Now that we've had some time to process Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, we couldn't help wondering: What about the crimes? We've talked about theories and canon and the promise/peril of franchise, but this movie is about literal crimes. Who committed them, why did they commit them, and how severe were they?
The second installment of J.K. Rowling's follow-up Potter franchise is as overstuffed as the first, but it's less muddled. It dutifully advances the story, but fails to deliver thrilling set-pieces.
One of the UK's most senior police officers has slammed the prioritisation of “hate crimes,” calling for officers to solve more burglaries and violent attacks by focusing on “core policing.”
McConnell called both shootings "awful" and implied the shooters would qualify for the death penalty for their crimes.
The police’s priority has to be violent crime, not hate crime, Britain’s most senior police officer said today.
An episode title like “Kerblam!” offers no insight to the viewer about what to expect, and as such it’s perhaps the most intriguing title of the season. Within seconds, it seems clear the show is delivering a satire on corporate retail giants, specifically Amazon. But as it moves forward, that
Taking place soon after the events from the first film, and following an escape opening sequence by the titular wizard, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald starts off in terms of character development pretty much where the previous film left off.