BY the power vested in me as a film critic, I can say exactly where some of you will be around this time in 2024: in a cinema, watching the final instalment of the Fantastic Beasts series of prequels to Harry Potter. How’s that for magic?
Not that impressive, really, since creator and screenwriter JK Rowling announced a couple of years ago that there would be five films in the series. When Ms R, whose Potter films have earned hundreds of millions and put the British film industry back on its feet, makes a prediction you can take it to the bank.
The first instalment, 2016’s Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, was a deserved hit. Set in a more sophisticated world than Potter, Beasts had the added advantages of animals and adults taking the place of posh kids with variable acting skills. The Crimes of Grindelwald sticks to the same formula, but to lesser effect. While fans will doubtless enjoy it, the non-Potter obsessed may find themselves struggling with, or yawning over, what is a convoluted yarn.
Crimes opens with outlaw wizard Gellert Grindelwald (Johnny Depp, all peroxide hair and coloured contact lenses) being moved from a jail in the US to Europe to answer for his crimes. With the wizarding world unable to stretch to a decent prisoner transfer system, best laid plans go the usual way.
Meanwhile, Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne), the David Attenborough of fantastic beasts, is back in London after his New York jaunt. He is keen to travel again, but the Ministry of Magic, wishing to keep his wings clipped, denies him permission to travel. Newt soon finds a way after his old teacher, Dumbledore (Jude Law), asks for his help in confronting Grindelwald in Paris.
Before you can say “I don’t remember Jude Law having that much hair before”, the old gang from the first film, jovial baker Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler), ditzy Queenie (Alison Sudol), and Tina (Katherine Waterston) the super-cool officer from the US equivalent of the Ministry of Magic.
Tina, with her Louise Brooks-bob, is possible the only person alive who can rock a full length black leather coat and not bring to mind the phrase, “‘Allo, allo”.
Director David Yates, who helmed the last Beasts after a clutch of Potters, does not provide much in the way of a catch-up service. Those who do not want to feel hopelessly lost might like to do some homework before they go. He is rather stingy, too, when it comes to the action scenes and the beasts themselves, though the ones the special effects team do conjure up are either pleasingly cute or impressively alarming.
Yates’s trouble, and the problem with the film as a whole, is that is dense with detail and paced like the second instalment of a five act piece. It treats the audience as though they have all the time in the world, and the patience, to hang around while Rowling adds plot point after plot point like so many baubles being hung on a Christmas tree.
Goodness she loves her revelations, and setting up storylines for films to come. An entire shoal of red herrings swims through Crimes and several trunk loads of secrets are revealed, which is great value for fans but a touch confusing for the more casual watcher who has come along for the animals, Eddie Redmayne’s Hugh Grant impersonation, all golly gosh bumbling and blushing, and Johnny Depp being dastardly in an English accent.
Just as well the picture is so wonderful to look at. The wizarding world, and late 1920s Paris, are staged in stunning detail and lit beautifully. The women’s costumes could have graced the pages of Vogue at the time. Bravo the design and cinematography teams. Having done such a marvellous job of capturing period New York and Paris, I can’t wait to see where they go next. Any chance of Glasgow?
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article