“Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald,” directed by David Yates and released Nov. 16, is the second installment in the “Fantastic Beasts” film series written by J. K. Rowling.
“The Crimes of Grindelwald” picks up from the aftermath of the first movie, in which magical creature expert Newt Scamander, played by Eddie Redmayne, came to New York in 1926 seeking a rare creature and instead uncovered the wicked plot of Gellert Grindelwald, played by Johnny Depp, to have wizards rule the world.
Now, Grindelwald has escaped from prison to spread his message of wizard dominance, gather followers and find the tools he needs to defeat the only wizard who stands in his way– Albus Dumbledore, played by Jude Law. What ensues is a man-hunt for the young wizard Credence, played by Ezra Miller, who possesses a dark and dangerous power and is the key to either the rise or fall of Grindelwald.
Hands-down, my favorite part of “The Crimes of Grindelwald” was the technical aspects. James Newton Howard’s soundtrack captured all the whimsical magic and childhood nostalgia of the original “Harry Potter” series. The special effects involved in the fight scenes and demonstrations of magic made the movie feel very genuine and about as close to reality as a fantasy movie can be. Additionally, the sets and costume choices brought the audience directly into the world of 1920s New York, London and Paris.
Regrettably, the film’s narrative left much to be desired. The movie was great for lovers of “Harry Potter” since it left lots of Easter eggs for fans to connect to the original series: a name dropped here, a familiar character introduced there. However, it was difficult to follow the plot because there were so many subplots involved. There was family drama, romantic troubles, identity crisis, social justice issues, ethical dilemmas and just about every conflict possible thrust into one film.
Even though I was familiar with the premise of the “The Crimes of Grindelwald” and had seen the first “Fantastic Beasts” movie a few times, I was struggling to keep up with who was dead, who was alive, who was related to whom and all of the new names and characters in between. Now, I’m all for J. K. Rowling’s trademark style of intertwining plots and surprises, but “The Crimes of Grindelwald” just had too many of them for even the most hardcore Potterhead to keep up.
Despite the plot setbacks, I thought that “The Crimes of Grindelwald” was extremely relevant to today’s political climate, particularly in the character of Grindelwald. Grindelwald had all the eloquent rhetoric and smooth demeanor of a modern politician or cult leader, and his goal of dominance felt a little too real considering the current world leaders’ power-hungry motives. Even though his ideas meant suffering and death for billions of non-magic people, wizards were willing to listen and join him merely because he said exactly what they had always wanted to hear. Even the worst thing imaginable can sound appealing if delivered correctly.
Not to mention that Johnny Depp– alleged domestic abuser– was chosen to play the part of Grindelwald, a white megalomaniac who rejects accountability…odd.
Regardless of the movie’s strengths and weaknesses, I told myself while leaving the theater that I’d have to see the movie again to fully take it in. So while “The Crimes of Grindelwald” had its fair share of shortcomings, I’m still anxiously anticipating the next installment.