“Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald” is written by J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter franchise and writer of the previous entry into the Wizarding World, “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them”. “The Crimes of Grindelwald” also sees director David Yates return for a sixth straight endeavor into the realm of witches and wizards. Once more, Eddie Redmayne returns as Newt Scamander alongside Dan Fogler’s lovable Jacob Kowlaski, with newcomers Jude Law as Dumbledore and the controversial Johnny Depp as the titular Gellert Grindelwald. First and foremost, “The Crimes of Grindelwald” excels in it’s visual effects department. Many frames crackle like raging bonfires, and also deliver intimate explorations of character. Partnered with a surprisingly memorable score from James Newton Howard that injects plenty of magic into the film. Unfortunately, outside of the score, visuals, and lastly, the performances, “The Crimes of Grindelwald” is a convoluted misfire. As mentioned previously, every performer is utterly delightful in their respective roles. Each character bringing such a fascinating dynamic to the screen that feels uniquely different from the rest. Most notably, Jude Law’s earnest Dumbledore that channels more of Richard Harris’ Dumbledore from the first two “Potter” films. Regarding blockbusters, the casting of Johnny Depp as Grindelwald was the most confusing. As Depp has been trending downwards for years now and his replacing of a much more favorited Colin Farrell in the previous film left fans scratching their heads. Depp manages to be entirely competent, believable, and occasionally exciting in the role. A strange blend of what we love about Dumbledore, and the rumblings of a potential Voldemort-type is what we see in Grindelwald. These are the two biggest standouts in a stacked cast where it’s leads are outshined by it’s supporting characters primed for leading potential in the films to follow. Regarding the issues with “The Crimes of Grindelwald”, it all boils down to the most pivotal chairs in film-making. The writer’s chair, and the director’s. J.K. Rowling is a renowned author that spawned one of the biggest phenoms pop culture has ever seen. Her books are some of what many would consider, the epitome of fantasy novels. There is no doubt that Rowling is a great author, but being a great author doesn’t make one a great screenwriter. This is ultimately what fails “The Crimes of Grindelwald”. The plot is relatively straightforward as so many factions of characters seek to achieve the same goal. This should provide engaging conflict and electric motivation, but there is a failure in making it such. As the movie diverts it’s attention to explore other characters we have yet to meet or know next to nothing about. “The Crimes of Grindelwald” is written like a novel and that is it’s biggest issue. As novels (lengthy ones at the very least), usually require a more methodical pace so there is a proper exploration of all moving pieces on the board. Where as movies can be methodical and deliberate, but bad versions of those type of stories fail to warrant such run-times or content in that time. “The Crimes of Grindelwald” isn’t too long, but it wastes it’s own time by introducing far too many characters that created a convoluted mess from start to finish. David Yates doesn’t help any either as there seems to be a loosening grip on passion for this universe. So many moments feel lazy and uninspired. Which emulates a worn out individual who doesn’t have anything creative left to offer. All 4 of Yates’ Potter films (Phoenix, Half-Blood, Deathly Hallows Part 1 and Part 2) each have an underlying identity to it’s narrative focus. For example; “The Order of the Phoenix” is a movie about government control, or “The Half-Blood Prince” being an inside man thriller. Here, “The Crimes of Grindelwald” suffers an identity crisis because there is a clear lack of themes, undertones, and youthful energy that we once saw before. Listen, The Wizarding World isn’t on the path of Universal’s, The Dark Universe, but it is trending downwards. The only way to right the ship back on course is to start with a top down reconstruction of those overseeing these projects. Yates’ passion and creativity is clearly gone and Rowling just isn’t a particularly great screenwriter. Introducing new faces, ripe with energy, potential, and creativity to take over would give this universe more of what allowed so many moviegoers to become involved with this franchise like it’s earliest days. The days where the child-like wonder of Chris Columbus could transition into a perfect blend of what Alfonso Cuaron delivered in “The Prisoner of Azkaban”. Of which constantly gave audiences a fresh, new voice that envisioned this world with their respective characters to provide for a new experience that felt familiar everytime. The Harry Potter saga is the embodiment of perfect franchise filmmaking, and this franchise needs some rejuvenation now more than ever. “Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald” gets a 38/100