What do you call a movie in which fantastic beasts have 15 minutes of screentime, and a character named Grindelwald commits 1 or 2 crimes? Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald? That’d be weird, right?
Pros:
- JK’s imagination. Even when a movie messes up as much as this one does, it’s still one of the most charming and imaginative universes put to screen.
- Pretty well directed with great performances
- Newt (gets more development here) and Jacob
- Queenie’s storyline (if you pay close attention, I think it all adds up)
- The beasts, who are reduced to tools for Newt here, are a fun and creative addition
- The climax, Grindelwald’s speech and motivation
- Visuals, score and CGI (this was especially improved after the first film)
- Action scenes (opening scene and bookstairs chase)
Cons:
- Incredibly incoherent (they really should’ve scrapped a lot of characters and their storylines, in my opinion: Leta, Nagini, the black wizard, and even Dumbledore, as they don’t contribute a lot to this particular story).
—> Also, a lot of scenes are pointless (like the underwater creature)
- Two characters are still incredibly annoying (in my opinion those are Credence and Tina), although I’m not sure it’s the writing or acting that makes me hate them so much
- The ending feels like bad fan fiction; good twists should have subtle hints, JK should know this above anyone else
- Too much exposition
- A few scenes are underlit, or too dark
- Some continuity errors (and no, I’m not just talking about the one that has already been reported everywhere)
- The CGI on those cat creatures wasn’t that great
4/10
Initial Reaction
The Good
• The sets and world design are hands down some of the best the series has to offer. Really above and beyond on how they could expand the amazing lore.
• Music is also good. Mixing with the old theme still carries on here from the previous film, and it works.
• The opening. It's amazing, truely a fantastic opening to what seemed to be such a promising movie. The best opening to any Wizarding World film.
• New creature designs are spectacular. Beautiful to behold.
The Bad
• The plot is awful. This is a set up film. It goes nowhere. Having a prequel means to expand upon something we don't know the ending too. Or at least be interesting enough to care about something else that we don't know the finale too. This movie does neither.
• Zero stakes.
• Predictable if you know how they screwed up characters.
• There is a serious lacking of motivation from every character. Except Dumbledore possibly.
• Continuity errors that the first film justified, but here they just forget about.
• Acting is ok but I really didn't care about these characters they are trying to make me love. The first film made me care. Here, it's just like they aren't the same people.
• Though, I will commend the dark tone it carries for the first half or so. Its comedy that it tried to slot it, didn't work at all.
Other
No post-credit scenes after the film finishes.
Conclusion
This is without a doubt, the worst film so far in the franchise. I say so far, because apparently there are going to be 3 more movies. Which I doubt after this. Truely a disappointment as I am left dissatisfied.
Perfect and amazing movie to watch
2 hours of my life I will never get back. To be fair, this film did have some good moments, but on the whole it was an utter snooze fest. Another case of too much CGI, and not enough story. For the life of me, I can't work out why Johnny Depp has suddenly started dressing like Johnny Rotten from the Sex Pistols.
I was really looking forward to this film, because I usually love all the Harry Potter films, and the first Fantastic Beats. So what went wrong here, I do not know. I hope the next one will be better.
(I must warn you that my negative point of view of the film wasn't helped by the fact that someone in the cinema stunk of poo and I could hardly breathe throughout the whole film, which made a boring and long film seem even longer. Therefore, it might be slightly better than I give it credit. But even so, I still didn't enjoy it.)
So finally JK Rowling acknowledged her biggest flaw writing-wise the black and white morality. Not all Slytherins are evil or wish to harm others. Also, Grindelwald makes Voldemort look like amateur hour. Really great movie and extremely dark, not quite Infinity War dark, but certainly up there. So many Harry Potter references and you further see the more adult side of the world.
I enjoyed it and even think it addressed what people worried about, that Dumbledore did have more than friendship with Grindelwald and also the scenes are subtle which is less insulting. I loved it and actually prefer to it the other movie because I love the HP World, but dislike the Harry Potter books, so love when you see the world outside of Hogwarts.
Very, very disappointed. I'm a huge fan of the world that J.K. created, but this film falls seriously flat. The plot was convoluted, there were times that something occured and I wasn't sure where on Earth it was occurring. At times Jacob would just sort of appear on screen and you're left wondering how or why he got there. The character building that took place during the first movie was completely ignored in this movie. Queenie was enchanting Jacob, when we all know he's head over heels for her, then goes over to Grindelwald for some reason? I hope she's been enchanted. Tina, after falling for Newt in the last one, reads a misprint in a random magazine that Newt is engaged and, rather than sending a letter like any normal person might, freaks out and starts the movie basically hating Newt. Nagini could be completely removed and nothing would have to chance. She was complete useless in the movie, and the only person who even acknowledges her presence is Creedence. Lita Lestrange appears, along with Newt's brother, to... What? They could have been removed and that would have made the plot way more concise, rather than introducing new characters just to sacrifice one. I couldn't figure out if I needed to be sad or relieved that her convoluted character arc was over. Not to mention the godawful twist at the end that, if true, destroys the already established canon. Overall, the visuals were lovely, but the plot was such a disaster that it was clear this movie exists simply to get to the next one. 2/10 for being pretty, at times.
I was pretty fried when I watched it. It was pretty decent, it's getting too much hate.
The Crimes of Grindelwald's flashy VFX and endearing characters do not make up for its cluttered, often-nonsensical plot and poor development, making it the worst film in the Wizarding World series.
The Crimes of Grindewald lacks a truly coherent narrative. It's a mashup of different ideas from the books that offer excitement and no fulfillment. One is left feeling that this is a victim of the recent attempt to stretch one narrative into three films unjustifiably. Honestly, I think my dog got as much out of this as anyone could.
Well that was a good film and compared to the first, it’s got better magic effects, more beasts but just not the same magical kick and was lacking the pace the first had that balanced it and fitted well for me but it did have some decent action with some cool effects with a darker tone to it. It’s good to know more of the past of the Harry Potter universe and looking forward to what the films that follow are going to bring to Hogwarts.
