The visuals are great, but there is no story. The film is just a collage of scenes with strange creatures appearing for no reason at all. The vast number of characters don't help to make the plot any easier to decipher. The only scenes that I enjoyed are the ones in Hogwarts. That's because at least I know what they are about.
1,642 Reviews
Lestranger than fiction
bob-the-movie-man10 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I'd really love to tell you about the plot. I really would! But I would struggle to pull all the multitude of strands together from J.K. Rowling's story and coherently explain them to anyone. If Rowling had put ten thousand monkeys (not a million - it's no bloody Shakespeare) into a room with typewriters and locked the door I wouldn't be surprised.
Let me try at a high level..... The arch-criminal wizard Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) is being tortured in 'Trump Tower', but manages to escape and flees to Paris in pursuit of a mysterious circus performer called Credence (Ezra Miller) and his bewitched companion Nagini (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) played fetchingly by Claudia Kim. Someone needs to stop him, and all eyes are on Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law). But he is unable to do so, since he and Grindelwald are "closer than brothers" (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). So a reluctant and UK-grounded Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) is smuggled into the danger zone... which suits him just fine since his love Tina (Katherine Waterston) is working for the ministry there, and the couple are currently estranged due to a (topical) bout of 'Fake News'.
Throw in a potential love triangle between Newt, his brother Theseus (Callum Turner) and old Hogwart's schoolmate Leta Lestrange (Zoë Kravitz) and about a half dozen other sub-plots and you have... well... a complete muggle - - sorry - - muddle.
Above all, I really can't explain the crux of the plot. A venerable diarrhoea of exposition in a crypt, during an inexplicably quiet fifteen minutes (given 'im-who-can-be-named is next door with about a thousand other people!) left me completely bewildered. A bizarre event at sea (no spoilers) would seem to make absolutely NO SENSE when considered with another reveal at the end of the film. I thought I must have clearly missed something... or I'd just not been intelligent enough to process the information.... or.... it was actually completely bonkers! Actually, I think it's the latter: in desperation I went on a fan site that tried to explain the plot. While it was explained there, the explanation aligned with what I thought had happened: but it made no mention of the ridiculousness of the random coincidence involved!
The film's a mess. Which is a shame since everyone involved tries really hard. Depp oozes evil very effectively (he proves that nicely on arriving in Paris, and doubles-down about 5 minutes later: #veryverydark). Redmayne replays his Newt-act effectively but once again (and I see I made the same comments in my "Fantastic Beasts" review) his character mumbles again so much that many of his lines are unintelligible.
I also complained last time that the excellent actress Katherine Waterston was criminally underused as the tentative love interest Tina. this trend unfortunately continues unabated in this film.... you'll struggle afterwards to write down what she actually did in this film.
Jacob (Dan Fogler) and Queenie (Alison Sudol, looking for all the world in some scenes like Rachel Weisz) reprise their roles in a sub-plot that goes nowhere in particular.
Of the newcomers, Jude Law as Dumbledore is a class-act but has very little screen time: hopefully he will get more to do next time around. Zoë Kravitz impresses as Leta.
As you would expect from a David Yates / David Heyman Potter collaboration, the product design, costume design and special effects are all excellent. Some scenes are truly impressive - an 'explosion' in a Parisian garret is particularly spectacular. But special effects alone do not a great film make. Many reviews I've seen complain that this was a 'filler' film... a set-up film for the rest of the series. And I can understand that view. If you analyse the film overall, virtually NOTHING of importance actually happens: it's like the "Order of the Phoenix" of the prequels.
I dragged myself along to see this one because "I thought I should". The third in the series will really need to sparkle to make me want to see it. If J.K. Rowling were to take me advice (she won't - she NEVER returns my calls!) then she would sculpt the story-arc but leave the screenwriting to someone better. The blame for this one, I'm afraid, lies at Rowling's door alone.
Let me try at a high level..... The arch-criminal wizard Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) is being tortured in 'Trump Tower', but manages to escape and flees to Paris in pursuit of a mysterious circus performer called Credence (Ezra Miller) and his bewitched companion Nagini (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) played fetchingly by Claudia Kim. Someone needs to stop him, and all eyes are on Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law). But he is unable to do so, since he and Grindelwald are "closer than brothers" (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). So a reluctant and UK-grounded Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) is smuggled into the danger zone... which suits him just fine since his love Tina (Katherine Waterston) is working for the ministry there, and the couple are currently estranged due to a (topical) bout of 'Fake News'.
