Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) review

In 2001, the first installment of the Harry Potter film series, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (Philosopher’s Stone overseas), officially kickstarted a great new franchise adapted from the beloved, best-selling book series by author J.K. Rowling. One full decade later, the series officially concluded with the second part of the adaptation of the final book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, and for fans of the franchise, it seemed as if this was the end of the adventures within the Wizarding World… or so we thought. Just a few years later, it was announced that Rowling would be writing a new series of films inspired by the in-universe textbook Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, a guide to the various creatures of the Wizarding World that was published for real in 2001. And while it’s safe to say that some may have initially questioned the idea of a film series based around a textbook, Rowling would soon go on to reveal more details about the new franchise. Specifically, it would be a prequel that took place 70 years prior to the events of Harry Potter and would focus on the adventures of the textbook’s author, Newt Scamander. The first installment of this series, which shared the name of its source material, hit theaters in November 2016. It served as Rowling’s first screenplay and saw director David Yates return to the franchise after previously helming the final four installments of Harry Potter. Upon its release, the film proved to be yet another success for the franchise, garnering solid reviews from both critics and audiences and grossing over $800 million worldwide, thus paving the way for this year’s sequel, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, which delves further into the Wizarding World of the 1920’s. And while it does end up suffering a bit from a case of ‘middle chapter syndrome’, there’s still just enough of the things that have made this franchise a staple of pop culture to satisfy its devoted fandom. 

Three months after aiding the Magical Congress of the United States of America (MACUSA) in capturing the notorious dark wizard Gellert Grindelwald (Johnny Depp), zoologist Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) returns home to England to continue what he does best by looking after all the unique magical creatures that he comes across. However, Newt is soon placed on watch by the Ministry of Magic for his ‘unauthorized’ field trip to America and is pressured into assisting their Aurors (one of them being his older brother Theseus (Callum Turner)) in their efforts to hunt Grindelwald again when he ends up escaping from custody. Newt also learns that Grindelwald is specifically looking for Credence Barebone (Ezra Miller), the disturbed young man who, in the previous film, was revealed to be possessed by a parasite known as an Obscurus. And although he was supposedly killed by MACUSA, it is revealed that he survived and has traveled to Paris in the hopes of discovering his heritage. While he initially refuses to help the Aurors, Newt is ultimately convinced to go on his own accord by his old professor from Hogwarts, Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law), whose unique relationship with Grindelwald prevents him from joining in on the action. Thus, Newt, with the aid of sisters Tina (Katherine Waterston) and Queenie (Alison Sudol) Goldstein and Muggle Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler), who’s revealed to have kept most of the memories that he had prior to his alleged memory wipe, embark on a journey to ensure that Credence isn’t swayed by Grindelwald’s dark cause. For as they find out, Credence’s supposedly pure-blood heritage potentially makes him the only one who can possibly equal Grindelwald and his greatest adversary, Albus Dumbledore.

Now admittedly, Crimes of Grindelwald doesn’t always maintain the exact same quality of writing when compared to previous entries in the franchise. While some have criticized it for having a ‘minimal’ plot, I’d say that this film’s biggest issue lies more with its ending. For the most part, this film is clearly meant to be the entry in the series that is primarily intended to set up plotlines that will play a far bigger role in future films, and while I don’t mind the ways in which it sets up those films, it ends up resulting in its own finale being a bit too anti-climactic. Simply put, the big confrontation with Grindelwald that the marketing campaign has been alluding to doesn’t really happen, and what is ultimately there is taken care of rather quickly, which also means that not every plotline and bit of character development is given as much attention as it should be. But even with that in mind, that doesn’t completely take anything away from all the other great things that are in this film. While it does stumble a bit by the end, the rest of the film is very well-paced even if the plot is admittedly a lot simpler compared to some of the other films. And yet, even with that said, this film still manages to maintain what is easily J.K. Rowling’s greatest strength as a writer, her knack for world-building. Once again, this film does a phenomenal job when it comes to creating all the new locations and magical creatures that it brings to the Wizarding World thanks in large part to the always terrific production design and stunning visual effects that only manage to get better with each new film.

