FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE CRIMES OF THE PREQUEL

With a deathly hallow T-shirt on, I stepped out of the theatre far less excited that I stepped in. I just saw Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald on IMAX 3D and none of those magnifying devices could had done anything to improve my experience. Like many before it, this Harry Potter spin-off franchise is going down a similar path and facing a similar problem, the prequel problem. The second installment in the franchise did not do much to prove the naysayers wrong and like the film before it, will remain in the shadow of the main Harry Potter series.

THIS ARTICLE IS SPOILER FREE

Is the creator her own undoing?

J.K Rowling might have written the Harry Potter books and created a universe we all know and love, but as a screenwriter, it has to be said that she's not that good. It's almost as though she had written herself into a corner with the Harry Potter story -, a rich tapestry with its perfect timelines, fully developed characters and minimal plot holes and then attempted to shoehorn a few more complex weaves at the expense of undoing her own work. A filler episode, which aimed to intrigue, with a series of complex and convoluted stories but quite misses the mark. Unlike the Harry Potter films before it and even its own direct prequel, Crimes of Grindelwald is a grim affair, one which sucks the awe and magic out of the world J.K Rowling had so wonderfully created. While the first film references the title, showing us these Fantastic Beasts we didn't know existed in the Harry Potter universe, and taking us on a semi-magical ride on the other side of the pond in New York City, while keeping some of the charm, goofiness, awe and darkness in the Harry Potter films, the second feels less cheerful and zones in on the darkness while repeating very familiar themes.

A cast too big, too soon

Crimes of Grindelwald boasts of a stellar cast with some of the most talented performers in Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Eddie Redmayne, however while they perform as you'd expect them to, the material does them a great disservice. There's just too much going on here, too many characters, too many subplots; A lost heritage, a prophecy, a sworn vengeance, a love triangle (or should I say rectangle), racism, blood pacts, brotherly competition, world domination, too much! If Newt Scamander was to be the lead protagonist of the Fantastic Beasts franchise, It was hard to see here, for most parts of it Newt and his creatures seemed like a sideshow, like a watermark, to remind you that he started off the series, he's clearly not as important as Grindelwald, Dumbledore or even Credence.

Fellow returnees and main cast from the first film; Credence, Tina, Queenie, and Jacob are also suddenly fighting for screen time with the myriad of new characters; Leta Lestrange (Zoe Kravitz) Theseus Scamander (Callum Turner), Nagini (Claudia Kim), Yusuf (William Nadylum), Nicholas Flamel (Brontis Jodorowsky), who really do this film no favours with their own subplots, and easter egg appearances. There's really no time to properly integrate these characters into the story or even into the consciousness of the audiences as they struggle for screen time, which ends up making their decisions seem impulsive and ridiculous, Leta and Queenie are a prime example of this. Leta was well teased in the first film, that I was looking forward to seeing how she was going to fit into Newt's Scamander's story while Queenie...*sigh* well you'll see.

It's a nice day to for a racial cleansing

By the end of the first film, it's quite clear that the only reason Grindelwald isn't killed for his heinous crimes was simply to have him return as the series main antagonist. Which if looked into is quite silly, considering Newt and Tina were sanctioned to be killed for a relatively lesser offence. (Albeit it this was done by the evil Grindelwald acting as Percival Graves, but he still did so in official capacity). I thought Grindelwald was far less interesting than Voldermort. While He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named was wrapped in seductive mystery and power, which enticed his followers and terrified his enemies, and was slowly fed to the audience as the series progressed, Grindelwald is that large buffet meal that isn't tasty and is too much. A cheap imitation of the Dark Lord who came after him, who seeks world dominance and thinks he looks cool in his Steampunk meets Billy Idol outfit.

Jude Law's Dumbledore is probably the most interesting character in this whole film. His secret war with Grindelwald and their tug of war over Credence, arouses one's curiosity; Who is he? Why is he so important? But while Dumbledore's reason for being unable to take up arms against his former brother, is shrouded up in mystery and then somewhat satisfyingly revealed towards the end, the revelation of Credence's heritage is simply to keep us interested for the next installment, designed to draw deep breaths from the audience and keep them talking about it till Fantastic Beasts 3. While it is a worthy attempt its not a very good one. 

The problem with prequels is that you tend to put things there that weren't there before in the service of the film before it or the prequel itself which usually leads to muddled up timelines, and plot holes. While the first film was more enjoyable than not, Crimes of Grindelwald has some good moments which pop up few and far between the film, but make you wish you could quickly get done with it. Unlike the Harry Potter series which drew you into a world you didn't want to leave, Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald simply makes you bide through it, till it's largely unsatisfying ending.

Reject Rating: 5.5/10