Monstros Fantásticos: Os Crimes de Grindelwald

Dash it all, even the devoted will likely struggle with the reams of expository talk and gobs of unearned feeling and scads of largely pointless beasties, plus some just plain lazy visuals (looking at you, magic cats).

A well acted, if ultimately lacklustre sequel.

Certain characters spend all of Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald barely doing anything, and the wide-open nature of the ending in particular cheapens the preceding film.

Rowling's script was the real problem here.

It's a callous, perplexingly frustrating way to tell a story, and for large portions of the feature I sat scratching my head in appalled disbelief.

Instead of a missing puzzle piece in a complex, thoroughly imagined world, it is more like fan service, much to look at and enjoy but I can't say that it's fantastic.

The Crimes of Grindelwald's lack of awareness goes much deeper than a mere miscasting,

That unwillingness to engage with the potential richness of its universe is what makes the sequel Fantastic Beasts directed by Harry Potter alum David Yates, such a slog.

I suppose I'm obligated to mention that Grindelwald is played by Johnny Depp, whom the dutiful film crew was conscientious enough to shake awake just before Yates called "action." They really needn't have bothered.

More workmanlike than magical, "Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald" nevertheless feels like an upgrade from its predecessor, one that adds star power, introduces key characters and lays the foundation for a genuine "Wizarding World" franchise.

The Crimes of Grindelwald feels hollow and disconnected, like it could have been made by anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Rowling's wizarding world.

Congratulations to Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald for being the first flat-out terrible product of the Harry Potter expanded universe.

No, it doesn't work. No, it's not, not even a little bit, good. But it's familiar.

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is much better than its predecessor in this Harry Potter-adjacent franchise, if only because it's a whole movie.

The Crimes of Grindelwald is a tiresome slog - but it ends well.

The "Fantastic Beasts" films have as much to do with the Potter world as the current Detroit Pistons have to do with the championship winning Bad Boys.

While it's often great fun to look at, "Crimes of Grindelwald" fails at what should be Rowling's great strength: storytelling. Three more to go, and an infusion of magic is desperately needed.

The twists get twistier as the film hurtles toward a climax at Paris' Pere Lachaise Cemetery. But the getting there, which should be half the fun, turns out to be a bit of a slog. Fine for Pottermores, but a trial for us Muggles.

There's indeed magic to be found here, as well as visual wonder, but there's also an unwieldy amount of character and plot.

If you are among those who possess no such knowledge, your only hope is to take a scholar with you and then spend the movie asking multiple who, what, when and where questions.