Throw in a potential love triangle between Newt, his brother Theseus (Callum Turner) and old Hogwart's schoolmate Leta Lestrange (Zoë Kravitz) and about a half dozen other sub-plots and you have... well... a complete muggle - - sorry - - muddle.
Above all, I really can't explain the crux of the plot. A venerable diarrhoea of exposition in a crypt, during an inexplicably quiet fifteen minutes (given 'im-who-can-be-named is next door with about a thousand other people!) left me completely bewildered. A bizarre event at sea (no spoilers) would seem to make absolutely NO SENSE when considered with another reveal at the end of the film. I thought I must have clearly missed something... or I'd just not been intelligent enough to process the information.... or.... it was actually completely bonkers! Actually, I think it's the latter: in desperation I went on a fan site that tried to explain the plot. While it was explained there, the explanation aligned with what I thought had happened: but it made no mention of the ridiculousness of the random coincidence involved!
The film's a mess. Which is a shame since everyone involved tries really hard. Depp oozes evil very effectively (he proves that nicely on arriving in Paris, and doubles-down about 5 minutes later: #veryverydark). Redmayne replays his Newt-act effectively but once again (and I see I made the same comments in my "Fantastic Beasts" review) his character mumbles again so much that many of his lines are unintelligible.
I also complained last time that the excellent actress Katherine Waterston was criminally underused as the tentative love interest Tina. this trend unfortunately continues unabated in this film.... you'll struggle afterwards to write down what she actually did in this film.
Jacob (Dan Fogler) and Queenie (Alison Sudol, looking for all the world in some scenes like Rachel Weisz) reprise their roles in a sub-plot that goes nowhere in particular.
Of the newcomers, Jude Law as Dumbledore is a class-act but has very little screen time: hopefully he will get more to do next time around. Zoë Kravitz impresses as Leta.
As you would expect from a David Yates / David Heyman Potter collaboration, the product design, costume design and special effects are all excellent. Some scenes are truly impressive - an 'explosion' in a Parisian garret is particularly spectacular. But special effects alone do not a great film make. Many reviews I've seen complain that this was a 'filler' film... a set-up film for the rest of the series. And I can understand that view. If you analyse the film overall, virtually NOTHING of importance actually happens: it's like the "Order of the Phoenix" of the prequels.
I dragged myself along to see this one because "I thought I should". The third in the series will really need to sparkle to make me want to see it. If J.K. Rowling were to take me advice (she won't - she NEVER returns my calls!) then she would sculpt the story-arc but leave the screenwriting to someone better. The blame for this one, I'm afraid, lies at Rowling's door alone.
The magic has gone
iliasalk21 December 2018
overloaded
SnoopyStyle9 January 2019
Warning: Spoilers
In 1927 New York City, evil wizard Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) escapes a prison transport and heads to Paris with his supporters. In London, Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) refuses British Ministry of Magic's command to hunt Grindelwald. It's revealed that it was Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law) who sent Newt to NYC and this time he sends him to Paris. Newt is joined by Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler). Tina Goldstein (Katherine Waterston) is already there searching for lost pure-blood wizard Credence Barebone (Ezra Miller) along with everyone else. Her sister Queenie (Alison Sudol) falls under the persuasion of Grindelwald.
This has plenty of wizarding whiz bangs. It has too much twisting back-bending back stories. Some of the characters are acting in strange ways. This is overloaded. J. K. Rowling should consider not writing for the novel but concentrate on writing for the movie. There is too much of everything. I don't understand Queenie's dark turn. I hoped that she was playing along but that seems extremely unlikely. For some reason, Tina has turned a lot colder. I didn't understand the significance of Credence at the start which makes his reveal less compelling. This movie follows a dozen main characters which is about six too many. For Potter fans, this is a must but this prequel franchise is not a necessity for casual fans.
This has plenty of wizarding whiz bangs. It has too much twisting back-bending back stories. Some of the characters are acting in strange ways. This is overloaded. J. K. Rowling should consider not writing for the novel but concentrate on writing for the movie. There is too much of everything. I don't understand Queenie's dark turn. I hoped that she was playing along but that seems extremely unlikely. For some reason, Tina has turned a lot colder. I didn't understand the significance of Credence at the start which makes his reveal less compelling. This movie follows a dozen main characters which is about six too many. For Potter fans, this is a must but this prequel franchise is not a necessity for casual fans.
I don't even remember it
deandsouza1589216 November 2018
Warning: Spoilers
The one thing this movie successfully does, is cast an obliviate on you. I literally just watched it, and I don't even remember what it's about. The magical element of this film is simply having so much happen, while simultaneously, nothing really happens.
