The Wizarding World treads water as its magic begins to fade.

Of all the money-spinning, franchise-extending schemes cooked up by Hollywood, perhaps the most puzzling is the prequel. When all other options for a once lucrative movie series have been exhausted, the decision to rewind the clock for another roll of the franchise dice often smacks of nothing but pure desperation.

The inherent problem with prequels, one that can be brutally exposed if handled incorrectly, is that they rarely feel like essential viewing. Even for the biggest film franchises out there, a misjudged prequel can quickly end up surplus to requirements and consigned to the scrapheap of pop culture history. Just ask Solo: A Star Wars Story.

Tied up in their own mythology and shackled by inevitability, these cinematic preludes often appear far too concerned for characters and storylines to come, rather than those at hand. Within a franchise the size of J. K. Rowling’s ever-expanding Wizarding World, if an instalment set in any time period isn’t on its A-game, it’ll rapidly find itself ineffectual and marginalised.

Unfortunately, however, we’re yet to see anything close to an A-game from the Fantastic Beasts spinoffs and if this first prequel-sequel – The Crimes of Grindelwald – is anything to go by, the entire Wizarding World is in real danger of losing both its magic and its way completely.

Eluding MACUSA custody during a routine transfer back to London from New York, powerful dark wizard Gellert Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) sets about building a ‘pure-blood’ army of followers to rule over all non-magical beings. As Grindelwald’s nefarious influence grows ever stronger, Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law) enlists former student Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) to hunt him down before it’s too late. With lines drawn and loyalty tested, the wizarding world lies divided, as Grindelwald’s poisonous scheming threaten to tear everything apart.

We’re two films deep into this prequel series now and, thus far, Fantastic Beasts has yet to find its true calling. Following Harry Potter was always going to be a tall order and as The Crimes of Grindelwald continues to struggle with locating its voice, the alluring magic that the franchise once exuded now slowly ebbs away.

A spinoff from the thinnest of source material, the decision to turn Fantastic Beasts into a sprawling trilogy (with the possibly of more to come) feels rather misguided, even this early in the game. While the first film was a solid setup of an expansive wizarding universe beyond Harry Potter and co, it never quite delivered on its fantastical promises, something The Crimes of Grindelwald emphatically fails to improve on.

Offering much the same as Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, only duller, there are so many character and plot cogs turning here that The Crimes of Grindelwald comes off as little more than a filler episode. It’s a bridge – and not a particularly interesting bridge – from the set-up of the first film to a potentially interesting future, yet the film makes no attempt to sell us on the here and now.

For 134 minutes, we are treated to the cinematic equivalent of treading water, as pieces of a large, rather convoluted puzzle slowly and painstakingly slot into place. Make no mistake, The Crimes of Grindelwald is a slow burn, with painfully sluggish pacing and a lack of urgency that all but kills the film’s magical potential.

For a film that contains the words in its very title, The Crimes of Grindelwald’s severe lack of actual fantastic beasts is a rather big disappointment, especially considering their build up in the first film. Together with Newt’s unfortunate side-lining, the franchise appears to have forgotten its own promises and bullishly ploughed ahead with its own plans without first consulting its audience.

The most frustrating thing about all is that, while the moments are few and far between, when The Crimes of Grindelwald gets all magical on us, it’s frequently spectacular. When the film sorts itself out and fires up that wand, it’s an absolute joy to behold, with spellbinding and utterly spectacular visuals that showcase some of the best CGI in the game.

From the occasional appearance of a fantastic beast, to our reintroduction to Hogwarts in all its medieval magnificence, to the streets of a mystical 1920s Paris; The Crimes of Grindelwald’s visuals undoubtedly stand up to the best the franchise has to offer, yet they can’t paper over the film’s cracks. This is a world of magic and wonder whose aesthetics should effortlessly lure you in, however, while it teases much, under the film’s glossy exterior is a rather unsightly mess.

