“Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald” (PG-13)

After a wild and entertaining start to author-turned-screenwriter J.K. Rowling’s “Harry Potter” prequel “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them,” the “Fantastic Beasts” franchise has tamed considerably with “The Crimes of Grindelwald,” a lukewarm follow-up to the 2016 blockbuster.

Eddie Redmayne is back as magizoologist New Scamander, whose new mission is to track down a gifted wizard Credence Barebone (Ezra Miller, in a surprisingly muted turn) and save him from the grasps of the evil wizard Gellert Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) who is hell-bent on recruiting other magic folks to rule to the world.

Depp, who was introduced in the last scene of “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them,” is not the only notable face to join franchise. Looking to establish back stories for some of her Harry Potter favorites in an effort to keep her Wizarding World empire alive, Rowling decided to employ the talents of the always-great Jude Law to play the young Albus Dumbledore in “The Crimes of Grindelwald,” a move that might have work had she featured him more.

Instead, the movie spreads the narrative way too thin by employing one-off stories for each Newt, Dumbledore, Grindelwald, Credence, Queenie (Allison Sudol) and Jacob (Dan Folger – who stole the first movie and only has a handful of bright moments here), Queenie’s sister, Tina (Katherine Waterston – whose role is greatly diminished from the first film) and Leta Lestrange (Zoe Kravitz), who has role that most closely resembles a lead. The problem is, the more spread out the narrative of “The Crimes of Grindelwald” becomes, the more confusing the movie gets.

After a spectacular opening sequence where Grindelwald escapes from confinement, the new “Fantastic Beasts” movie surprisingly shows franchise fatigue early on, even to the point of boredom. Only in the second half does the movie come alive thanks to some whiz-bang visual effects and Depp’s commanding performance as the title character. Despite having that opportunity to showcase his talents in the film’s most pivotal scene, Depp isn’t featured nearly as much as he should be in “The Crimes of Grindelwald,” and Law appears even less. It just seems like a tremendous waste of an opportunity, especially for a movie that’s 2 hours and 14 minutes long.

Naturally “The Crimes of Grindelwald” sets up another “Fantastic Beasts” chapter, trying somehow to capture the cliffhanger feeling established by such film classics like “The Empire Strikes Back.” Perhaps the biggest issue plaguing the “Fantastic Beasts” franchise is unlike the “Harry Potter” movies, it doesn’t have the benefit of sourcing worldwide best-selling novels to draw inspiration from.

And even though Rowling wrote the screenplays for the “Fantastic Beasts” movies, she is no doubt finding huge limitations to create original works for the film medium. As far as “The Crimes of Grindelwald” is concerned, it simply lacks the wondrous magic of the eight-film series that created the chance for it to be made in the first place.

Lammometer: 5 (out of 10)

Tim Lammers reviews movies weekly for The KQ92 Morning Show,” “KARE 11 News at 11” (NBC), WCCO Radio, WJON-AM, KLZZ-FM, “The Tom Barnard Podcast” and “The BS Show” with Bob Sansevere.

Copyright 2018 DirectConversations.com