At the beginning of FANTASTIC BEASTS PART 2: THE CRIMES OF GRINDELWALD, the words "Wizarding World" appeared. I knew about this name, but why show it as the logo of a cinematic universe? After this story is finished (they've planned 5 movies total), will there be more spin-offs? I don't think it's necessary. I also didn't understand why the font of the subtitle was so much bigger than the title, but I understood it by the end: The creatures aren't very relevant anymore. Doesn't author J.K. Rowling have the entire story maped out? Why didn't she choose a title that would represent the plots of all the installments? I rated FANTASTIC BEASTS AND WHERE TO FIND THEM very high because it was only trying to be mainly a light adventure and it succeeded. Now that the focus has changed from the creatures to the fight against evil, the standard is back to the point where I can compare it directly to the HARRY POTTER movies. It's not as entertaining nor deep, but it's decent. While the franchise's action sequences were limited to mostly people waving wands, the actors' body language could still make each sequence feel different from the one before. And they could emote to make the scene feel dramatic enough. Here, most of the actors' movements are stiff and their faces are almost expressionless. The previous installment switched back and forth between subplots smoothly. Here, I think the time gap between the switches is so big that it feels like 1 plot with a bunch of detours. There's a scene where NEWT SCAMANDER and TINA GOLDSTEIN (2 of the heroes) infiltrate a place to get documents. They seem to be taking their time, even though an alarm showing NEWT's face has already been set off. Even if they had been in another situation, I still would've been annoyed by the contrived rom-com scenario where NEWT babbles and doesn't reveal information that would make TINA realize that she doesn't have a reason to be angry at him. A person doesn't have to go all Hitler to convince people that wrong things are right. They can be subtle but, even with that in mind, I didn't buy the title subtitle character as a revolutionary leader. At least not in the scene where he talks to a crowd. Considering how many times he whispered, I'm not sure how people were able to hear him, let alone believe him. It's not Johnny Depp's fault; I think he was just being directed the wrong way. There's a scene in a family tomb where 2 characters reveal truths. Both are shown through back-to-back flashbacks. I think the 1st flashback should've been shown earlier. It would've made the 2nd one feel like a plot twist and it wouldn't have messed with the pacing. However, I would still be thinking that none of this really added anything, since the most important truth of all is revealed at the end. They were red herrings in a fantasy story that doesn't really need mystery with a soap opera-type of explanation (MAGE OF OUR LIVES rhymes, but WANDS OF OUR LIVES matches the plural form, so I have think which one would be more suited for my joke). Sure, it served as character development for LETA LESTRANGE (NEWT's old friend and soon-to-be sister-in-law).
However, when you have such development in your hands, either you keep the character's contribution to the plot to the minimum and use the twist to set up a personal change in the sequel... or you make the character very important to the plot from beginning to end so her death can have more meaning.
We learn a lot about LETA in early scenes, but she doesn't do much in the present. At least she's not as pointless as NAGINI, who has a lot less lines yet more screentime. That's right: It's not worth getting angry over the casting, regardless of whether Claudia Kim was the right or wrong choice.