First, and probably only, quibble I have about this movie is the inclusion of a particular Miss McGonagall. Whilst the actress portrays the character wonderfully both in her voice and mannerisms, we all know she wasn’t even born yet.
I enjoyed the toying with the possibility that certain characters might’ve boarded the Titanic.
Incredible visuals throughout, fantastic acting from all and good scores.
A great movie from start to finish. Credence is so much more likeable in this movie compared to the last. Johnny Depp, as per, offers a sterling performance and the big China cat thing is cool.
Having only seen it once, I really can't give this a rating. But from the opening sequence on I just had the strangest feeling throughout the movie - it just felt kind of off. The best way I can describe it is that major dramatic events felt kind of flat, not impactful. I don't know if it was the lack of exposition, the strange cuts, Johnny Depp's unconvincing performance, the film's score (which especially in the beginning was weirdly out-of-sync with the action it was supposed to dramatise), or just the generally confusing/meandering nature of the plot, but I kept thinking "something's missing." Then again, I also remember feeling that the first time I watched the first movie, and not at all the second time. Plus, as others have pointed out, it's hard to judge a movie like this without having seen the sequels - certainly Empire Strikes Back is changed significantly by the existence of Return of the Jedi, so I'm holding out for something similar happening here.
Otherwise, I really like this universe and I loved Dumbledore in this, especially the fact that (contrary to complaints) it is made quite clear that Dumbledore was/is actually in love with Grindelwald and this was not just a 'bromance'. In fact, Jude Law's performance was so convincing that i actually thought that the reason he could not fight Grindelwald was because it would be too emotionally painful, not because of the blood pact. Despite the fact that he doesn't get that much screen time, this movie really showed the depth of Dumbledore, who's easily the most complex character of the entire fictional universe - his inherent kindness and good-heartedness, the intense loyalty he inspires, but also the way he uses that loyalty to further his own goals (even if they are for the greater good), his almost pathological secret-keeping, etc. Unfortunately, in comparison to this Depp's Grindelwald falls completely flat, despite the fact that he should be Dumbledore's equal not only in magical power, but also emotional manipulation. And while we are told that Grindelwald is compelling and persuasive and see people reacting to him as if he was, he does not actually come over as that.
I liked the scenes at Hogwarts, especially the flashback with the relationship between Leta and Newt, and I liked how her boggart was actually something really traumatic - something that has also been pointed out before in relation to this exercise . I think the movie will probably get better with a second viewing, considering that even now that I've had a few hours to think about it a lot of plot points which seemed to come out of nowhere actually were hinted at in some way beforehand.
ETA: Having seen it a second time now, I completely lost that feeling I described above - in fact, I actually rather liked the movie the second time around. Make of that what you will - 8/10.
Fantastic Beasts? Not quite - Above Average Beasts is a better description. The film isn't perfect - it's overly long, the story takes time to kick into gear - but its still good to step back into Rowling's world, and at the film's close, there was enough of a hook to come back to the next one.
I had fun, i can't really dwell on much else until i see it again. I love the world J.K has created, i want to just watch it exist and i find myself just wanting to read about the smallest of details about how something works or certain creatures.
A nice follow-up to the first installment in this new film saga of the Wizarding World. This one will amaze, shock and fill you with teary moments, OMG-worthy scenes and stunning magic. Spectacular visual effects and brand new locations and sets. A truly emotional film score made by James Newton Howard that takes you into a roller-coaster of emotions. Waiting to check out the EXTENDED CUT to have an deeper look at the film's plot holes and unanswered questions.
Loved it. The animals used by Newt were incorporated in an excellent way that didn't feel unnecessary, the acting was tremendously good as well as the dark theme to it all.
I can not agree with the ones who did not like it. I did not except any fight between Dumbledore and his antagonist, so I felt this explained and showed magic in a great way. It felt like no scene was unnecessary screen time.
Loved it.
10 out 10 (which doesn't happen often)
Terrible sequal.
After the moderate success of 2016's Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, fans have been eagerly awaiting the next installment in the series, The Crimes of Grindelwald. However, while the movie raises many questions, it also leaves audiences with more questions than answers. The movie follows Gellert Grindelwald, who has been captured by MACUSA, as he escapes and heads to Paris to recruit the Obscurus, Credence Barebone, for his growing army of wizard fanatics in his battle against non-magical people. Meanwhile, Newt Scamander is tasked by his old teacher, Albus Dumbledore, with finding Grindelwald, but he is more interested in finding his friend Tina and developing their relationship. The movie tries to focus on many different storylines and characters at once, leaving the narrative feeling heavy with exposition and foundation-laying. Despite this, the movie is still enjoyable on an entertainment level, and the performances of Eddie Redmayne, Johnny Depp, and Jude Law are highlights. However, some of the returning characters and cast members are not given enough development, and the visuals and CGI are mostly up to par. Overall, while The Crimes of Grindelwald is a fun addition to the Wizarding World canon, it leaves audiences with more questions than answers and raises doubts about the direction of the series.
Después del éxito moderado de Animales fantásticos y dónde encontrarlos de 2016, los fanáticos han estado esperando ansiosamente la próxima entrega de la serie, Los crímenes de Grindelwald. Sin embargo, aunque la película plantea muchas preguntas, también deja al público con más preguntas que respuestas. La película sigue a Gellert Grindelwald, quien ha sido capturado por MACUSA, mientras escapa y se dirige a París para reclutar al Obscurus, Credence Barebone, para su creciente ejército de magos fanáticos en su batalla contra personas no mágicas. Mientras tanto, Newt Scamander recibe la tarea de su antiguo maestro, Albus Dumbledore, de encontrar a Grindelwald, pero él está más interesado en encontrar a su amiga Tina y desarrollar su relación. La película trata de enfocarse en muchas historias y personajes diferentes a la vez, dejando la narrativa cargada de exposición y puesta de cimientos. A pesar de esto, la película sigue siendo agradable a nivel de entretenimiento, y las actuaciones de Eddie Redmayne, Johnny Depp y Jude Law son lo más destacado. Sin embargo, algunos de los personajes que regresan y los miembros del elenco no reciben suficiente desarrollo, y las imágenes y CGI están en su mayoría a la par. En general, aunque The Crimes of Grindelwald es una adición divertida al canon de Wizarding World, deja al público con más preguntas que respuestas y genera dudas sobre la dirección de la serie.
