I watched the second film in the Fantastic Beasts series last year and was a little confused by the plot. So I thought that reading the screenplay might help. It did, although I still have some issues with the story.
This one isn’t nearly as good as the first film and screenplay. It just doesn’t feel like a story in its own right, more of a scramble towards the war which will end, as we already know, with the defeat of Grindelwald. The tone is much darker too, which isn’t a problem as such, but it means there is less humour and a lack of charm in comparison. I did like reading the screenplay, as I enjoyed the return of familiar characters, the scene setting and the fast pace. However, it felt as if too much plot was squeezed into the available time. I’m not sure how it could’ve been simplified. Maybe there were too many characters in the mix. There certainly wasn’t enough of Newt and Tina. That’s a pity, because their brief moments together are tense and very watchable/readable. We’ve also become used to Newt as the main character so it doesn’t feel right that he has less of a role in the second instalment. Moreover, one of the best features of Fantastic Beasts is… the fantastic beasts. They aren’t much of a presence this time around.
The story begins with the escape of the dark wizard Grindelwald. He’d been captured with the help of Newt and co in New York. Now he’s gathering his followers in Paris and pushing his brand of wizarding fascism. Newt, Tina, Queenie and Jacob converge on Paris, where Credence, who for some reason is working at a freakshow, is about to join Grindelwald. We also have Theseus (brother of Newt) and his fiancée Leta Lestrange. And a freakshow performer called Nagini, who isn’t explained much but I assume she and Credence are friends and that somehow she ends up as Voldemort’s scary snake in the future. Dumbledore is also featured – he is unable to fight Grindelwald as the pair were formerly ‘closer than brothers’ and made a blood pact. The main confusion for me centred on the storyline about Credence’s identity and the history of the Lestrange family. It just seemed needlessly complicated. Moreover, I wasn’t impressed with the roles of female characters in the story. They sacrifice themselves or join the dark side or are murdered. The only exception is Tina.
I’m still looking forward to the next films (and reading the screenplays, when they’re available at the library) but I don’t think any of them will match the first.
I haven’t read the screenplay just yet, but having watched the film I agree with all the points you’ve made!
The screenplay is worth reading, even if it’s just to confirm your opinions of the film 🙂
I haven’t bothered reading the screenplays but I totally agree about the films. This one became needlessly convoluted, especially with the twists regarding Credence and Nagini. It’s like Rowling can’t allow these characters/stories to stand on their own and has to shoehorn in as many direct connections to HP as possible. And yes, the handling of the female characters was almost universally awful. A shame, because I loved the first film! Here’s hoping they get things back on track for film 3!
I would rather have had a 2nd Fantastic Beasts, without all the Grindelwald and everything else. The sense of fun has rather been lost. Oh well, I hope the 3rd one is better.
Well I’m glad the screenplay actually cleared up some issues! I did think this film lacked the humour of the first and was considerably darker. I definitely think a lot of plot was squeezed in and it’s such a shame it was really missing beasts! The whole credence thing was massively complicated (and didn’t work for me). I think you make a good point about the female characters as well. I’m still gonna watch the next film to be fair, even though I was disappointed with this. Great review!
Thanks! Yes I’m sure we agree with, it seems, pretty much everyone else about the film. It obviously wasn’t going to be funny (The Crimes of Grindelwald… not amusing) but it really needed a simpler plot and more beasts and more Newt!!