But as I’ve noted in the past, easily my favorite aspect of this new franchise is its main protagonists AKA the main quartet of Newt, Jacob, Tina, and Queenie. Even with the expectations spurred from the iconic trio of Harry, Ron, and Hermione, these four proved to be just as endearing as the series’ original leads. Plus, despite where some of the plotlines in this film end up taking them, their chemistry is still just as strong as it was in the first film. Most notably, Newt and Jacob continue to be a wonderful lead duo, with Eddie Redmayne continuing to maintain Newt’s incredibly sympathetic nature and Dan Fogler once again providing the film with many of its best humorous moments. Redmayne and Fogler also continue to have wonderful chemistry with Katherine Waterston and Alison Sudol as sisters Tina and Queenie, respectively, resulting in some of the film’s best emotional moments. As for the new additions to the franchise’s ensemble, easily the most prominent is Jude Law taking on the role of a young Albus Dumbledore. And while it should be noted that Dumbledore doesn’t factor into the plot as much as one would expect, Law still very much shines in the role, nobly following in the footsteps of Richard Harris and Michael Gambon. Other new additions like Callum Turner as Newt’s brother Theseus, Zoe Kravitz as Newt’s former classmate (and Theseus’ fiancé) Leta Lestrange, and Claudia Kim as the transforming Maledictus known as Nagini (who, of course, ends up becoming Voldemort’s snake companion in the Potter books/films) are solid as well.

And then there’s easily the film’s biggest question mark, Johnny Depp as Grindelwald. Ever since he was cast in the role, there has been a ton of controversy because of it. For starters, some fans weren’t too thrilled with the first film’s reveal that Grindelwald had been impersonating Colin Farrell’s Percival Graves, with many arguing that Farrell would’ve been a much better fit in the role. And while Depp’s role in the first film was ultimately quite minor, some predicted that this would eventually lead to yet another instance of his increasingly controversial over-the-top style of acting. But, of course, the biggest controversy to come from Depp’s casting was due to his infamous domestic abuse case in 2016, with many condemning the decision for him to be cast in a franchise that was developed by a woman who’s clearly been known to disapprove of this kind of behavior. And yet, at the risk of attracting some negative attention from those who were against his casting… Depp surprisingly manages to impress in the role of Grindelwald. Contrary to what some may have feared, he never really delves into the same over-the-top acting that he’s been known for these past few years. Instead, he establishes a suitably reserved but incredibly intimidating antagonist who can recruit others to his cause without much issue, and while he does suffer from the story seemingly saving his biggest moments for future films, Depp does make the most out of the material that he’s given. In short, while I want to make it perfectly clear that I’m not ‘defending’ any of Depp’s recent actions, it should be noted that, despite what some may ultimately claim, none of this film’s shortcomings are primarily because of him.

At the time that I’m writing this, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is the only entry in the Wizarding World saga to attract a mixed-to-negative reception from critics… and yet, it’s seriously not as bad as some of those critics have been claiming. To be clear, though, I’m not saying that it’s perfect because, in the opposite scenario of what happened with Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, this film does fall victim to the dreaded ‘middle chapter syndrome’. While I don’t dislike any of the ways in which the film sets up future installments of the franchise, along with how it often ties itself back to Harry Potter, there are a few plot threads and bits of character development that would’ve benefitted from having more attention given to them. But despite all this, everything else that’s great about the Wizarding World franchise is still on display here. J.K. Rowling’s world-building is still second-to-none and the main characters are just as endearing as ever while being joined by some solid newcomers. And yes, as controversial of a claim as it’ll undoubtedly be, Johnny Depp doesn’t phone it in whilst portraying the title role of Grindelwald. I understand why some have been hesitant about this film because of his involvement, but I hope that it doesn’t completely turn people away from seeing it given those who were involved that obviously weren’t tied to Depp’s incidents. In other words, Depp’s involvement has clearly cast an incredibly dark shadow over this new series that, unfortunately, it might not be able to overcome. But as for me, I’m still very much a staunch defender of the Fantastic Beasts franchise and I look forward to seeing it continue.  

Rating: 4.5/5

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) review

The Harry Potter series is a franchise that needs no introduction at this point. The brainchild of author J.K. Rowling, this is very much one of the best ‘success stories’ in recent memory. After a few years spent struggling to get by as a single mom living in the U.K., Rowling published her first novel, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone (later retitled Sorcerer’s Stone for the U.S. release) in 1997, having come up with the idea for Harry Potter while on a delayed train ride to London. While it was initially rejected by 12 different publishers (who I’m sure are now fully regretting that decision), the book became a worldwide best-seller, as did its six follow-ups. With over 500 million copies sold to date, it is the best-selling book series of all-time. That success was then equally translated into film when Warner Bros. bought the film rights in 1999. The film adaptation of Sorcerer’s Stone was released in 2001 and the series would continue up until 2011 with 7 more films, including a two-part adaptation of the final book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. And like their book counterparts, the films were a massive critical and commercial success. It’s legitimately one of the rare franchises in which every entry in the series is great and the series ended up grossing over $7 billion worldwide, with the final entry, 2011’s Deathly Hallows Part 2, even going over $1 billion. And at that time, it seemed as if the series had come to an end. While Rowling has expanded the series since then through various forms of media, including a recent stage play titled Harry Potter and the Cursed Child that serves as the eighth installment of the series, it seems as if the story of Harry Potter, ‘the boy who lived’, has come to an end.

