I recently got to watch "The Crimes of Grindelwald," the latest addition to J.K. Rowling's Fantastic Beasts movie series. The Fantastic Beasts series is meant as an addition and expansion of the Harry Potter universe. Set before the events of the original Harry Potter series, it follows the adventures of Newt Scamander, a magical creatures expert. In the first movie, Newt — with the help of auror Tina, helps to discover the mystery of Creedence, a young wizard who has turned into an Obscurus.

This sequel follows up the events of the last movie, introducing Johny Depp as Grindelwald and Jude Law as Dumbledore. The cast was good, with Ezra Miller as the troubled Creedence and Zoe Kravitz as Leta Lestrange.

While the characters and cinematography were interesting, the plot suffered from unequal pacing. The first half of the movie felt like it was meandering, with no clear goal in sight. It wasn't until the second half — especially the last thirty minutes — when things started picking up and making sense. While this is normal for most movies, I felt like the first half was a mere introduction of new characters.

While at the end of the movie we find out that Leta Lestrange killed her brother, and that Creedence is actually Aurelius Dumbledore, the reveal felt forced and rather confusing. The plot twists were so convoluted as to make it seem unlikely. Furthermore, I would like to know why Dumbledore failed to mention his second brother to Harry.

There's no doubt that the Fantastic Beasts series has a darker tone and themes than the original Harry Potter series (save maybe for the last few). However, this movie felt almost too dark, with very little comedic humor to lighten the mood. While this is understandable, it detracted from the overall enjoyment and feeling of wonder that the original series gave. The magical beasts felt like an addition, rather than the main stars. I feel like it shouldn't be Fantastic Beasts, as they serve but an accessory to the plot.

One thing that irked me from this movie is the inconsistency of Queenie's character. I absolutely loved her in the first movie, yet her character seemed completely different — almost sinister. It began when she cast a love spell on Jacob — this seems extremely different from the Queenie in the first movie. In the end, when she decides to join Grindelwald, was when I got extremely upset. It seemed implausible that she would turn against her sister and her lover for some man that she heard speak only once. While some people might like her character development and find it plausible, I thought it seemed rather out of place.

The other character I had issues with was Tina. Her character seemed completely different as well, less relatable and sympathetic. While her anger with Newt could be reasonable, she seemed uncharacteristically cold and unforgiving. I felt like many character's actions were used to create conflict and to drive the plot forward.

While I ultimately enjoyed "Crimes of Grindelwald," there were some things that I just found implausible or that detracted from the story. I am eagerly awaiting the next movie to see how all the loose ends are tied together. There will be three more movies, so I am eager to see the direction that J.K. Rowling is taking.