Who will change the future?

This review contains spoilers

With blockbusters, where there are usually so many interesting characters, a character breakdown is the best way to structure a review. With The Crimes of Grindelwald, where there are too many uninteresting characters, a character breakdown will illustrate that as a screenwriter, Rowling has bit off more than she can chew. There was potential for lightning to strike twice in the Wizarding World and for Newt, Tina (Waterston), Jacob (Dan Fogler) and Queenie (Alison Sudol) to become another iconic group - The Crimes of Grindelwald, and its oversaturation of characters has ruined the chances of that happening. Rowling continues to introduce new characters in the second and third acts of the film. Rowling is obviously going to return to write the screenplay for the next three instalments - it is her world after all - but a co-writer or a more involved Warner Bros would stop history repeating itself. 

Newt Scamander, the Harry Potter of today's gener- the quirky introvert continues to be just as interesting and compelling as he was in 2016 (not very). Newt is a strange choice to be the face of a franchise - he would be harmless in a supporting role, but the character lacks personality. Redmayne embodies all of Newt's quirks but as I said in 2016, is still yet to win me over. Rowling obviously doesn't find the character that interesting as he becomes lost in a narrative that he doesn't belong in and is overshadowed by most characters - even the baby Nifflers make a bigger impression. The Crimes of Grindelwald fails to develop Newt further as a character - all of the film's big twists and secrets are saved for others. He spends most of the film moping around because he isn't with Tina - an issue that could have been solved with an easy conversation! Newt has a cringe-worthy moment where his assistant, Bunty (Victoria Yeates), suggests he undress to tend to one of the water beasts - Rowling is either commenting on or convicting one of the worst tropes of the YA genre. After two films, Rowling still doesn't know what to do with the character and how he can contribute to the Wizarding World. I guess Newt is just along for the ride. 

Rowling gives her female characters the more interesting plot points. However, Katherine Waterston's Tina is an exception; Tina is the most insignificant returning character. She spends her time searching for Credence (Miller) which Dumbledore (Law) enlists Newt to do anyway. There is nothing memorable about Tina in this instalment. My favourite character in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them was Alsion Sudol's Queenie. She brought the most energy and fun. Queenie continues to be one of my favourites and I really like the direction Rowling took the character. Queenie's airhead naivety makes her impressionable; she was bound to get herself in some trouble. Grindelwald (Depp) convinces Queenie to join her side with the promise of boundaryless love. It became clear early on that Queenie was heading down this dark path, but it was exciting to watch one of the main characters choose evil. I hope Rowling doesn't undo Queenie's arc too quickly; it is going to be fun to see her powers used for bad. Fan theories speculate that Queenie could be under a spell - maybe the next film will focus on getting Queenie back? Thanks to Rowling and Sudol's performance, Queenie is one of the franchise's best characters. Like Newt, Jacob spends some time moping but Fogler's comedic timing is still great. Jacob's non-existent memory wipe was a cop out though. 

Zoë Kravitz's Leter Lestrange is another character that Rowling gets (mostly) right. Like everybody else, the character feels pointless and unnecessary for a large part of the runtime, but a confession about her heritage makes Leter Lestrange significant. The reveal is messy - she reveals her secret after Yusuf Karma's (William Nadylam) lengthy, factually incorrect story. During a flashback scene at Hogwarts, Leter reveals her biggest fear to be an ambiguous white cloth. Her later confession reveals that the cloth symbolises her baby brother who she indirectly killed when she was a child. Leter swaps her brother for Credence. This keeps the audience guessing as Credence's identity remains unknown. It also gives the impression that Rowling couldn't make her mind up about Credence. Kravitz sells the emotion well and convincingly moves the audience while telling a foolish and silly story. Leter is killed by Grindelwald in the third act; on one hand, suggesting that Rowling is done with the character and on the other illustrating a solid character journey. 

Credence is the franchise's biggest enigma. Rowling has deliberately surrounded the character with mystery and misfortune, allowing her to take him in whatever direction she pleases...and she does just that. Ezra Miller is good in the role and I like his character's relationship with Nagini (Claudia Kim). Credence doesn't offer anything visually exciting in action sequences though. I just can't give Rowling credit for surprising the audience in such a big way; Rowling reveals the biggest surprise the Wizarding World has ever seen - Credence is actually Aurelius Dumbledore, Dumbledore's conveniently 'lost brother'. The twist is blatantly tacked on the end as an attempt to make the long slog before it feel worthwhile. It's a cool idea but it just doesn't fall in line with the rest of the film - Rowling and Yates drop no hints. A well-written twist has to be subtly intertwined throughout the film but Credence's shocking revelation manages to surprise even the script! 

Johnny Depp's Grindelwald was fabulously revealed in the predecessor; it was an exciting reveal and mapped out where the franchise was heading. The Crimes of Grindelwald's opening sequence is one of its strongest; the wizarding asylum and Grindewald's escape were highlights. This opening promises a clever and unstoppable villain. The character doesn't display much more of this. Rowling needs to work on developing the character further because he currently has a generic agenda. Depp does what he does best with a touch of evil. I continue to be a fan of the character's visual image. Grindelwald's rally in Paris is another entertaining sequence that showcases his powers and strength. The relationship between Grindelwald and Dumbledore is hinted at more overtly than expected but it continues to be a tease. A kiss between two men shouldn't be a moment audiences have to anticipate across a franchise - if they're being told two characters have history, the romantic history should be shown. Jude Law gives a muted performance as Dumbledore. Used sparsely throughout the film, Law is underused and is yet to fully embody the legendary character. The 'Fantastic Beasts' franchise is ultimately the story of Dumbledore and Grindelwald, let's cut out the countless, unnecessary supporting characters? Dumbledore does allow the film to revisit Hogwarts; those moments will please fans.