Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald has done well at the box office so far, currently sitting above four-hundred and forty million dollars worldwide; yet it also sits as the lowest-reviewed entry in its series. What went wrong and where does the prequel series go from here? Let’s find out…
The Harry Potter franchise is practically a national treasure in the UK at this point; millions of people have read the books and seen the films and each mainline entry has been received positively both critically and commercially. It was the rare blockbuster franchise that went beyond offering simplistic popcorn entertainment. Starting off quite whimsical, it gradually grew and matured over time, allowing its themes and characters to take centre stage while consistently escalating the action, placed against a fascinating world with more than a few influences from British society and culture. Deathly Hallows: Part 2 is my personal favourite, the last and best entry where everything comes together. What made Harry Potter work as a franchise was the way it both respected the source material and kept its identity clear and consistent throughout the eight films.
My biggest issue with Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them in 2016 was the number of scenes that really didn’t contribute anything to the main story. Crimes of Grindelwald takes that issue and makes it worse. As mentioned in my review, there is simultaneously everything and nothing going on in the film’s plot; Crimes is constantly swapping back and forth between characters and scenes, some of which have no bearing on the greater story whatsoever. The worst example of this for me was when Queenie stumbled across Grindelwald and his followers in Paris; you’d expect a confrontation or argument to break out over their differing perspectives but instead the dark wizard simply lets her leave, a very pointless sequence all around. These scenes stick out because in the grand scheme of things, they drastically reduce the narrative’s main hook. Grindelwald’s thunderous escape at the start of the film sets the audience up for a dangerous and highly antagonistic storyline yet the film never feels urgent in the slightest.
The second major fault committed by Crimes of Grindelwald is that it tries to do too much too quickly, which is by far the worst sin you can ever commit when building a franchise; two years ago, I singled out Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice for rushing through events and plot elements. For the second Harry Potter prequel we have too many characters and too many narrative threads all competing for screen-time. Every franchise needs to expand its world and bring in new characters eventually, but it should be done organically, not getting in the way of the main story. The first Fantastic Beasts in 2016 was still relatively self-contained, partly down to the filmmakers testing the waters for a new franchise. By using a smaller number of main characters, the film was able to make up for the fact that its narrative wasn’t wholly cohesive. By introducing six side characters at once, none of them are given the time to grow or develop and simultaneously, the main characters we were introduced to in the first film don’t receive much attention either.
Finally, we come to nostalgia-pandering and the realm of bad prequels; most point to Star Wars and The Hobbit for examples of this; franchises that rely too much on familiarity and former beloved characters to bring audiences in. We see this in a number of areas in Crimes of Grindelwald; a young Albus Dumbledore who only shows up for about fifteen minutes, Leta Lestrange having some unnamed connection to Bellatrix, Nicholas Flamel, the apparent finder of the Philosopher’s Stone and, most egregious of all, Nagini, Voldemort’s pet snake revealed to be a woman with a blood curse. I don't take issue with casting but the decision to include these connections and how they were handled. When you fill your movie with all these flimsy connections, it takes away from the main plot, disrupting its surprises and impact every time a call-back is made. There’s this obsession Hollywood has with explaining and making connections between everything and while other franchises such as Alien have done this to a reasonable standard in my book, Fantastic Beasts falls short. Either do these connections with enough depth or ignore them entirely and let the story stand on its own; they simply can’t be half-baked if you’re looking to make a high-quality production.
What it all comes down to is that Crimes of Grindelwald was badly written, which for JK Rowling seems unthinkable. Up to now, readers and movie-goers alike believed she could do no wrong, but Fantastic Beasts 2 is a major downturn. Taking a glance at the film’s main poster is very revealing; it’s very crowded compared to the first Fantastic Beasts, something indicative of the entire film. If the prequel series continues down this route, the next three films will only get worse from here. Taking these criticisms onboard will be key to getting the series back on track.
Comments