A wave of Harry Potter fans will roll into theaters in large numbers to see "Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald" despite it being a muddled mess of stories stitched together to make a film that is nothing more than a way to tread water while the franchise goes along. Others should beware.
"Crimes of Grindelwald" starts with dark wizard Gellert Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) in prison. His first task is to put together an army of pureblood wizards so he can rule over those without magical powers.
The biggest obstacle in the plan for world domination is someone very familiar to Harry Potter fans, Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law). He's as powerful as Grindelwald, but there is a complication, so Dumbledore calls on Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) to help save the day. Faster than you can say half-blood prince, Newt goes from strange creature wrangler to evil hunter.
If the script by J.K. Rowling had stayed within those parameters, "Crimes of Grindelwald" would have settled into a comprehensive tale of good versus evil. But, Rowling has never faced a storyline she couldn't burden with shovels full of mythology.
A massive clue to the kind of problems a script has is when the entire production comes to a dead stop for a lengthy monologue to try to sum up what is happening. In this case, the monologue becomes so convoluted, a monologue is needed to explain the monologue.
Rowling spends pages of dialogue explaining what would happen if evil wins but skips over plot holes such as how Jacob (Dan Fogler) can be part of the magical world when he had a brainwash at the end of "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them." Something that could use a clear explanation is left to guesswork and slight suggestions.
Director David Yates knows the franchise as well as anyone other than Rowling, as he directed four previous films in the Harry Potter franchise. The knowledge comes through in the movie's staging, from the murky city streets to the fantastic beasts, who finally show up late in the production. But even he can't make the long narrative passages interesting.
You can't fault most of the players. Redmayne brings great energy to playing Newt, a man who is not driven by a need for power or greed but by a search for what is right. Redmayne plays the role with such honesty and strength that he comes close to saving the day. It is not close enough.
Law is a good addition to play Dumbledore, but because Rowling gives the character so little to do, he never has a chance to give the performance any depth. It is a great waste of talent.
And then there's Depp. Grindelwald is at the other end of the energy spectrum from the role that has given Depp his biggest accolades, Capt. Jack Sparrow from the "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies. Actors should be able to play a wide range of roles, but Depp's work in "Fantastic Beasts" is a yawner.
Depp's effort to play Grindelwald fall short and instead of him being controlled evil, he just looks bored. The biggest crime he commits comes early in the film, but the way the sequence is put together, there's some confusion as to what really happens.
Unlike the first film, "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them," this production isn't as inviting to those who haven't memorized all Harry Potter lore. If you are among those who possess no such knowledge, your only hope is to take a scholar with you and then spend the movie asking multiple who, what, when and where questions.
.png?w=600)
