Evidently I never reviewed the first Fantastic Beasts movie on Filmbobbery; I must have seen it on video after its initial release.  Truth is I had little to no interest in beginning another Harry Potter-ish tale, or sequence of tales, which it promised to become, no matter how fantastic the beasts might be.  I did eventually see it, and was slightly charmed by some of the beasts, and Queenie (Alison Sudol), but not by the story.  I’m pretty sure I awarded the film two stars, and have since forgotten much of it.

This second film, also directed by David Yates (who helmed the first one and most of the latter Harry Potter odysseys), follows young Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law), who has recruited Fantastic Beast-keeper Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) to try to foil Grindlewald (whom, evidently, is so notorious he has only one name, like Grendel, or Madonna) and his nefarious plans.  But what exactly are those plans?  What, precisely, are the “Crimes of Grindelwald?”  The story, prolonged as it is, never really goes into much detail, as far as I could tell.

In fact, I found the film interminable.  I was bored out of my mind.  There aren’t nearly enough Fantastic Beasts to keep my interest; all Scamander seems to do is skulk around and avoid his brother Theseus (Callum Turner) for obscure reasons.  There’s a lot of balderdash about the dangers of melding the Wizarding World and that of us Muggles, but characters seem to be breaking those barriers much of the time anyway.  For me, the worst part was having my favorite character (comparatively), Queenie, fall under Grindelwald’s spell.  This frustrated me, yet perhaps bodes well for future installments, where she must be weaned back to the side of Right, whatever the hell that is in these silly artificial hokums.

When Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) is making his big spiel at the climax it occurred to me that what is really going on might have little to do with the Wizarding World, but much to do with our present political situation.  Could it be that author J. K. Rowling, now unbound by the innate limitations of her child heroes, be making a political statement regarding the abuse of power by those holding it — specifically about demagogues who believe they know what is best for everyone, as long as it benefits them?  If this is such an allegory, it deserves more credit than I am giving it — but that is still up for debate.  As a movie, and not a political diatribe, this was dull, overlong, unfocused and enervating.  Harry Potter fans might enjoy it, but I’m not sure why.  ☆.  24 December 2018.