The world before Potter

Hogwarts before Voldemort, Dumbledore as a young man, Nagini’s backstory — Crimes of Grindelwald is a treat, but for its patchy pace, writes

Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald, the second instalment in the five-part Fantastic Beasts’ series, has all that you’d expect to find in a Harry Potter world. And yet, it stands apart.

The movie picks up exactly where the first film, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, left off. Gellert Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) is arrested and imprisoned in New York, but manages to escape (the trailers show as much). The rest of the film is about chasing the Dark Wizard as he lures his opponents and prospective allies into a trap.

While the first film scored in simplicity, the sequel is laden with sub-plots, and has not nearly as many fantastic beasts. Some of these sub-plots, unfortunately, slow the film down. At times, one gets the impression that the film is merely a tool to set the pace for future films rather than a movie in its own right.

Yes, the story of Grindelwald’s rise to power does move forward and we do get a glimpse of what the wizarding and the muggle worlds are heading towards, but something seems missing. That is, until you reach the very end of the film, when a certain twist — one of the biggest revelations of Potterverse — more than makes up for the slow pace.

The film’s significant cast doesn’t give you a chance to complain. Eddie Redmayne slips back into the role of magizoologist Newt Scamander mumbling his way, first around England and then France, following the mission Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law) has entrusted him with. We learn a bit about Newt (other than that he is more comfortable with animals than humans), mainly his relationship with his brother, his history with Leta Lestrange (Zoë Kravitz) and his complete lack of hesitation when it comes to bending the rules to get things done.

Rejoining Scamander are Dan Fogler who plays Jacob Kowalski, and Alison Sudol and Katherine Waterston, the Goldstein sisters.

The chemistry between Fogler and Sudol is almost heartbreaking, given the turn their story takes, while Waterston and Redmayne continue being the brilliant yet awkward pair. And Ezra Miller, who returns as the Obscuruswielding Credence Barebone, mesmerises with his quiet presence.

Among the new entrants, Law, Depp and Kravitz have chunky parts — Law more in terms of the depth he adds to the narrative than the screen time he gets. Depp is convincing as a power-hungry maniac ready to do anything for “the greater good”. His whitewashed visage, though, is a tad unsettling. Kravitz is in equal parts enigmatic and poignant, with an unmistakable melancholy about her.

We get to meet a few new beasts, too, such as “Zouwu”, which we learn is endemic to China and appears to be a cross between a lion and a dragon. The greedy-forall-things-shiny Niffler returns, as does Pickett, the Bowtruckle — both are as endearing as ever.

The direction by David Yates, an old hand at Potterverse, is seamless. But mind you, the audience is not given the source material to fall back on in case some references are lost on them. So, it would be wise to brush up on Part One to be able to make the necessary connections.

For Potterheads, this film is a treat — what with a young Dumbledore, Hogwarts before the rise of Voldemort, Nicolas Flamel (the only known maker of the Philosopher’s Stone), and a hint at Nagini’s backstory.

For all its flaws — the erratic pace, complicated sub-plots and lack of fantastic beasts — is Crimes of Grindelwald better than the first film, or even as good? No. Is it a good sequel? Most definitely yes.

Perhaps as the later films unfold, this one might not feel as incomplete. But for now, the sense of foreboding it leaves one with might be more than what the audience bargained for.

At times, one gets the impression the film is merely a tool to set the pace for future films rather than a movie in its own right