But this isn’t the end for the wizarding world, though. In 2013, it was announced that Rowling was writing a screenplay for a new film set within her wizarding world; Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. This new project was particularly interesting given its ‘source material’. Instead of being based on a full novel like the Potter films were, this film is inspired by an in-universe textbook of the same name by author Newt Scamander that was one of the many textbooks that Harry Potter owned while at Hogwarts. Rowling even released the book for real in 2001. Obviously, the idea of a film that was inspired by a ‘textbook’ seems like a weird concept. But, we are talking about J.K. Rowling here, who makes her screenwriting debut with this ‘spin-off’ of the Harry Potter series that is set in 1920’s New York and follows the adventures of Newt Scamander. After spending a whole series overseas, we’re finally getting to see the American side of the Wizarding World. And not only does this film see the return of some of the franchise’s primary behind-the-scenes players, including producer David Heyman and writer Steve Kloves (who, for the record, is only a producer here), but also director David Yates, who helmed the final four Potter films. With that kind of pedigree, it seems like this should be another full-on success for this beloved franchise. And, ultimately, you would be right on that one, as Rowling and co. give us another highly entertaining adventure in the wizarding world that truly manages to stand on its own merit.  

In 1926, around 70 years prior to the events of the Harry Potter films, magizoologist Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) arrives in New York City by boat. His primary possession is a suitcase containing various magical creatures that he has collected over the years. Things get rather complicated, however, when a run-in with No-Maj* (the American term for what the Potter books referred to as ‘Muggles’, AKA ‘non-wizarding folk’) Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler) ends up resulting in their suitcases getting switched and some of the creatures getting loose. And, unfortunately, this happens at a very bad time, as the American wizarding community, specifically the Magical Congress of the United States of America (MACUSA), is in the middle of dealing with the possible threat of exposure to the non-wizarding community. This is primarily due to a mysterious force that has been attacking the city and may or may not be connected to the dark wizard Grindelwald. And because MACUSA has instigated a ban on owning magical creatures, that puts Newt’s creatures in even more danger as they’re being blamed for the incidents. Thus, Newt and Jacob team up with MACUSA employee Tina Goldstein (Katherine Waterston) and her sister Queenie (Alison Sudol) to find his creatures before any harm can come to them.  

Despite a change in scenery, the world that this film creates is, for lack of a better term, just as magical as what we saw from the Potter films. Once again, you are fully immersed in the world that Rowling creates and the new setting of 1920’s New York provides plenty of creative scenarios that feel both new but also familiar (in a good way). And being a film called Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, this film is very much full of ‘magical creature’-related sequences that are super fun to watch. But one of the coolest things about the film is that it is very much its own story. Sure, there are references to Harry Potter here and there (e.g. Dumbledore, Hogwarts, etc.) but they’re minor at best. And sure, these references might get more prevalent in future films. But for being the first installment of a new franchise, this film does succeed in standing on its own instead of having to rely on the arguably now nostalgic value of the Harry Potter films. Ultimately, though, the best thing that I can say about this film, as was the case with the eight Potter films, is that it does a fantastic job of balancing out the various traits of the story; the humor, the drama, the emotional depth, the charm, and the spectacle. That, my friends, is the sign of a great director and a great writer and this film has both in David Yates and J.K. Rowling, respectively. Yates’ direction is just as great as it was in the last four Potter films while Rowling’s writing, as usual, provides us with a terrifically-layered story that tackles strong themes like bigotry and prejudice amidst all the light-hearted magical adventures that the main characters find themselves in.

