Movie Reaction: Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald

Formula: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them - Creature of the Week

There aren't many people who would argue with calling J.K. Rowling a great author. The Harry Potter series is - well - nothing short of magic. She created a unique world out of familiar ideas, filled it with unforgettable characters, and tied it all to an intricate but digestible story. However, for all her considerable skill, not all writing is the same. The best poets write awful instruction manuals. Essayists don't necessarily write great plays. The same goes for novelists writing screenplays.

The Oscars divides screenplay into two categories: adapted and original. Even those are two different skills. Original screenplays are conceived with the screen in mind. The idea behind the storytelling is what works in a film, first and foremost. Adapted screenplays take a lot of forms, but they are often about figuring out what does and doesn't need to be kept to work in a movie. What about this play works for a movie and what doesn't or how much of this 1000 page book is needed for a 2.5h film treatment. The conflict between adapted and original screenplays is the biggest problem with the Fantastic Beasts movies.

The Crimes of Grindelwald is the sequel to the 2016 Fantastic Beasts film that has a decidedly mixed response. It returns all the actors and characters of note from the first movie. That includes zoologist Dr. Who, Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne), MACUSA Auror Tina Goldstein (Katherine Waterston), New York muggle Jacob Kowalski (Dan Folgler), Tina's enchanting sister Queenie (Alison Sudol), and dangerous orphan Credence (Ezra Miller). Leta Lestrange (Zoe Kravitz) and 1920s Voldemort, Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) get a lot more screentime, although I can't say their characters are significantly more fleshed out. Newt's brother Theseus (Callum Turner) shows up to fill in Newt's family history, and sexy Dumbledore - I mean - Jude Law gets some things to do. It's the kind of big Wizarding World cast we've come to expect, full of actors we like. I'm not going to bother outlining the story, because the Wizarding World brand is what's convincing anyone to see this, not description I give of what happens. Just know that it's a story about a bunch of good wizards trying to stop a powerful evil wizard who is targeting a special orphan with tremendous powers. You know, typical Harry Potter stuff, but with people driving around in Model Ts.

The more important factors are that David Yates is back as the director and J.K. Rowling wrote the screenplay again. Yates is important because he brings his same darker take to the Wizarding World. I like his work in the movies going back to the last few Harry Potter movies. However, with the Harry Potter movies, he was working from the lighter, more playful template established by Chris Columbus, which balanced things out. Yates' take in the Fantastic Beasts movies has been significantly darker. Frankly, it's not as fun. There isn't the same sense of wonder. I feel like every scene takes place at night. I really do love Yates' work as a director. His Legend of Tarzan movie from a couple years ago I'm weirdly fond of, but I'm not crazy about his take on the Wizarding World right now.

Rowling is the key factor. We all know this. She is Harry Potter and the Wizarding World. Nothing goes without her approval. I don't like her screenplays for these Fantastic Beasts movies. She's writing these screenplays like novelist. When adapting a book, the screenwriting is essentially making an abridged version of the story. The writer determines which plots to keep or drop. She finds ways to explain what she needs to keep and let go of all the unneeded detail. Screenplays are pretty lean. The Crimes of Grindelwald isn't lean. It's filled background stories, characters who are referenced but not seen, and references that casual fans will be confused by. I'm a casual fan of Harry Potter. I've read the seven books and seen the movies. I saw the first Fantastic Beasts once in theaters. I'll be honest, I was lost throughout a lot of this movie. I'm confused about what Grindelwald is up to. I have no idea why Credence matters. I realize that Leta Lestange's backstory is supposed to matter, but I'm not sure why. Rowling writes the screenplay with the level of depth of a book. I have to believe that if she was adapting from a book that was already written, a lot would've been cut out or simplified in this movie. Bigger Harry Potter fans, I imagine will have a much easier time following all of it.

All that said, I still enjoyed the movie well  enough. I have a pretty minimal investment in the franchise, so I can easily forgive how much the story is backpedaling into the Harry Potter story structure, or how Jacob Kowalski is rather lazily written back into the movie, or even how it's unforgivable to keep Newt and Tina apart for so much of the movie (the series really needs as much of their chemistry as possible). Eddie Redmayne gives a charmingly mannered performance. I was surprised how easily Zoe Kravitz fit into the Wizarding World. When the movie did move into the more exciting parts, I was entertained. The idea of a Dr. Parnassis showdown between Jude Law and Johnny Depp looms large. I like hanging out in the Wizarding World for a couple hours enough that I am going to enjoy myself regardless of anything that actually happens in the movie. That forgives a lot of flaws.

One Last Thought: When does J.K. Rowling become George Lucas? While their functions are very different, both creator's arcs are pretty similar. People love the Harry Potter books and the original Star Wars Trilogy. (No one can every take that away from them.) Both increased their control in the follow ups. Lucas directed all three Prequel Trilogy installments and bogged them down with unneeded detail. Rowling is writing the screenplays for all the Fantastic Beasts movies which are proving to be more complicated than they need to be. Like Lucas, the best move for Rowling's property may be to move it over to the people who grew up loving her work and had their brains rewired by it. The reason why the new Star Wars movies have been so good is because JJ Abrams and Rian Johnson have known Star Wars their whole lives. How many more years before those kinds of Harry Potter fans start popping up? My generation is probably the oldest ones who were still impressionable enough for Harry Potter to dominate their childhood. So, the oldest of those fans are in their early 30s. Maybe we need to check back in a decade for them to become power players in Hollywood. I'm thrilled to see what second generation Harry Potter will look like. Until then, I have to hope that Rowling doesn't get too burned out to come up with something great.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend