What's amazing about the newest Harry Potter film, or well, "Wizarding World" film rather (as it doesn't actually feature the bespectacled "boy who lived"), is how utterly boring it is. Not only is it boring but it's stupid, tedious, and confusing, overstuffed with too many characters who say do too little and say way too much. It's one preposterous plot-twist after another that I spent the whole film yelling to myself "who the hell is this?" All the plot-twists just pile up to more pointless characters who are introduced, and reintroduced, at just the right time for more insipid exposition.
Without introducing every new character, which no doubt double the length of this review, let's go over the plot. Newt (Eddie Redmayne), is back, now without travel rights by the British Ministry of Magic due to some two-star incident that happened a few years back. They offer to allow him to travel but only if he works for them, as they're apparently shorthanded looking for Credence Barebone (Ezra Miller), explained to be the only man who can defeat the legendary Dumbledore (Jude Law). Why they care is beyond me, do they even know how important Dumbledore is yet? I'd wager they don't other he wouldn't be teaching a bunch of kids in a castle. So many people walked in and out of those halls for so many movies that they really don't have the best security.
Also looking for this Credence is Grindelwald (Johnny Depp), the dark wizard who wants wizards to rule over the world, both the magic and non-magic portions. Why he can't kill Dumbledore himself is sort of an important plot-point, so I won't spoil it here (but I can tell you that they used to be good pals).
That's the plot in a nutshell, but the inconsistencies are myriad. Here are a few off the top of my head: 1) If Grindelwald and Dumbledore were supposed to have been best friends (with benefits), then why does Grindelwald look so much older?! In real life the actors are 10 years apart, but here he could be mistaken as Dumbledore's grandfather! 2) Why Credence is the only one who can kill Dumbledore is never explained, or at least not properly explained in non-Harry Potter talk. 3) And now this is a long one, but bare with me. Leading to the climax, Grindelwald calls upon his supporters for "freedom," so they they no longer need to hide from the non-magic folks. Curiously, he shows a clip of WW2 to further his point that man is the enemy (or something, his cause is rather murky). A quick Google search shows that "Fantastic Beasts 2" takes place in 1927, a full twelve years before the second World War. Obviously this means Grindelwald can predict the future, but doesn't bother, you know, double-checking that he wins! Obviously he doesn't, or else Harry Potter would have battled him for eight pictures. This plot is a freaking disaster, in terms of execution and the very idea that any of this made sense.
I exited the theater exhausted, overwhelmed by the unspecial special effects, and the bulky plot that forced me to remember so many inconsequential faces and listen to so much plodding dialogue. It's 134 minutes of trying to recall which tertiary character made which insignificant declaration about which other tertiary character- it's all just so overblown and drawn out!
If there is one thing that truly irked me it would be Ezra Miller, who plays Credence; he speaks in the same monotone voice and does nothing but stand still, squint, and add nothing to the screen. He has zero screen presence, lost to all the CGI and other actors to the point I had no idea what his name was until I heard someone yell "Credence" and he turned his head. I was like, "oh, he's not just some random guy at the circus."
So we've reached this part of the review, when it comes down to whether I can recommend the new "Fantastic Beasts" film. But to answer that question I need to ask another question, is better than the first? Truth is, I can't remember either film, except for that dopey lead with the fuzzy hair has a suitcase full of CGI monsters. So by default it gets two stars. But, while proofreading my review, it all came back to me, all of the dumbness that had vacated by conscious once leaving the multiplex- this film is quite the dud. It's not just a bad movie, but one that insults anybody who doesn't have a lightning bolt tattooed on their forehead. In case you couldn't tell, my forehead is free such body modifications.
But what is missed most is something the original "Beasts" had a touch of, and the first two "Harry Potter" films were thick with is magic- there is nothing enchanting here, nothing whimsical. There isn't a single new character, a single shot or even a thread of dialogue that exists for any reason outside setting up a sequel. I read on my phone after the credits rolled that there are three additional films planned, and what shows on the screen is that this entry exists purely to set up the upcoming trilogy. Why else would so many characters be introduced? Why would with the film ask so many questions without answering pretty much any of them? Why do I care? I didn't, and spent a majority of the film pushing buttons on my new watch.
