Lynne Hinkey

I loved this movie because it brings us back into the magical world we first entered with Harry, and it gives us some glimpses into the past that formed that world. I love Eddie Redmayne's Newt, and Jude Law's Dumbledore is spot on. I'll even forgive the humongous, gaping plot holes and contradictions to the HP books, HP movies, and the first FB movie. I'm willing to assume we're seeing events through the lenses of some unreliable narrators, like Grindelwald and Leta, and those inconsistencies will be remedied as the truth is revealed in future installments. That said, the plot is a mess and the strong points from the first movie--Newt and his special relationship to those fantastic beasts, which ran as undercurrent and subtext throughout--are afterthoughts here. We get a few brief scenes of Newt with some magical creature, but forced into the story for the sake of keeping it linked to the "Fantastic Beasts" franchise. I wish epic, blockbuster directors would direct a story supported by an SFX team, rather than the SFX coming first--which seems to be what was done here: "Let's throw all the special effect that we can into this, and then see if we can hang a story on it." It's clear this story is a bridge, giving context and backstory, connecting the players who will be involved when we get to the main event. But, unlike the HP movies, where even though there was continuity as each book/movie built on the previous to a cohesive grand finale, each had it's own story, plot, stakes, and a conclusion in the context of the bigger story. Not so with "The Crimes of Grindelwald." This sets us up for big things to come, but by itself and relative to the whole HP/FB canon, it falls short of the bar that's been set. As I started with, I love it anyway because it means we get to spend more time in the wizarding world, and I have complete trust that JK Rowling will weave her magic and not leave us disappointed when all is said and done.