“It is not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live.” These words, written by J.K. Rowling, are spoken by Albus Dumbledore in the first Harry Potter novel. It is a sentiment that Ms. Rowling needs to be re-acquainted with. Focus on the life you’re living now, and not so much on the future. Unfortunately, “Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald” does the opposite; it sets up a great story for the next movie instead of being a great film in its own right.

I am a massive fan of J.K. Rowling’s Wizarding World – as big a fan as you can be. So, it pains me to critique something I love. I did enjoy a considerable amount of this movie, after all. It is not terrible by any sense; however, like George Lucas with the “Star Wars” prequels and Peter Jackson with “The Hobbit” trilogy, these esteemed creators often get too lost in the worlds they are creating and forget what is most important when crafting a compelling story.

When the film began, I was enthralled. David Yates’ direction, paired with James Newton Howard’s score, were both well utilized. So are the production design, costumes, visual effects, and performances. Each actor here is doing spectacular work with what they are given. Standouts include Jude Law as Dumbledore, Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander, Alison Sudol as Queenie Goldstein, Dan Fogler as Jacob Kowalski, Zoë Kravitz as Leta Lestrange, and Johnny Depp as Grindelwald. There are a lot of great character moments, and this does fix a lot of the problems I had with the first “Fantastic Beasts” film. Half of this movie is really superb and put a smile on my face.

However, around the halfway mark, I got the sense that this was not a contained story, but a set-up for later installments (there are three sequels planned in the next six years). And what annoys me is that the story that they could have focused on is really gripping and original. The Harry Potter series centers around destiny, around the journey the titular character takes to achieve his place in the Wizarding World, a place he belongs. On the other hand, the Fantastic Beasts series is about people who do not belong and who feel that they can not make a difference. Throughout their journeys, they realize this to be false. This juxtaposition that Rowling inflicts on these different outlooks of the Wizarding World is really intriguing. But, just like Lucas and Jackson, the need to expand and expand and expand the mythology overshadows these stellar ideas and keeps them from making much of an impact. How can an outstanding author like Rowling balance seven main characters in a two hour screenplay? She does not have her usual 800 pages of a novel to flesh these characters out. Furthermore, when it came to the Potter movies, if the film skipped over a part or did not fill in all the details of a certain character or event, we had the books to fill in the gaps – which we do not have here.

As the movie closes, it becomes obvious that the ultimate reveal is clearly as big a set-up as one can get. The film loses its purpose and becomes convoluted along the way. While greatness is seeped throughout, the glaring problems are so easy to fix that I’m surprised so many made it to the final draft. The original “Star Wars” film is an example ofdoing things the right way. It had three main characters and one villain. The simpler structure allowed the story to grow and, more importantly, breathe.

“Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald” is a mixed magical offering riddled (or “Tom Riddle-d”) with problems, but it offers just enough to stand among the other Potter films – even if it is at the bottom of the list. Enter at your own risk. It’s a mixed experience. Hopefully Rowling will not hit the same snags in her next three films.