475. Fantastic Beasts - The Crimes Of Grindelwald; movie review

FANTASTIC BEASTS - THE CRIMES OF GRINDELWALD
Cert 12A

134 mins
BBFC advice: Contains moderate fantasy threat

"That felt as if I were taking an exam!", I exclaimed to Mrs W as I walked away from Nottingham Cineworld's IMAX screen after the ordeal of Fantastic Beasts - Crimes Of Grindelwald.
I had spent more than two hours trying to work out what was going on. Finally, I gave up and drifted into boredom.
I suspect Master W, a fan of JK Rowling's books about wizards since he was a small boy, might have appreciated the nuances of David Yates' film.
Neither Mrs W nor I did. It seemed to us that the movie-makers lent so heavily on its special effects that they forgot what has made Ms Rowling famous - storytelling.
From what I could make of this... a Voldemort-standard baddie in the shape of Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) escapes from incarceration as he is being transferred from one jail to another.

He then seeks to help wizards take control of the world from human beings.
Now, with the film set in 1927, this actually means that Grindelwald wants to stop the apocalypse of the Second World War and the atomic bomb.
Wooooah! Hold the horses, just a minute. If he wants to stop such enormous tragedies shouldn't he be encouraged?
Apparently not! Instead, the Ministry of Magic, led by Theseus Scamander (Callum Turner) and his reluctant brother Newt (Eddie Redmayne) step about using all their magical powers to stop him.
Along the way, there is a dabble of love interest with  Zoë Kravitz and thrust of collaboration from an old pal (Katherine Waterston).
Oh, and did I mention Hogwarts and a young Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law)?
So, as far as I could see it, instead of Harry Potter and his pals against Voldemort - it was Newt and his mates against Grindelwald.
And frankly, that is about all I could understand of the plot.
Those who are into JK's work, will no doubt be able to give a rundown of the various powers of each participant, the relevance of the venues and the intricate relationships to the franchise that became the most beloved in history.
This offshoot reminded me of when TV companies try for spin-offs of successful series. They always look as though they are missing an ingredient.
This is lacking many more than one.

Reasons to watch: It's J.K Rowling, innit
Reasons to avoid: Boring and difficult to follow

Laughs: Two
Jumps: None
Vomit: None
Nudity: None
Overall rating: 4/10

Director quote: "The thing about Jo's books and the thing about the movies is they’re always very generous. They combined a number of genres. In one way, they’re funny, they’re emotional. They have a fantastical element, obviously. They can be quite dramatic. And so this movie is no exception. It’s a really rich meal. It’s full of different textures and tones, and the challenge always is to combine all of those textures into one."

The big question - How long will this franchise go on?

Share this post