Whatever allure is created by the film’s impressive appearance; they’re consistently undermined by an overabundance of largely unengaging characters. The Crimes of Grindelwald seems insistent on keeping so many character plates spinning that it was almost inevitable that many would fall by the wayside as the film plods along.

There are no overtly bad performances, only a collection of unspectacular ones, let down by disappointing writing, a lack of focus, and a failure in narrative basics. As a result, Newt becomes the least interesting part in what is, ostensibly, his own film, while many other characters merely disappear under a cloak of exposition and poor plotting.

There’s certainly charm to Eddie Redmayne’s performance, as he continues to capture his character’s sweet, unassuming heroism and socially awkward mannerisms perfectly. However, in a film stuffed to the gills with characters and storylines all vying for screen time, the unassertive nature of Redmayne’s performance sees Newt become a passenger in what began as his ride.

Opposite him, Johnny Depp is in relatively subdued form which, after the OTT nonsense of his recent career, is actually something of a relief, yet it leaves Grindelwald lacking the requisite gravitas. Putting his recent transgressions and controversial casting to one side for a moment, there’s just something a little cowed and off about Depp’s performance, ultimately sapping a character that should be a towering and terrifyingly fascistic villain of much of his threat.

This lack of presence infects almost every performance on display (barring Jude Law’s surprisingly charming young Dumbledore), as J. K. Rowling insists on weaving a complicated web of plot at the expense of character. Of these, the biggest disappointment is Ezra Miller who, not for the want of trying, sees his supposedly pivotal Credence Barebone reduced to a brooding, mumbling shadow character that proceeds to squander much of the actor’s abundant talents.

Full of promise but lacking the impetus to follow through, Rowling’s script touches on several intriguing ideas, yet fails to deliver in the heat of the battle. As amazing a novelist as she is, Rowling’s decision to continue as screenwriter feels, in hindsight, like the film’s biggest error, as her insistence on clogging the script with exposition-laden dialogue and an overloaded, overly-complicated plot does The Crimes of Grindelwold no favours whatsoever.

Together with David Yates’ uninspired direction, Rowling’s script plods along, taking forever to get to its point (or not at all, as is frequently the case), leaving a movie in which pieces move from square to square without ever really going anywhere.

The one element The Crimes of Grindelwald does follow through on is with its themes. Hitting surprisingly close to home for a film about magical beasts and wizards, The Crimes of Grindelwold brings up notions of fascism, political manipulation, and the dangers of populism that ring true not only to the film’s pre-WWII setting, but to the world’s current political climate.

Talk of ‘pure bloods’ and global domination lends Grindelwold’s actions an overtly fascist bent that packs a surprisingly powerful punch, allowing for a very real-world dynamic that many Hollywood blockbusters would struggle to touch. While such political commentary probably isn’t what you come to a Harry Potter film for, it’s certainly The Crimes of Grindelwold’s biggest achievement; and, while it comes at the expense of the movie’s fantastical elements, it does add a welcome dimension to proceedings.

Ultimately, however, The Crimes of Grindelwold appears trapped in its own franchise bubble. While it should have been a magical and wondrous springboard for the franchise, the film ends up a muddy, incoherent mess that finds itself hostage to the future. The reintroduction of Hogwarts and all the little Harry Potter Easter eggs are certainly a nice touch, yet they only serve to demonstrate just how hamstrung the film is by what’s to come.

By their very nature, prequels are predictable; something that, if handled incorrectly, can render a film inessential - and inessential is precisely what the Fantastic Beasts franchise feels right now. Falling into the trap that many middle trilogy entries do, The Crimes of Grindelwald amounts to little more than a two-hour wheel spin, as plot points and characters are shuffled around ad nauseam with little purpose other than to build for the future of the series. While it looks as spectacular as anything in the Happy Potter back catalogue and touches on a host of surprisingly pertinent themes, both J. K. Rowling’s ponderous script and David Yates’ dour direction undermine a talented cast to offer the most uninspiring, No-Maj entry in the franchise yet.