J.K Rowling and David Yates return as writer/director duo for the second instalment (of a planned five) in the Fantastic Beasts franchise. I was unimpressed with the first film of the series; it was a distractingly inconsistent film in terms of tone, and any semblance of a focused storyline appeared to be lost underneath the plethora of distracting CGI and bland characters. With The Crimes of Grindelwald, I was hoping the series would pick itself up, dust off its previous shortcomings and present us with a more consistent film. Magizoologist Newt Scamander (Redmayne) is recruited by Dumbledore (Jude Law) in order to prevent Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) from achieving his dastardly schemes after he escapes from his prison cell at the Magical Congress of the United States of America.

It pains me to write this. It really does, because I greatly admire Rowling's colossal imagination and storytelling capabilities she displayed so effortlessly in her Harry Potter books. The Crimes of Grindelwald is a bloated, convoluted mess of a film. Rowling's screenplay feels unfocused; there are too many subplots threaded within the central storyline, and it's at times difficult to follow. Too much time is spent with characters spouting endless amounts of exposition, and character development is practically non-existent. The plot drags, and worst of all it just isn't interesting. Grindelwald is more or less absent for the majority of the film, as is Dumbledore himself. This is a terrible shame, because their backstory is the most interesting (not to mention essential) part of the story, but it's shamefully pushed to the side so we can sigh our way through meaningless couples' quarrels and dull, bleak moments with characters who should be a lot more interesting than they really are. Credence (Ezra Miller) is stunningly bland, and it's frustrating that a significant chunk of the film is centered around his character as he strives to discover who he really is. When it boils down to it, Credence is just dead weight. Instead, the story of Grindelwald and Dumbledore should have been the film's primary focus because sadly, Newt and his gang of dull duds just aren't strong enough to carry the film on their own.

Redmayne does his best with what he's given, but Newt isn't exactly the most remarkable of leads. Tina (Waterson) and Jacob (Fogler) return to the fold, but their return feels more obligatory than necessary. Johnny Depp is serviceable as Grindelwald and Jude Law is quite exceptional as a young Dumbledore, but due to the weak script, just about everybody else looks bored to be there. Even Nagini (Claudia Kim) is wasted, and serves no purpose being in the film whatsoever. What's missing from the film is the sense of wonder; there is little action or spellbinding moments to remember, and the finale is nothing short of unspectacular. After trudging through two hours of general plodding and drawn out filler, the ending goes for an emotional wallop that sets the stage for the third film, but by that point I had lost interest entirely. For me, I don't have an emotional attachment to these characters, and the writing certainly hasn't warranted such investment from me at this stage.

The Crimes of Grindelwald feels more like an extended prologue for the third instalment in the franchise rather than a genuine movie in its own right. Rowling shows she still has a fierce imagination and knack for creating, but the main sin here is that there is perhaps too much going on that the plot becomes lost in a convoluted, unfocused maze of storylines that never tie together in a satisfying way. The ingredients are there, and I believe there is a genuinely brilliant movie buried somewhere underneath it all. Sadly, the magic feels well and truly lost.