61 | This sequel was a bit better than the first film. It had a better structure from the beginning to the climax. Even though this film still functions as an introduction for the next film. As a solo film, Fantastic Beasts - The Crimes of Grindelwald did not have a strong story. There was a funny part of this film when it tried to explain who Credence really was, it gave us plot twist after plot twist just in five minutes until it sounded ridiculous to hear. There was also an unclear moment regarding Credence's knowledge about Grindelwald. Credence was supposed to know that Grindelwald was Graves, but he seems just seen him for the first time. So might be Grindelwald's disguise as Graves was not told to the public, even though that was the biggest blunder from the Magical Congress of the United States of America that journalists could make it trending news. Once again Aurors made another mistake which is trying to catch Grindelwald with no good plan at all. To sum it all up, without Albus Dumbledore and Grindelwald this film would be very boring because it would leave us with an only unnecessary romance between characters.
•••••••••••••••••••••••
Rating: 60.96
Plot
P1: 1.0
P2: 1.1
P3: 1.0
P4: 1.2
Director: David Yates
Favorite Characters
1.3: Johnny Depp as Grindelwald
1.2: Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander
1.2: Jude Law as Albus Dumbledore
1.2: Ezra Miller as Credence Barebone
1.1: Zoë Kravitz as Leta Lestrange
1.0: Alison Sudol as Queenie
Written by Kornelius Harda Wicaksana
An unsuitable continuation of the first, even not outstanding film. Too bad, they could have learned from the first part, but somehow it seems as if they simply continued without thinking about it. You can see beautiful pictures, but in terms of content it is like a tough chewing gum.
It looks good. But that's about it. Money wasted . The story is simply boring. Parts of the story are even outright stupid. I'm not even sure if I really understand the story. The only memorable characters are perhaps Queenie and Jacob. There's not even a real end. It's just a cliffhanger. There's not even some charming scenes with the beasts that made part 1 watchable. And it's way too long.
This film falls into the trap of trying to compete with the Marvel universe style and making the effects and action bigger and the magic more dramatic. The problem with this is it totally undercuts all the movies that have come before it. A lot of the magic, especially Gridelwald's, is overpowered compared to previous films in the Harry Potter series.
The black shroud that covers Paris to summon his followers and the blue flames and dragons in the films climax are two key examples - compared to previous movies this would seem to be extremely powerful magic but in this movie it's apparently unremarkable. It really annoys me that this movie so blithely throws in things like this for the sake of impressive visuals, at the cost of the consistency of the universe which has been created over the previous 9 movies - and it makes me very concerned about the direction of the movies still to come. There are also canonical issues like people apparating on the ground of Hogwarts - something we've been told isn't possible since early in the very first book of the series.
Even putting aside the issues with Johnny Depp's private life, he is the wrong choice for Grindelwald. It's a one note, bland performance that just seems to recycle bits of other characters he's played in the past - it very much feels like you're watching Johnny Depp rather than Grindelwald. Colin Farrell did a much better job in the previous film.
Finally, as so many people have noted, the name is clumsy. It's clear the producers backed themselves into a bit of a corner after the first film, not knowing what direction they wanted to go in or if it would be the first part of a series. Now they feel like they have to continue the series under the "Fantastic Beasts" umbrella and as a result they're shoehorning magical creatures into the plot. It's messy and unnecessary. Or perhaps they just want them in there to churn out more merchandise. I hope they're taking the long break between films to really nail down the direction they want the series to take to ensure the remaining films are more coherent and consistent with the broader Wizarding World universe.
While I love the magical world of JK, I wish these movies would have focused on Newt's travels and experiences with the beasts. You could have really created a whole new off-shoot of this world rather than taking us back into the same old realm. In the end, it feels as though Newt is an ancillary character in his own story. His adventures are just fluff around the story the writer really wants to tell and that sells a good character short. If you wanted to tell these tales why not just call them Dumbledore and Grindewald and give Newt his own series of adventures.
There were some beautiful visuals in this picture, especially the Diagon Alley of Paris, and the few glimpses of beasts were lovely, but overall there is nothing of substance here for the main character. He is just a patsy in a story he never should have been a part of and the audience is keenly aware of it. If you love the wizarding world you will still enjoy the movie. You may get lost or have several moments were you're confused as hell, but in the end, seeing your favorite place come to life again will tide you over until the next, and hopefully, better one comes along.
It's a mediocre movie. It doesn't get bonus points for just being in the HP universe.
I continue to have no idea what goes on in these films
outstanding visuals, mediocre plot and script, and I hated the impotence of Dumbledore, he would never let himself be shackled by a mere minister?! I loved newt and the monsters ,superb acting.
Would overall be a decent, if not good film, if it wasn't for the absolutely atrocious writing. Truly one of the worst screenplays in recent memory.
Regardless, it's not... that bad?
I saw the first episode too the movie i really enjoy the movie. I was amazed truly enjoyed this series better then harry potter and i do enjoy them . But this went into how they started and you saw so much more about the people and how they become in the other movies . The cast was wonderful and there was a twist in the movie but you will find out . The movie isn't boring at all . I can't wait for the other one to come out.
I was little confused in the beginning, but eventually caught on.
I'm always amazed by the creative mind of J.K.
I enjoyed the movie, but sill prefer the first one over the sequel.
okay so I walked into the movie having loved the first one but this was different in a good way kindof but different the movie moved pretty fast no doubt and the action was too the core teriffic one of the most magical movies of the year so much fun to go and see in a theater it was funny in spots too all together most exciting thriller this year
Not as easy to watch as the first film, but I do appreciate that this is setting the scene and developing characters that will be important in later movies... so this is an important 'stepping stone'. Some genuinely spectacular moments kept my attention and I can see this 'all coming together' very nicely. 7.5/10
docked a solid star and a half for the ending
Not nearly as good as the first one. It had some adorable fantastic creatures and many, many references from the original HP, but this was more of a shallow, intermediate film that sets up the next film(s) AKA it didn't need to exist.
More confusion than growing clarity. This second (of fIve) instalments into the Fantastic Beasts story was a step down from the first. Where the first was full of delight and discovery, mysteries and rescue, this one lost that sense of awe and adventure, and got bogged down in twists and turns that made the mind dizzy and left us with more of a "What?!?" than an "Aha!" The acting was good. The special effects were effective. The deepening darkness was foreboding. But the end was so cryptic that the internet has lite up with theories as to what was actually revealed (because few left the theatre sure of what it had just told them). I am still curious as to where all this is going, but I'd like to see them return to the wonder of the magic, depth of relationships, and clarity of plot. I give this film a 7 (good) out of 10. [Fantasy Adventure]
A good movie with a lot of expected and unexpected things. Loved the music and the graphics but the plotline was not that qood. Hopefully, they'll improve it on the following movies. Plus, J.K. should stop adding things to the history. She should've been done about it. Really mad at the ending...
After the first Fantastic Beasts, I really didn't expect much.. It was cute, but a little too lighthearted for my taste. But this was surisingly great with excellent characterizations overall. Seriously there wasn't a single character whose screentime I didn't enjoy, which is rare for me. The only character, ironically, that I don't feel I got to learn enough about was Grindalwald himself. And it's a shame because the whole arena scene with him demonstrating the violence of his "enemies" had me seeing both sides and added a lot of complexity to the story. Hopefully we'll get more of that in the next one!
Visually, amazing. Story wise, terrible.
The only movies I enjoyed less than this one are justice league, suicide squad, the last Transformer movie to this date, and that human centipede shit.
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes Of Grindlewald
This film really should have followed the philosophy of "less is more"
So much happened in this film, yet by the time it ended, it felt like nothing happened at all.
The visuals were the best part, unfortunately.
5/10
#NicksMiniReview
https://t.co/71yThMAJwy
Honestly i only watched the movie because of its relation to the Harry Potter series. The Plot was awful, Acting was awful. The only plus point was the scene with the fire dragon in Paris. I thought there will be a better fight after that but the it ended at that point.
So, in other words don't watch it if you have other things to watch.
More of everything, it seems like a movie of beginning, or transition. They go way over because Dumbeldore does not fight against Grindewald. I hope it's the movie 2 out of 3 and not the 2 out of 5.
I wasn't too impressed by this movie. It was quite dry. I barely stayed awake. CGI was good, though.
It's frustrating when you expect something big to come and it does not come.
90% of the film is full of unnecessary history, very badly told.
Something still doesn't work with this saga.
The worst product of the Harry Potter expanded world. The previous movie was far better.
Disconnected.
"The Crimes of Grindelwald" is a beautiful film and introduces very dark themes, however it isn't as well-constructed in narrative terms as we might like.
[3.8/10] When watching the later Harry Potter films, I often thought to myself “Someone who hadn’t read the books first would be completely lost.” Important plot details, the depths of certain characters, even vital bits of lore were either compressed or entirely omitted for the adaptation to the screen. It was apt to leave the uninitiated movie muggles totally lost as to what was happening and why.
Well now I have the blessing and the curse to know how those viewers must have felt. Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is a bewildering film. It is chock full of characters who barely get introduced and then are treated with the utmost importance, plot developments that seemingly happen by fiat, and mysteries that the audience has little reason to care about with reveals that give them none. Convoluted is too kind a word for it. It is a mystifying dose of cinematic flotsam that has occasional high points, but fails at even the most basic elements of coherence.
The first Fantastic Beasts had a similar feeling of several scenes and ideas haphazardly stitched together. But even then, the characters were fairly few, capably if not exactly memorably established, and the plot, while still a bit jumbed, was at least possible to follow. The sequel doubles down on each of these elements, tossing in scads of new, major characters, throwing in subplot after subplot, and making an utter hash out of what anyone and everyone’s motivation is at a given point in the movie.
The best you can say is that perhaps Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, who wrote the screenplays for both Fantastic Beasts movies, should stick to novels. There are interesting ideas at play in The Crimes of Grindelwald. The titular villain issues a call to arms over the specter of World War II and the threat of muggles as impetuous beings about to gain power beyond their depth. The sense of his championing of liberation, of wizards not having to hide who they are because of outmoded customs, has resonance when Queenie and Jacob are denied the future they want because of those customs. And as always in the Potterverse, the presence or absence of love, and its effect on who we become, is still a potent throughline.
But condensed down to a screenplay for a two-hour movie instead of a five hundred-page book, Rowling and director David Yates can only graze this ideas. They are window dressing for a washed out tumble through scores of undifferentiated characters milling about the least appealing version of Paris you’ve ever seen, flanked by unconvincing CGI creatures at every turn. There isn’t room to flesh these ideas out, or do anything other than gesture toward them, when you have to fit multiple undercooked romances, several uninteresting mysteries, and even a few needless references to known faces and facts from the Wizarding World into this rudderless adventure.
And yet, the most compelling parts of the film are those connections to things past. I’m on record as not needing or wanting to see young Dumbledore, but Jude Law does nice work as the familiar character. He has that sense of combined whimsy and danger, that little twinkle in the eye, that Richard Harris and Michael Gambon brought to the role in the Potter films. He is believable as their antecedent, and carries that warmth paired with a certain mischievousness that makes him an enjoyable, if not exactly essential, addition to the Fantastic Beasts milieu.
Johnny Depp’s turn as Grindelwald is not entirely new, given his cameo at the end of the last film, and technically his character has been with us since the beginning of this series. But he is still something of a newcomer here, and while it pains me a bit to say it, his presence is also one of the film’s high points. While most of the feature sees him reduced to muttering bland portents, Grindelwald’s showcase scene sees him rallying a group of prospective followers to his cause. Depp assumes the role of charismatic tempter, launching reasonable-sounding arguments at an audience ready to eat them up. It’s in these moments that the film isn’t caught up in the briar patch of its own narrative dead ends, simply showing you the villain’s dark-tinged pitch, and it’s one of the few times in which Fantastic Beasts 2 is capable of grabbing its audiences attention.
The others include a few visual highpoints. Grindelwald’s signal to his followers is an ever-moving drapery made of transparent blank satin turning to smoke that is both ominous and visually arresting. And when Creedence, the walking, talking MacGuffin goes full blown obscurus on one of the aurors, there’s a force and a terror to it that’s missing elsewhere. Otherwise, aesthetically the film aims for a severe sort of grayscale hyperrealism that loses the viewer in the uncanny when it tries to populate that same grimdark landscape with the titular fantastical creatures who are meant to add some fun and intrigue to the proceedings.
Still, the film’s visual shortcomings pale in comparison to its narrative shortfalls. Time and again while watching Fantastic Beasts 2, characters launch into expository monologues, or announce their feelings to round out some abortive love triangle, or fight and/or team up seemingly at random. Time and again, you will ask yourself, “Who are these people? Why are they doing this? And why should I care?” The film is worse than opaque -- it is confounding, assuming that the audience already knows or appreciates people and plots that the script barely takes the time to introduce or resolve.
Honestly, you are better off reading a wikipedia summary than watching Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, because the movie seems to be based off of one. Perhaps, some day, J.K. Rowling will write a novelization of this film, one that has the time and the real estate to fully explore all of these characters and their relationships, to actually build up their conflicts and points of view, to give us the internal motivations that drive the otherwise impenetrable actions. Until then, all we have is this abbreviated, convoluted, incomprehensible mishmash of recognizable Wizard World odds and ends, less a film than a free-associative rant and ramble from someone who fell asleep watching Harry Potter on their Parisian vacation.
The darkness, the magic, the visual effects and superb acting is what makes this movie great.
The plot is so convoluted and boring that it makes me not care for anything that goes on. I don't really like any of the new or existing characters and this does nothing to make me like them more. The only parts that I thought were any good was Jude Law's Dumbledore. I just want to see his story and him being a teacher. Everything else can go. Also just a nitpick but this movie was was too dark and not properly lit. It was hard to see in some scenes.
Felt like the Deathly Hallows Part 1. Nothing happens after the good opening ten minutes. Purely a set up for the next movie in the franchise. Disappointing overall.
The movie has some great performances and a few great standout scenes, but I felt that it was all over the place and juggling far too many different things for a movie that’s only just over 2 hours in length. The previous movie was FAR better.
Really good film and I liked it a lot better than the first one. Johnny Depp as Grindelwlad was quite a treat and Zoe Kravitz was a pure stunner! Also Jude Law as Dumbledore is a perfect fit.
This really is a movie that must be understood in the context of the whole wizarding world, particularly the fandom. As a movie, by itself, its not overly impressive. Lots of running around, not much fighting, no clear purpose (besides finding Credence). But. And this is a big BUT, if you are a fan of the wizarding world, none of that will matter because just the information itself is mind-blowing (hello, end scene). The peeks at Nicholas Flamel, at Dumbledore, a sordid romantic past, blood oaths, secret betrayals, all of that makes it so worth it. Any non-fan probably walked away confused and unimpressed (ie. my husband) but you HP fans out there are basking in the details that no one else could truly appreciate!
This was one of the most incoherent movies I watched in a while. I got lost so many times, that I cannot blame just myself for that anymore. Not even the best visuals would have saved this movie.
Quite good, but I prefer the first one.
I have to say, I was a bit scared about this movie as the critics I've heard beforehand where all rather negative. But: The movie was really good, and I enjoyed it a lot.
I've seen it in 3D and it was one of the best 3D movies I've seen lately, so I can really recommend watching it in 3D. The setting was really great, and I liked it quite a bit better than the first Fantastic Beasts ; we get a great 1920s vibe, the look is incredible. We are mainly in London and England, and we get to see a lot of new magical creatures and again, what I really liked was that this movie is opening doors and becomes a bit more "international" - so instead of just the creatures of our own mythology (dragons, unicorns, centaurs, giants) we get Asian and South American folklore creatures such as Kappas, Chupacabras, Zouyus, etc. And to me, this is what "Fantastic Beasts and where to find them" is still a main aspect that this series should be all about - expanding the known British magical universe told in Harry Potter to both, new locations as well as new creatures and folklore. Of course as it is closely connected to the Harry Potter universe, there are also a few references, and a number of new background information is provided to a number of characters - some where interesting and of course this is majorly done as fan service. Most of the time I thought that this wasn't necessary, though and I could have lived without them.
What I did enjoy though, where the effects, and I think they where even much better than the in the first movie - with one exception those hairless cats in the French ministry of magic? Seriously: WTF?! Did the budget for the animator run out and so they hired an intern?! It looked like CGI we know from cheap television series such as Xena or Buffy. Other than that, however, I loved the effects, and also the tone that is set in this movie - different to the first one, this one is really dark and grim the entire time - the cuddly aspect of the first one that is spiked with funny jokes and "aww" moments of the first movie are nearly entirely gone. Instead we get to experience an evil emperor like person (a new "Hitler"-like character if you will) slowly gain power and influence with ideas that are horrible but still find their followers. The movie walks into a lot of new territory: becoming more political and mature than any other movie in the Potter universe, but also more dramatic and sad. And I really like that.
Acting-wise everybody is again on a very high level. Eddie Redmayne plays as lovely as in the first movie and I really like the Newt Scamander character. Katherine Waterson is great as well but has much less screen time than in the last movie (unfortunately) and Alison Sudol is again totally charming and beguiling, and one of my favorite characters in this series. But of course everyone was most interested in Johnny Depp and Jude Law; when hearing about the cast I was more covinced of Depp than of Law, but in the end both where really great. Law's Dumbledore is so good that you can really see him as the young version of Dumbledore as we have known him for 8 movies - something that is really hard to achieve. And Depp had one of his greatest performances since probably a decade? Perfectly on spot, never too much, never boring, giving you the chills especially during his monologue.
When talking with other Potter-Fans the greatest criticism I heard was the character break of Qeenie, and I was puzzled as well, but in the end, I see so many little aspects that might give you hints of what might have happened take for instance, the tea scene. What was that all about? Why do they obtrusively try to give her tea which she declines the entire time? Also she is not at his side from the beginning and even raises her wand once he enters - however we never get to know what the talked about - the movie cuts away - maybe something that is revealed in a later movie?, and I can somehow empathize with her - given that it is 6 months later and in all this time she has suffered a lot under the society and their conventions that do not fit her unconventional choice. So even though some of her actions seem extreme and at first glance unreasonable, try to put yourself into her shoes and think of the situation as something so frustrating with no way out where everyone works against you, and then finally you get a "way out". Is her action still so unrealistic?
Another criticism is of course the open end, and the fact that this movie does not proceed in any way. And I share that feeling - but it's exactly the same way I felt about "The Two Towers" - in the end you can say "well great, Sam and Frodo are at the same situation they where in right when the movie started". Of course, story-wise we don't get any progression. But it's not about the story, but rather about building up characters and their emotions and motivations, putting all the pieces together for a great finale, and I myself find that "The Crimes of Grindlewald" does this perfectly and while doing so there is a lot of good stuff going on, character-wise. Also I do believe in J. K. Rowling - she presented as with Harry Potter and had a master plan and an ending that heavily relied on character trades and actions that happened right in the first book - she had a plan - a great one, that unfolded itself over 7 books that where written subsequently as the story progressed, and I cannot imagine that she worked differently when conceptualizing "Fantastic Beasts". So even though the ending seems strange and does not appear to make any sense, I think one should bare with it, and see where the journey will end. Many other movies (such as Infinity War) get better critics even though it is totally clear to everyone that they will just undo everything done in that movie, making it both meaningless and boring. Why be so hard with a movie where everything still is absolutely open?
I myself was really excited - I enjoyed the movie a lot, I think it's worth watching a second time to look into details overlooked the first time, I enjoyed the characters, the magic, the discovery of new worlds - all in all, I really had good fun and liked this one even better than the first movie.
The first Fantastic Beasts movie was excellent. It was a bright and magical adventure. This one is going down another path and I cannot say that I was overly thrilled by that.
This movie is putting emphasis on political machinations, division between the wizards and the non-wizards, betrayals etc. etc. Take away the magic component and you really have a fairly regular racial-differences, humans are bad and all that, movie of the kind that Hollywood is all too eager to mass produce these days. Sure it is not as blunt, preachy and totally ridiculous as a lot of their creations but still … not the path I wanted these movies to take.
At least there are plenty of magic and beasts around in this movie to make the dark and, at times, boring story a bit more compelling. The magic and the beasts, i.e. the special effects, are really the most enjoyable part of this movie.
I was not too keen about Newt already in the first movie and he is not any better in this one. He is simply too nerdy and insecure for my taste. I prefer main protagonists that are more assertive and active. Having said that he is still a likable chap in general. Queenie is still annoying as hell though.
I was very positively surprised by Johnny Depp as Grindelwald though. I was not at all sure that his normal half crazy and comical acting style would make for a good main bad guy. However, he worked very well in the role.
The end is pretty much a big cliffhanger and not exactly on a good note. This is actually a fairly sad movie overall which is perhaps one reason that I, personally, did not feel overly impressed by it. That is not too say that it is not a good movie. It is just that is is not the kind of story I hoped for.
I love the world, but the story was a bit confusing and boring. I paused the movie several times to look links up (without succes because they were never explained) and I was waiting for this big explosive ending that didn't happen. It feels like twilight 2 where the whole story is boring and you hope it gets better. There it does, here it doesn't. Maybe they should have written a book first :see_no_evil:‚ it worked for Harry Potter to explain a lot more (or the movie just leaves you missing out, which is understandable I guess) and it worked for twilight (idk those books were OK to read and it made the movies bearable I guess). I feel like I have to like it because I love Harry Potter and I did like fantastic beasts, but this movie was honestly nothing (although I did follow it fully so something was interesting enough) probably worth a watch when the next movie comes out or to watch the whole series, but otherwise not really worth it I guess.
6.5/10
Posted 20th april 2020 23:49
"Oh, Newt. You never met a monster you couldn't love."
Somehow someway I couldn't really get into this one. It felt a bit bland. A bit boring. The magical world couldn't save the story. I hope this is all just a set up for the next one.
Best bit? Jude Law as young Dumbledore and I really liked the design of the lion type creature.
So far this is my least favorite movie in the Wizardly world of Potter but still haven't really seen a bad one. Which is a good thing in 9 movies!
It was captivating enough for me to stay up til 4am watching when i have to be up in 3 hours lol. Good watch for the one time
Pulling the old bait-n-switch, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald isn’t about Gindelwald or his crimes. Instead, we get a classic search for “the one” story; as everyone is looking for Credence (who mysteriously is not dead) believing that he could be the lost heir of an esteemed wizard bloodline. The main cast from the previous film returns, and are joined by Jude Law, Johnny Depp, and Zoe Kravitz. Depp makes for a compelling villain but is underused, and the whole where and who is Credence plot isn’t all that interesting. However, the action scenes are exciting, and the set and costumes designs are quite creative. Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is problematic, but it’s entertaining and portends some exciting things to come.
Better than its predecessor, even if I still didn't really dig it.
'Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald' has more of a vibe about it, especially early on, and is marginally better paced. Overall, though, I'm kinda split on how I feel about this second instalment. It is a definite improvement, and yet I don't have any noteworthy positives to share about it. The cast, despite names I like, are just so forgettable to me in this.
As such, I don't feel like I can give it any more than a 6/10 rating - which feels harsh, but 7/10 feels too high. With that said, I still plan to check out 'Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore'. It just needs that little extra oomph and these would be films that I'd enjoy, so hopefully that 2022 release will produce.
This is such an incomplete and self-indulgent movie. I don't think it was supposed to be complex, but following it will make you so tired...
They threw in way too many characters and subplots that have little influence on the main storyline and that are left completely unexplained in the end.
The premise is clear, but despite the movie being this long it gets little or zero development. I understand that it is supposed to be just one part of a bigger series, but each movie should have its own independent storyline and closure to be enjoyable. They even had a couple of plot twists that anyway did not make me look forward to what's coming next at all.
I gained nothing from the two and a half hours of this and I don't think I am willing to suffer from this again.
The first one was decent, charismatic and entertaining. But this second one was very bad.
still don't understand the bad ratings it's an amazing movie beautiful visuals and effects ...
the story also is beautiful
Well... it's slightly better than the first one, and visually awesome... yet completely forgettable. In a year or two, when I watch the next one, I won't remember any of the characters, except for Newt, maybe Grindelwald, and the fat muggle with the moustache. It's difficult to enjoy a movie when you couldn't care less about the characters :person_shrugging_tone1:
I really enjoyed the film but I think it's not a very memorable part of the series. why? well I watched it, not realizing I had already watched it until 20 minutes in. then once I realized I had seen this movie before, I still couldn't remember where the story was going. it was deja vu with out details.
This movie could've been as good as the first one if they hadn't felt the need to add so many new characters in. They could've kept it to the four people from the first one, plus Credence, Grindelwald, and Dumbledore, and just stuck with the plot for them, but they added like eight new people to keep up with who all had subplots of their own going on. I also didn't appreciate the blatant queerbaiting, and the questionable nature of having an Asian woman turn into a snake. The creatures made it watchable, as did Eddie Redmayne and Ezra Miller, who are both too good for this movie. The plot twist at the end was horrible, and unnecessary.
“Magic blooms... only in rare souls. Still, we must skulk in shadows. But the old ways serve us no longer.”
‘Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald’ is a muddled sequel/prequel that lacks magic and wonder. The most tedious part is realizing there’s going to be four more of these; something I was once comfortable with. This isn’t the type of story that inspired J.K. Rowling to start writing - no, this is a studio movie asking when the script is done.
The biggest crime this movie has ever committed is being boring.
Still, not everything is bad…
David Yates directing during the action sequences was entertaining and delivers some creative set pieces. I mean, the guy knows how to direct a big budget movie and make it look as good as it does. The production design and costumes are excellent as usual for these type of movies.
Eddie Redmayne and Dan Fogler are great once again. I believed they chemistry a lot more than first one. However, the characters themselves don’t suit this type of story, especially Jacob whose brought back without a good reason. I guess that memory wipe spell didn’t work because it only took away bad memories, yet he remembers the first world war - so why did he forget in the first? I wonder if this affects the people of New York as well.
Katherine Waterston did the best with the material she was given, which isn’t much as her character is put on autopilot. Jude Law as a youngish Dumbledore is perfect casting. Law’s shape and classy approach to the character makes his presence enthralling; too bad he’s screen time is slim.
I’m aware this opinion may spark disagreement, but I thought Johnny Depp played Grindelwald with the right charm and dangerous presence for the character to work. While I still believe Colin Farrell would’ve been perfect as this series Voldemort, because I could imagine Farrell growing into that wicked and striking villain.
And that’s really it for positives.
I gave the first movie credit for avoiding nostalgia and managing to stand on its own two feet, but now it’s trying to build a franchise without telling a good story. The movie is all over the place in terms of storytelling and narrative.
I’m not sure about you, but I was struggling to follow what was going on. I thought it was just me at first as I don’t consider myself a fan of the series or know the Wizarding World that well. It was meant for the fans who can easily follow this narrative, right? Well, to my surprise and relief, I was wrong. It’s never a good sign when hardcore fans struggle to explain the entire “plot”. Is it about Newt Scamander? How about Grindelwald?
Some of the visual effects looked pretty bad and painfully noticeable when interacting with non-digital performers. I said this once and I’ll say it again, I kinda wish there was more practical work.
Overall rating: I don’t know the fate of these movie in the future, but judging on the box office results and the critical reviews from both critics and fans alike, it’s pretty bleak. I’m sure there will be a third movie and fans will see it no matter what while holding a grudge against Rowling.
What a time to be alive.
I actually enjoyed more this movie then the first one, it has so much more Harry Potter references.
so many scene are not linked or explained, or jot needed.
Nicolas flamel is one.
and why there are two world for france, while in UK / USA is only single world?
The plot is very tangled and even the movie is boring at times
There is at most 45 minutes of plot in this movie that goes on for over two hours. Still, giving credit where credit is due, it was fun to hear Depp say, "I hate Paris."
Yes it was entertaining but at the end of the day you’re right back where you started no further ahead,it’s very frustrating but again it was entertaining
I'm not the biggest fan of the franchise, but this one ended up being really enjoyable and interesting for me, fantastic visuals and good acting, the only problem it's that nothing happens, I mean there is a clímax but it's not as strong as the other movies, but definitely I want to see more.
Another one of the movies in 2018 I was looking forward to that didn't pan out. I love the Harry Potter universe...mostly the books, but the movies were also quite charming. This...was not. It made the ultimate crime...FB: The Crimes of Grindelwald was boring.
I had fun watching the Fantastic Beasts, but this one ended up being way too long, with uninteresting and underused characters and a story that ended up going nowhere.
When you, in the middle of a highly anticipated movie, manages to think about dinner, planning a birthday party, and tidying up your apps on your smartphone, the movie you are watching has failed rather spectacularly. Couldn't even remember half of it by the end of the credits.
I know most people that have watched or are going to watch this movie, has probably got an investment in the HP universe, but if you haven't watched this yet...consider spending 2 hours doing something else. It's the ultimate in forgettable storytelling.
I enjoyed the movie, except the starting scene was over the top and badly filmed/edited. All the rest of the movie was rather entertaining.
Two hours commercial for next chapter? No thanks.
i loved the story a lot, it's amazing! everyone had a story to tell and i think they did a pretty good job with it. and i know it's in the same universe as Harry Potter ( i think this happened before HP) but it reminds me a lot of HP. i loved this part of the story better than the first one. can't wait to dive more in it in the next one!
Outstanding production design and special effects help to create a rich and inviting universe - to tell less than captivating stories in.
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald has stunning visuals, just like the first one, although, it was a bit confusing some of the times. Not saying the writing was bad, but it could be a lot better. I've seen a lot of movies from this genre and I know this one could be better. Gave it a 6/10
What's good about this movie is the creatures. The rest is meh
This movie was okey but just as the first one, only enjoyable and nothing more. It does not feel as forced as the first one but unfortunately still is not as great as the initial Harry Potter instalments. Not sure why there has to be yet another movie…
Looked forward to seeing this. Very confusing and not even sure what the point was. Obviously we have to wait for the sequel. Disappointed with this. Much preferred the first Fantastic Beasts movie.
Due to my adoration towards J. K. Rowling and her work and world, I was greatly entertained, however, the movie, though beautifully shot, is a mess of diverging plot points, none of which were earned or properly foreshadowed, which is a pity.
You could define this movie in one word: Bored
disappointing. a step back in terms of production in general. the script doesn't deliver at all. I see where they are aiming, but I think they miss the point with this movie. they are building the plot for the upcoming chapters to give us a twist. but they just wasted this film. not really bad, just close to be so.
Ugh what a bummer. This movie was a complete and utter mess. Soooo confusing. I just read all the HP books for the first time over the last month and watched the first Fantastic Beasts this morning and I still could not follow what the hell was going on. Also, I do not care for Eddie Redmayne. I can't stand his "I look at a person's shoulder while I talk" nervous, bumbling quiet talker. I am sick of that character type and it's truly beyond annoying in this.
There was nothing new with this film than the previous remakes of the old show. If you have seen the previous one this one will just leave you dry.
What did I just watch?
This movie is so disjointed, and confusing that I left the theater telling people to avoid it.
The movie was very hard to follow. At times, there was either no reason provided, or it was so convoluted that you couldn't find it for the things happening on screen. At other times you got slapped across the face with blatant foreshadowing.
The story from the first one, progressed about 10 minutes and nothing was really added to the story line.
My best guess is that you could watch the first and third movie in the series and have no idea you missed anything.
Skip it.
As you could see in the first one, the fantastic beasts part is just an aside and not the main theme or storyline, and as expected this one falls back heavily on Harry Potter stuff, references, ties-in storyine, characters etc. This probably makes the fan go crazy but it rendered it a lot less interesting than the first one for me. Almost no originality.
I don't have that many memories of the HP movies, but this movie gives the same impression as the prequel Star Wars movies. In the original the heroes were kids, powerless. And although it didn't make any sense, the bad guys were heavily nerfed too so that the confrontation seemed a little credible. Here the characters are full-fledged wizards and your get your money worth of powerful magic flying around everywhere. Just like you could at last see what real Jedis could do in the prequels.
Apart from that, as I had no interest in all the HP ties-in, the rest of the plot was pretty weak. Characters were much less interesting than in the first one, I guess after spending a little time on introduction, there not much more depth to use in this one.
Some people said that it was easy to lose sight of the main plot in this one and unfortunately I have to agree. That being said, I think this was done intentionally. There isn't just one story here (Newt and his fantastic beasts), but there are many more plots. If you keep the big picture in mind whilst watching this, it does make sense to a certain degree. I believe that this movie was/is mostly intended to serve as a catalyst for the war that seems to be brewing between Dumbledore and someone of his own bloodline that is now being controlled by Grindelwald. This makes sense since Grindelwald and Dumbledore can't clash yet (can't tell you why if you haven't seen the movie). Overall however, I would say that this was somewhat worth the wait and I look forward to the next!
Great images, very delightfull photographic scenes, but two hours late, and you keep the same point into the history. Nothing new, just some franchise to keep audience between movies. Not cool, too much "money thinking".
Why the hell do they still let David Yates direct?
J.K Rowling and David Yates still don’t give us much of a good reason to why these movies exist. Fans rather have more Potter.
The Fantastic Beasts stories have yet to fully get off the ground. Despite a likeable cast and some magical moments.
The Crimes of Grindelwald is bit over-stuffed with too many characters and subplots. You also have Rowling annoying fans. By messing with the time line and having some characters introduced way too early. To how she originally wrote them.
My main problem is how they used the delightful Queenie though. Having her tempted by the dark side is like Mary Poppins tempted by the dark side. To me that worked least of all.
Well that and flashbacks of Dumbledore (Jude Law) and villain Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) looking at each other in lust. To show as Dumbledore said it “they were more than friends.” Rowling has said they were an item. However on film it came off a bit goofy.
Shout by Saint PaulyBlockedParent2018-11-14T21:13:19Z
After the two 10-year-olds near me stopped using their phones when I asked and left the movie 5 minutes later, there was nothing left to keep me awake.
I have the impression The Crimes of Grisenwald is like a cashier stripper: some interesting visuals but far too much talking to be exciting.
If any of you were able to avoid napping in this film, please leave a comment and let me know if it's worth giving another shot.