Speaking of which, one of the best things about this franchise in general has always been its ensemble cast. Every member of the Harry Potter cast was perfectly fit to play their respective roles. And the same can be said for the cast of Fantastic Beasts. The four main leads; Newt, Tina, Queenie, and Jacob, prove to be an excellent group of likable protagonists. They work well together and are well-matched in terms of their personalities, with Newt being the socially awkward main protagonist, Tina the kind but no-nonsense gal with a chip on her shoulder (as the result of an incident that led to her being removed from her position as an Auror (AKA basically a ‘wizard cop’)), Queenie the sweet flirt, and Jacob basically being the audience avatar of the situation; the No-Maj/Muggle (whatever one you prefer) who gets caught up in the wizarding world. In fact, this is basically the first time we’ve ever seen a non-wizard main character in this series. These four prove to be such an endearing group that, without giving anything major away, the way that the film closes out one of their story arcs is quite emotional. All in all, excellent performances from Eddie Redmayne, Katherine Waterston, Alison Sudol, and Dan Fogler. But like with any ‘Wizarding World’ film, this film also benefits from an excellent supporting cast playing an eclectic and interesting bunch of characters. There’s Colin Farrell as the rather sinister Auror Percival Graves, Ezra Miller as the mysterious young man Credence, Samantha Morton as Credence’s extremely bigoted No-Maj adopted mother Mary Lou who leads an extremist group looking to expose wizards, Carmen Ejogo as the stern president of MACUSA, the list goes on and on.

I’m not going to lie when I say that this was very much one of my most anticipated films of the year. Harry Potter is easily my favorite film franchise of all-time. Therefore, I was excited to see what would come out of a ‘Wizarding World’ film set in 1920’s New York with a screenplay written by J.K. Rowling herself. And I must say that the results are incredibly satisfying. Heck, I’m already imagining what they could do to implement this new side of the franchise into the ‘Wizarding World of Harry Potter’ lands at Universal Studios. Really, that’s the best part about the world that J.K. Rowling creates. It’s so imaginative that the possibilities are endless. But this is not just a prequel to Harry Potter. Aside from a few slight references here and there, this new film does stand on its own merit thanks to a great new cast of main characters and plenty of fun mayhem involving magical beasts. After all, this is called Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. But through it all, thanks to the always great direction of David Yates and the always fantastic writing of J.K. Rowling, this film perfectly blends the charming spectacle of it all with a well-written story that contains strong themes, dark moments, and heartfelt emotional depth. In other words, exactly what the Harry Potter films had been doing for a decade. All in all, this film is an impressively self-contained story, so much so that it’s actually rather unclear as to where this series will go next, especially considering that there will apparently be four more films after this. But I assure you that this Potter fan is very much eager to see more of this new side of the Wizarding World.

Rating: 5/5!

The Legend of Tarzan (2016) review

Prior to 2007, director David Yates was mostly known for his work in television, being behind the camera for various British shows and mini-series, including a 2001 adaptation of Anthony Trollope’s The Way We Live Now and 2003’s State of Play, which was later adapted into an Americanized film in 2009. But then in 2007, Yates got his big break in the film industry when he was hired to direct the fifth installment of the Harry Potter franchise; Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. As expected at that point, the film was another big hit for the franchise, grossing nearly a billion worldwide and regarded by some (including this reviewer) as the best film in the franchise. Because of this, Yates was then brought back to direct the final three installments of the franchise; 2009’s Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and the two-part adaptation of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, with Part 1 released in 2010 and the series finale, Part 2, released the next year in the summer of 2011. He is set to return to the Wizarding World this November with the J.K. Rowling-penned spin-off, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. But before that, he has a different project coming out that also happens to be based off of a popular literary character; Edgar Rice Burroughs’ Tarzan. The legendary jungle warrior who was raised by apes has seen numerous film adaptations over the years, the most recent ‘big one’ being Disney’s 1999 animated film of the same name. With Yates’ new film, The Legend of Tarzan, Alexander Skarsgard takes on the title role in a film that sees the character return home to the jungle to deal with a new threat. What follows is a story that’s generally old-fashioned in terms of its execution but still succeeds in being an entertaining adventure flick.

The film takes place many years after a young John Clayton III, stranded in the African Congo with his parents, was orphaned and then subsequently raised by a family of Apes, becoming the legendary jungle warrior known as Tarzan. Since then, ‘Tarzan’ (Alexander Skarsgard) has returned home to England as heir to the Greystroke name while also marrying Jane Porter (Margot Robbie), whom he first met while living in the jungle. Meanwhile, control over the Congo has mostly been held by the government of Belgium though they are on the verge of bankruptcy due to their various ventures in the area. As a result, King Leopold II sends his trusty envoy, Captain Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz), to collect the treasured diamonds of the lost city of Opar. His expedition soon leads to him coming face to face with the local tribe defending the area, led by Chief Mbonga (Djimon Hounsou), who offers Rom the diamonds in exchange for bringing Tarzan to him, as Mbonga seeks revenge against Tarzan for the death of his son. And so, Rom and King Leopold ‘invite’ John to the area under the guise of having him check out the area and report on their proceedings. John ultimately decides to go, joined by Jane and American envoy George Washington Williams (Samuel L. Jackson), with the latter looking to investigate into the rumored enslavement of the natives. However, as soon as they get there, they are ambushed by Rom and his men, who proceed to capture Jane, leading John and George into having to trek through the dangerous jungle in order to rescue her.

