Which is the most successful representation of the nearly glorified wizarding world? The books or the films? Depends on who you ask, but many might agree that staunchly loyal Potterheads will always take refuge in feature adaptations after their precious seven-part book series came to an end several years ago, both inside and outside the pages. Box office-wise, going from "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" (2004) to "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2" (2011), this long-running film journey captained by a young and innocent Daniel Radcliffe brought in a mammoth estimated- not adjusted for inflation- 7.7 billion worldwide, which crowns it as one of the privileged billion-dollar club members as well as the most successful YA film franchises of all time. So will Warner Bros. and J. K. Rowling leave their pupils adrift for eternity? Yeah!, we all know the answer.

Industry trend, there is a pattern of consecutive use nowadays. Lionsgate confirmed to be in talks to return to Panem in form of a "The Hunger Games" prequel/sequel series some years now; "Twilight" reincarnated in an insecure literature student and a sadist billionaire with "Fifty Shades of Grey," worse luck. "The Lord of the Rings," J. R. R. Tolkien's equally hated and loved fantasy world, expanded its mythos with "The Hobbit" as it'll return as an Amazon Original in, by the way, the most expensive TV series the company has ever produced. "Divergent," an unfinished franchise due to "Allegiant" gigantic box office flop, is up in the air after rumoring about moving it into TV ground, either to close the original story or to find a new path to cover Veronica Roth's dystopian Chicago-set love-drama.

Having said that, that a new book series worthy of bringing it to the big screen joins the list just like the previous ones- the "Maze Runner" franchise, which has just ended earlier this year, doesn't participate this round -is almost impossible; so, in the face of the creative stagnation in Hollywood no longer productive YA world, the first response of the major film studios was to spawn products, either inside or outside the original writing line, which means sure incomes.

The fantasy cosmos the whole world fell in love with is back under the title "Wizarding World," this time around no Potter included. Mr. Newton Artemis Fido "Newt" Scamander takes up the torch, a famed Magizoologist known for being expelled from Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, his gorgeous and naughty creatures and his duty to helm supposedly five entries.

Directed by well-known filmmaker David Yates and written by the author herself behind the books, "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" arrived in theaters two years ago, cooking a spin-off/prequel franchise up that got more positive than negative opinions among the stern fandom. Enjoying acceptable box office numbers both domestic and overseas and mostly positive critical reception thanks to the modest-yet-charming performance of Academy Award-winning Eddie Redmayne, wonderfully crafted visual effects, the unexplored pre-Hogwarts world, the fabulous titular beasts and mythical creatures, an enticing plot twist and the delightful journey across New York; "FBWFT" was a pleasant and far-seeing surprise that shocked us sooner rather than later.

"Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald" is the second extension set in this long-running sub-Potterverse, directed by the same director of the last four films in the original saga and penned by prolific writer J. K. Rowling. A bolt from the blue is that even with the creative backbone almost untouched, this second part happens to be a pyrotechnic and enjoyable misfire, plenty of deficiently unified sub-plots that ultimately saturate the not-so-eye-popping visual spectacle, introducing untidily so many narrative threads that, instead of complexity, utterly erode the core story.

Admittedly the dark beauty of some gigantic, messy set-pieces works not quite right because of the writing individuality, but still, by composition, they're simply bracing, as ever. Philippe Rousselot also returns as director of photography, which benefits visual cohesion as for the franchise' look and tone even when the action moves from America to Europe, mainly to Paris, France. Some shots really work, others shine, but none of them are part of the confusingly edited, overextended, strange action sequences. As usual, imagery is rich in content, not as cozy, universal and relatable as the previous ones, but at least it's impressively appealing.

The titular 'fantastic' adjective is tailor-made for these beasts. The two adorable creatures who stole the show last time come back in order to edge into the spotlight with their naive behavior and mini-treatments; but it's Europe which hypnotizes with engaging animals. The Circus Arcanus holds important gears for the plot, so when madness is unleashed in the Parisian streets, it showcases a range of magnificently designed creatures who take over the screen, and therefore, the audience. Newt's traveling zoo/suitcase gives us short glimpses of unexplored habitats, in which the most prominent feature is a visually overwhelming underwater seaweed-seahorse. They monopolize a large part of the long title, but their greater and short splendor takes place only in the first act in visual terms, as story-wise, the greatest trick comes up.

Scamander must win back the love of his life, keep his animals alive and save the world from a sort-of apocalypse; Dumbledore must stop his innermost enemy through other's hands, build up via his pupil's origins via flashbacks and develop tangentially his life as a magician and professor; Grindelwald must overcome all obstacles on his way, convince some detractors and pull his malicious plan off; Lestrange reappears in Newt's life and tries to do the impossible to hide her darkest secret in order to save him from the destiny the magical forces have for him; Credence, a supposedly main pillar for this whole universe, stops swimming against the tide of evil, so he tries to heal the wounds of the past and recruits the only being he has ever trusted. Each and every one of the main characters and a couple of supporting ones propose, develop and saturate the storytelling with convoluted sub-plots, hardly interconnected and poorly solved.

Rowling's widely known for erecting fantasy worlds brimming with mythos, facing good against evil, going through an ambiguous area of grays which create beautiful, knotty stories. The primary thread here is clear and synthetic, but to strengthen it and nourish it she draws upon clumsy narrative saturation that ends up throwing an all-star cast, a few engrossing performances and some gloomy digital effects out. The script has no focus to unfold, its ambition to put too much information into a single two-hour-plus feature is atrocious; Dumbledore's true origins are only tested by giving more plot weight to Jacob Kowalski's love affair, mitigate the prominence of the beasts and deliver a worthy development to its great villain are some of the sins that neither the strongest cinematic spell achieves to break. This is a perplexing mythological disaster of endless derivations that, without the talented central figure, would have been the longest headache of this year at the movies.

"Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald" by David Yates mesmerizes us with gorgeous beasts, good performances and special re-encounters with characters from the original franchise; but a hodgepodge of overlong, untidy plots doesn't enrich the main world as it should, instead, weakens and endangers this new franchise of dissimilar entries. "The Crimes of Grindelwald" loses its magic, is darker and more tedious than its predecessor, a longueur which tries to provide emotion and thrill with wrongly placed provocative twists that the only thing they achieve is to sink progressively this magical world which is lost in a mess of sequels, spin-offs, homages and Hollywood rip-offs.