I'm a fan of the Potter-books so I had been keenly anticipating The Crimes of Grindelwald. For me, the first two Potter-films were the ones that caught the atmosphere of the novels the best, and I really appreciate Cuaron's the Prisoner of Azkaban too. After that it was a bit of a downhill with the films, although they all were solid entries. The first film of the Fantastic Beasts -series was a big surprise: Rowling's first movie-screenplay was an original, fun and sweet outing that really took it's time with everything, I felt it was a very novel-like script but at the same time with great understanding of what makes a movie work. But on to the Crimes of Grindelwald...

The Fantastic Beasts -series follows Newt Scamander, an expert of magical creatures, who was mentioned in the Harry Potter novels as the author of a Hogwarts' school book "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them". The series takes place in Rowling's wizarding world, way before Harry Potter's time, in a time where Gellert Grindelwald, a dark wizard who was also mentioned in the Potter-novels, is causing havoc. The Crimes of Grindelwald immediately puts pedal to the metal with an ultra-fast escape-scene. The film is altogether faster paced and more straightforward than the first film, and it's even more clearly a part of a series (three more films incoming). Involvement of a prophecy is also a very familiar element in the world we're exploring. I enjoyed the film and had a great time watching it with a fellow fan. Having said that, the first film is, to me, considerably better as an individual film, and I can see many who don't have deeper knowledge of the story seeing the Crimes of Grindelwald only as another fantasy-actioner. The screenplay is also a tad hard to fully understand, I'm still trying to put all the pieces together. Complicated plans are not unfamiliar in the books either.

Some pros for me:

-The prologue -Deeper look into the Lestrange family -Jude Law's young Dumbledore -The Niffler and it's involvement in the third act