Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald

(M) ★★

Director: David Yates.

Cast: Eddie Redmayne, Katherine Waterston, Jude Law, Johnny Depp, Dan Fogler, Alison Sudol, Ezra Miller, Zoë Kravitz, Callum Turner, Carmen Ejogo, Claudia Kim, William Nadylam, Kevin Guthrie, Brontis Jodorowsky.

Jacob shunned suitcases - he was a bucket man now.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them was a decent-enough return to the magical mind of JK Rowling. Set 70 years before Harry Potter's exploits, it showed a bigger and broader Wizarding World that was fascinating but didn't quite pack the punch of Voldemort and his henchmen.

Now we have the second in the supposedly five-film Fantastic Beasts saga and, to put it bluntly, it's a hot mess. The Crimes Of Grindelwald suffers from an excess of ideas but no solid narrative to hold them together. It struggles to keep its story and characters rolling along in a sensible fashion, and ultimately whimpers its way to an unsatisfactory climax. The whole thing is a shambles.

The plot, such as it is, sees hero Newt Scamander (Redmayne) banned from leaving England due to the events of the first film. However he's desperate to find American witch and love interest Tina Goldstein (Waterston), who happens to be in Paris hunting Credence Barebone (Miller), who is believed to have survived his supposed death in New York.

Meanwhile Gellert Grindelwald (Depp) is loose and also hunting Credence, as is a mysterious black wizard (Nadylam). Then there's a bunch of British Ministry of Magic agents hunting Grindelwald, but Albus Dumbledore (Law) wants Newt to get to Grindelwald first.

There are a couple of subplots in there that either add nothing or are sadly underplayed (such as the stories of Leta Lestrange, Yusuf Kama, Nicolas Flamel, and Nagini, or anything involving Grindelwald's supporters or the people he is enticing to his supposed revolution). These side stories chew up way too much screen time, with Lestrange and Kama the worst offenders, or they don't get another.

Who and why are people flocking to Grindelwald? Where does the discontent come from? This is the key question in this film and it gets forgotten amid a bunch of bad plotting. So bad are these side-stories that we get a huge exposition-laden section stuffed with flashbacks to explain WTF is going on with these subplots right before the big finale. It adds nothing but slows proceedings down to a crawl, leaving you wondering why it all went down like it did and what the point was.

This overstuffed narrative also means we lose track of the key characters in the edit and struggle to keep a focus on whatever it is we're supposed to be focused on. Newt and Tina, who are fascinating creations, are effectively sidelined in the story until Newt suddenly knows where to go to find the answer to the question that everyone wants to know, just out of nowhere, exactly as someone else suddenly does the same thing. This kind of nonsensical plotting is commonplace in the film.

Some of the spectacle is good - the opening jailbreak is exciting - while Newt and Tina are interesting. The relationship between Jacob (Fogler) and Queenie (Sudol) is equally intriguing, especially the way it folds into Grindelwald's crusade, but it's badly handled.

The biggest highlight is Law as Dumbledore. It's early days, and there's stiff competition, but he's quickly shaping up to be my favourite of the three actors playing the learned wizard. He has the right mix of warmth and wisdom in the role and is a delight to watch.

As for the whole film, it's the worst of the franchise. The Crimes Of Grindelwald has lost the magic, and with three movies to go, it's going to be interesting to see if Yates, Rowling and co. can find it again.