an interest to both parties involved, who was assumed to have perished in the predecessor, and reach him before Grindelwald does. Meanwhile, in Paris, Grindelwald prepares a legion of followers with the means of providing justice and freedom to wizards by robbing the Muggles of theirs. In the midst of all this, Newt's journey is then sidetracked by Tina's (Katherine Waterston) return, having been sent to Paris for the same reason. With both Grindelwald and Credence on the loose, Newt is torn between doing what he believes is right and if he's willing to choose a side in the process.
Eddie Redmayne returns as the beloved magizoologist Newt Scamander, and while he still has those lovable cheerful moments, he's slightly lost the lively charm that made Newt endearing in the first installment, but the script would perhaps play a part in this. He's gone a little solemn this time around, caught in something much deeper and a little more personal. The first film managed to show his fascination and enthusiasm towards the fantastic beasts that he sought after, but because there isn't much interaction with the beasts and the film's decision to focus elsewhere, a part of that is missing. That's not to say it is entirely gone or that it's a bad thing. Some of that familiar lovable manner is still there. There would be moments where his loving charm stands out, such as how he expresses his excitement upon finding clues in search of the now reinstated Auror and former companion, Waterston's Tina Goldstein. "She has incredibly narrow feet, have you noticed?" Newt says in awe. "Can't say I have," Jacob looks upon him with a look of confusion while Newt carries along with his search.
 |
| Image source: IMDB |
The Crimes of Grindelwald has a much steadier tone than its predecessor, going for a darker tone for most of the film's duration. The palette is more saturated and muted, with the bustling and dim view of New York in a heavy rain, the much brightly colored Ministry of Magic in London (which is where Newt's story picks up), and the saturated streets of Paris. It is, like the installment before it, and most of the Harry Potter films; visually stunning. Whether or not the story excels, J.K Rowling through her script and Yates through his directing, they have imbued excellent world building, extending the wizarding world to new heights. The magic and wonder is still there, leaping in a constantly engaging manner. Secret magic portals, the return of the gold-loving nifflers, and a wizard's version of a circus attraction, carry the film's boisterous wonder that really makes you wonder why you can't enter the screen and visit such a world. The opening chase sequence that is Grindelwald's very own Great Escape is one of the more brilliantly directed scenes, immediately taking audiences by the hand to invite them over for what the film has in store. It's a compelling opening and introduction to the film's main villain. It has a lot of potential to build from there, the unfortunate thing is that if you look at the story, it doesn't seem to realize the kind of potential it has to do the visuals and the wonders justice.
So here's the main catch: it has too many things going on at once. The first Fantastic Beasts had solid world building with a much more cohesive main plot. While Rowling has a gift for world building and characters, it seemed that here, what goes on paper has not translated well on screen. The Crimes of Grindelwald lacks a cohesive buildup and an actual resolution. In fact, it lacks an actual story, the centre of what everything in the film is supposed to lead up to. Newt's adventures this time is muddled with sudden reunions and plot twists that had it not been placed with an array of the film's many arcs, would have made for a perfectly magical ride. Grindelwald, on the other hand, who is the main villain, mind you, is disappointingly bland, but it has more to do with the material Depp's given than his performance. You're first given a glimpse at Grindelwald's antics during the opening (which is a great start to the film, honestly), but for the rest of the film's duration, he's overshadowed and sidelined for other characters who frankly, end up not having any purpose in the film at all. Grindelwald may have been constantly refered to as one of the most powerful wizards in the wizarding world, which makes him a dangerous threat, but we don't see that here. For a film called Crimes of Grindelwald, it's quite baffling that they would focus on everyone else but Grindelwald.
 |
| Image source: IMDB |
The film becomes its own kind of obscurus, awfully muddled and unable to create a central story with everything that happens. It feels too much like pieces of a puzzle that had just came together, but still separate and incomplete. Think of it like a buffet where you constantly pick whatever looks good. You end up picking a lot of things and before you know it, you're unable to stuff your stomach with more food. That is essentially what The Crimes of Grindelwald is: overstuffed with subplots that eventually flood the main story, if the film has a clear story at all, to the point where it feels like it's been tossed aside or lost its way. The problem is, it really doesn't know which arc provides most to the story, so it puts as much arc as possible to give you a lot more than a full stomach and a headache at best. The constant revelations that serve as a twist are certainly a surprise, but not the best kind. Even when it's something you don't see coming, you start groaning in annoyance anyways because it has more to do with an obligatory setup for the next installments, but little to do with the story it's telling now, like the unecessary Justice League setup in Batman vs Superman.
There's cases of flashbacks, defining someone's legacy, figuring out the past, and chasing beasts, all arcs from the film's vault of several different characters; that are more of a distraction from the story than providing any real progression or relation to the main storyline, which really begs the question: what is the story trying to achieve here? Or the more dire question: what story are they actually telling here? Because it isn't clear at all of the endgame and the core story that the film is aiming for, leaving it muddled and unable to place its foot on the right stool, continuously going on different directions without a clear destination. A wider ensemble and bigger sheer of storytelling doesn't always mean a better sequel, and the issue with The Crimes of Grindelwald is that it doesn't know where the limit of arcs lie or when to turn down the noise, trapped in its own tornado of potential arcs that don't have a center to intertwine together. The first installment, despite having a similar problem, was at least able to tie most arcs together and have a clear story. Newt's coming to America, Credence and his adopted mother, Percival Graves and his obsession with finding the person behind the obscurus; they all serve a purpose to the main story.
But at least there's the beasts, right? Yes, but let's stop at that. They're simply decorations, admired but hardly play a part in the party other than to give the room (or the film in this case) some flair. They do provide some of the film's illustrious charm, but again, they're really just toppings on an ice cream. Other than the beasts, it is really the performances that are the film's shining beacon, particularly Jude Law as Dumbledore. In a muddled mess of a film with a one note villain, the return of a beloved character becomes the film's savior. This Dumbledore, a much younger and more active wizard, provides a much needed charm. Unfortunately, his part is fairly small here, perhaps saved for another film, because there are other things this film intend to focus on. But when he's on screen, his wit and calm demeanor is enough to leave audiences wanting more of Law's portrayal. When it comes to his scenes and at Hogwarts (Potterheads, you better be ready for a pang of nostalgia when this happens), there's always that speck of hope that the film does have its moments, and it actually does have its moments, enough for it to not fully be a mess, enjoyable at best. Hopefully with a more cohesive story at hand next time, it could lead future installments to a magical homerun.
 |
| Image source: IMDB |
Overall verdict: The Crimes of Grindelwald is certainly intriguing when it comes to charming audiences with its glorious wonders of the wizarding world. Redmayne, despite his character losing a little of that charm that made him endearing, is still quite excellent in the lead role. Jude Law as Dumbledore is perhaps the standout out of the cast, making the most out of his limited screen time. This installment still carries on the charm and wonder that the previous installment, and the Harry Potter films, had brilliantly brought, though it lacks the feeling of an actual adventure that the first Fantastic Beasts installment excelled at. The story however, however, is muddled and plucks arcs that seem interesting, and places them on a plate without any coherence as to where it's supposed to go. The revelations feel like a confusing setup for the next installments rather than serving the story it's telling in this one. Because it's overstuffed with incoherent arcs, it loses the story it wants to tell in the progress, which is unfortunate, especially since they have nearly every untapped potential, just waiting to discovered.
Stars: 2.7/5
0 Comments