As much as it is only the second chapter of five, The Crimes of Grindelwald inserts a dark and complex plot, talking more directly with the reality that Potter lived decades later. The character who gains prominence in the title is none other than Gerardo Grindelwald, a wizard who has a strong connection with professor Alvo Dumbledore and who later faced him in a duel that the magical world considers the greatest of all time. The friendship and the differences between the two begin to be explored with consideration in this chapter and deliver a bit of curiosity about the past. The context of this arc has already been much commented on by Rowling and was started in an interesting way. The script (signed by the writer) also leads diversified arches that may seem isolated at first, but lead us to believe that they will have even more use in the future.

While the script uses interesting artifices to develop its drama, it turns Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) and Tina Goldstein (Katherine Waterston) into supporting roles. Newt has a more curious role in The Crimes of Grindelwald, as he can also be seen as an observer of everything that happens in this second chapter. While he introduces us to more creatures and captivates us with his sweet presence, he also silently watches the changes that Grindelwald is introducing into the wizarding world. Newt represents a chance for a necessary and primordial attitude to the current situation addressed: that of taking sides and acting according to beliefs and ideals. Tina, who in the timeline will become Newt's wife, walks the same path and proves the good application of reality that Rowling inserts in her novels.

The Harry Potter saga gains more prominence from now on, delivering fragments (whether in the form of words, characters, objects, spells or environments) of nostalgia on specific occasions. Hogwarts, with all its physical and affective grandeur, gives a familiar feeling, while Jude Law's Dumbledore transfers liveliness and personality, delivering a close portrait of what he became when he was older. Of all, however, the one that really stands out is what a lot of people didn't want from the beginning: Johnny Depp, like Grindelwald. If we remove the reticent and cowardly way in which the author writes his relationship with Dumbledore, everything that Depp puts to represent the boxwood is applauding. His rhetoric is exalted, the delivery of politically tempting discourse in a calm and threatening voice and the promotion of a personality that tends to be stronger (in ideas) than that of Lord Voldemort himself, whose initial base was more narcissistic, selfish and product of personal trauma than anything else.

Among the new characters are Newt's brother Theseus (Callum Turner), Nicolau Flamel (creator of the Philosopher's Stone) and Nagini (who is still far from Voldemort's snake), but the most interesting is Leta Lestrange (Zoë Kravitz), which has not only more attention but also relevance. Her family, so approached in the Harry Potter saga, gains new traits and a new approach due to her personality, detached from her future relatives. As for the other signed arches are those of the already known Queenie (Alison Sudol) and Credence (Ezra Miller), who insert a lot of intensity when treating the theme of identity as fuels for their actions. Both are part of the narrative twists that most impress and reinforce how far J. K. Rowling wants to go. The question, especially in relation to Credence, is how far should it go - because in this case it is where some weaknesses reside.

Grindelwald's political and social speeches form another key point of production and will certainly be further worked on in the following chapters. The good news is that, just in this film, it is already possible to understand (even broadly) the reasons for the villain's behavior. Everything indicates that the three future features will give more ground to what Grindelwald wants, such as deeper motivations. The fact is that he knows very well how to induce his potential followers to think differently and follow his reasoning - however much it gives only an overview of the reality that he believes to be true. Unlike Voldemort, who was violent in his words and deeds, Johnny Depp's Grindelwald is as smart as he is meticulous because he knows exactly what the weight of his words will be. His persuasion may seem subtle in the eyes of some, but it is far more powerful than the spells he utters.

On the other hand, the film is technically flawless. Visiting the magical world continues to be a pleasant walk and the already traditional visual care remains unchanged, whether in the production design signed by Stuart Craig or in the costumes by Colleen Atwood. The research carried out for the construction of the costume is of impeccable quality. It's amazing how the fabric and cut chosen to dress the characters say a lot about them: While Newt wears a typical English tweed jacket, giving weight to his shoulders and reinforcing his social retraction - so much so that, in one of the few moments when he takes off his coat, instantly gains a superhero aura (before diving after the lake-horse) -, Gellert Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) wears an overcoat that instantly refers to Nazi militarism. Thus, if the costume reveals much of the personalities, at the same time it reflects the real time that precedes the Second World War. In this relationship with the social, the attempt to build a story about the importance of having a side is clear.

Visually speaking, the work is pure fun and it was not for nothing that I brought Yates' changes and effort to the direction. More than familiar with Wizarding World (this is the sixth feature in the franchise he runs), the director is also a strong point. His direction yields several eye-popping passages, especially with regard to the design of the creatures - the scenes at the circus in Paris are a separate show. The intense chase scene at the beginning of the film is an example of dynamism that continues more or less until the end of the tape, with parts in conflict very well related, excellent use of magic without creating a spectacle in itself, sometimes unexpected movement of camera and use of creative angles. This same signature can be seen in scenes such as the creation of the French Ministry and the equivalent of Diagon Alley in Paris, in one of the most interesting works of art direction in the entire film. There the wonderful creatures of the tape are also shown, in a circus sequence well edited and sounded (and it is worth saying that both the soundtrack and the montage go up many quality steps in the moments of struggle), with each animal in its highlight and brief moment naming and visual display of them that last long enough for us to get to know them and identify them later.

Philippe Rousselot's photography brings a visual unity and richness of light and spectacular colors. Even in the moments when the worst thing in the feature (the script) makes us roll our eyes, the image continues with its role of making us feel inside a magical world. If Grindelwald's speech can remember the Aryan - with an obvious touch of magic -, the travels between countries are very specific in referring precisely to the Great War that entered the 1940s (Austria and France being the most important poles in the trajectory Hitler's army). In addition, it is enough to notice the visual allusions made by the villain to make a direct connection especially to the bombs dropped by the USA in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

However, the film presents serious problems of rhythm in the narrative. From the first to the last scene, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is made for fans. There is no space for the occasional spectator, as it is not a film with a beginning, middle and end. Although some explanations of what happened before are included, there is no clear journey to be followed, which makes it difficult for anyone who has not embarked on this universe for a long time. Those who already follow, are curious about what will come next, but also frustrated to have the expectation created by the first film only directed by the sequence.

The entire second act of character development, takes place almost in overlapping dramatic layers, which makes many parts tiring and causes others to be cut before showing more of what was good. Rowling brings a schizophrenic script, which gets lost in several unnecessary plots and subplots and confuses the viewer with various excesses and disconnected and unnecessary characters. She is notoriously inexperienced as a screenwriter, as she seems to add much more than the film really needs, full of details, tiring monologues and extremely tedious moments. (when the next film hits theaters) not for the story to continue, but for it to finally begin.

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is carefull in the volume of information and in preparing the scene, however, it does not show much concern in telling a story. Instead, the author fills her text with digressions and creates a bombastic revelation in the end that narrowly does not gain anti-climax status, such is the lack of tact for the construction of surprises and the first big explanations. The magic continues to fill our eyes and the final balance still manages to be positive, but it is important to note that, while the visual side created by director David Yates is a delight, one cannot say the same about the story of this sequel is painfully tiring and complex.