In terms of execution, this is a fairly old-fashioned adventure flick that certainly harkens back to the Tarzan films of old. As such, this certainly isn’t going to win any awards for its plot. It’s basically just a straight-forward chase through the jungle and not much else. However, even with that said, the film very much succeeds in being just that; an old-fashioned adventure flick. Yates’ direction is solid and as partially exemplified by the Harry Potter films, he does a good job when it comes to directing period pieces. And for the record no, the Potter films aren’t primarily ‘period pieces’ (though Fantastic Beasts will be one as it is set in the 1920’s) but they do sometimes have the look and feel of one. Overall, the film maintains a solid light-hearted tone throughout with a few humorous moments peppered in here and there to lighten up the mood, which mostly come courtesy of Samuel L. Jackson’s character. At the same time, there actually does manage to be quite a few moments of effective emotional gravitas, namely in regards to the overall conflict between Tarzan and Chief Mbonga and why Tarzan killed Mbonga’s son. And because the film takes place after the character’s origin story, that backstory is represented in this film via flashbacks that effectively further develop Tarzan as a character. The action is a little hit-and-miss due to the occasional use of fast cuts but it still delivers on exactly what you’d expect from a Tarzan film in terms of the character swinging through the jungle and what not. Visually the film does a similar practice that The Jungle Book did by having the animals created via CGI and overall the CG is pretty solid.

Alexander Skarsgard does a pretty good job in the role of Tarzan. He certainly brings the right physique to the part while also working well in terms of conveying Tarzan’s jungle expertise. He has solid camaraderie with Samuel L. Jackson’s George Washington Williams as well as a very nice romantic chemistry with Margot Robbie’s Jane. As for Jane, this film does maintain the usual plot-point of having Jane be a ‘damsel in distress’ as she spends a good chunk of the film as Rom’s prisoner. However, like the Jane of Disney’s 1999 Tarzan, this actually isn’t a bad thing as Robbie gives the character a fun assertive and spunky attitude, especially in the scenes where she interacts with Rom. Plus, because the film takes place after Tarzan had met Jane and they have already married, she has the same level of experience living in the jungle as her husband. All of this does keep in line with how the character has evolved over the years. As for Christoph Waltz as the film’s main villain Leon Rom, he’s about as good as you’d usually expect from Waltz whenever he plays a villain; diabolical but also charismatic. However, arguably the real standout of the cast is actually Samuel L. Jackson as George Washington Williams. Based off of an actual person, Jackson, as noted earlier, has a solid camaraderie with Skarsgard and provides some of the film’s more humorous moments as a result of their interactions with each other.  

I recall hearing some reports a few months ago that David Yates had apparently abandoned the film while in post-production, mainly to go work on Fantastic Beasts. How true this is I’m not entirely sure but if it is, it could mean that perhaps Warner Bros. was a little hesitant about the film, especially after the commercial failure of their other recent big ‘famous literary’ adaptation, last year’s Pan. However, this film actually isn’t as bad as its low rating on RT may suggest. If anything, the fact that it’s actually been doing pretty decently at the box-office (I’ll admit I thought this would be one of the big ‘box-office bombs’ of the summer but it’s actually doing pretty fine) shows that it’s succeeding at being a solid crowd pleaser and I can see why. Sure at the end of the day the film is fairly simple in terms of its plot and overall execution but sometimes that’s actually a good thing. Yates certainly does a good job direction-wise and the cast is solid as well from top to bottom. Tarzan has certainly had plenty of film adaptations over the years, good and bad. As for this film, I think it definitely stands amongst the former. In short, the film succeeds at what it attempts to be; a light-hearted, old-fashioned jungle adventure. At the very least, I’m glad that this hasn’t been a ‘total disaster’ for Yates as a director, who I’m sure will have a solid critical/commercial success on his hands with Fantastic Beasts when it’s released later this year. But as for Tarzan, if you’re looking for a good, old-fashioned popcorn flick, you’ll probably really enjoy this one.

Rating: 4/5