There's a little bit of nostalgia, with Easter eggs and great visuals; the actors are great- Johnny Depp has the most menacing introduction I've seen; Jude Law convinced me that he is young Dumbledore; the music is spectacular. But none of that can hide the truth of the fact that this movie is just BORING.
There is literally so much plot thrown at you non-stop. The movie expects you to care about, invest in and remember so many characters, that at some point, you mentally clock out. I'm an intense potterhead, and I love learning more l about the wizarding world. But this is just too much information, being force-fed in very little time. I've enjoyed every single Harry Potter film so far... but I just can't stomach this story.
Remember at the end of the first Fantastic Beasts movie, when you enjoyed watching it,but you hesitated to gravitate towards it. You had a small shred of doubt if it was a one time thing,or does this genuinely have the potential to be something incredible. There's no longer a doubt.
There's a little bit of nostalgia, with Easter eggs and great visuals; the actors are great- Johnny Depp has the most menacing introduction I've seen; Jude Law convinced me that he is young Dumbledore; the music is spectacular. But none of that can hide the truth of the fact that this movie is just BORING.
There is literally so much plot thrown at you non-stop. The movie expects you to care about, invest in and remember so many characters, that at some point, you mentally clock out. I'm an intense potterhead, and I love learning more l about the wizarding world. But this is just too much information, being force-fed in very little time. I've enjoyed every single Harry Potter film so far... but I just can't stomach this story.
Remember at the end of the first Fantastic Beasts movie, when you enjoyed watching it,but you hesitated to gravitate towards it. You had a small shred of doubt if it was a one time thing,or does this genuinely have the potential to be something incredible. There's no longer a doubt.
The Sole Purpose To Milk In Other Sequels
eric2620035 April 2020
Warning: Spoilers
The first "Fantastic Beasts" film can easily stand alone as engaging new series for the viewers who are still hungry for new material in the world author J.K. Rowling created which is the Wizarding World. And sure we were told in advance that we were going to get five more movie adaptations in the future, I was excited about seeing this spin-off from the very successful Harry Potter films that came out between 2002-2012. Sure not everyone liked "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them", I managed to find it ever so enjoyable as a welcome addition to the Wizarding World. It may sound like a cliche what I'm about to say, but "Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Griendelwald" failed to live up to the standards that the first installment measured up to. I can't remember a time when a movie like this was so muddled, watching what could gave been a simple viewing pleasure would end up so labouring.
If there was a plot to this installment, I wonder where it is hiding, because this movie is so convoluted it's all over the place. I tried my hardest to follow through, but it just meanders from one scenario after another and trying to decipher it gave me a migraine. I even watched it again to see what I missed, only to end up regretting it later on as I ran out of pills. It tries to stay in the tradition of the myth behind the Harry Potter lore, but fails to stand on its own. If you're a Potter fan you will likely get a better understanding of the goings-on in the movie. But casual movie viewers will be overwhelmed.
I can at times just skim through the details knowing the series pretty much by knowing what to expect and the adventures of what's to come, but in "Crimes of Grindelwald" you don't see very all that much because the sole purpose of this film is only to cash in a reminder that there are other films in this franchise to follow. It gets to the point that it could become quite tedious as scenes are rushed with no full explaining which results in everything being quite empty. Sure there is some CGI magic featured here, but it still isn't enough to carry the film in terms of plot, story or theme. Just all style and no substance.
The indecisiveness in where it wants to go can be nauseating and the editing seems very absent in the long turn. Scenes are presented in little fragments and then are forgotten and only come back later again without any full explaining going on. There are way too many characters in the movie and they have no real significance to them to care about or even have something to grab our attention. In order to get the better feel of the plot, the need to introduce the characters one more time and to find a surface where the subplots intertwine. There are old characters and newer ones, unfortunately none really do much service because too many things happening and very little is coming out.
Though the bad outweighs the good stuff, "Crimes of Grindelwald" can at least claim that the characters coming back was a pleasure in addition the newer ones offer some kind of hope for the future like Jude Law as a young Dumbledore. Also though not very well-rounding the wizardry effects were very impressive. It would be a scintillating run if Rowling lets us in on the wizardry in Paris. However, there are some scene set there that are put into doubt. With a little hope, we might get more of our questions fulfilled. I guess we'll have to be patient until then.
In the end, it's highly questionable if this sequel will be of equal significance to what is yet to come. Right now all I can say is this second installment is an utter mess. Too many things happening and not enough story being told. This can turn off a lot of people from wanting to see this movie. If this was like a puzzle it may have the pieces, however I hope that the next installments can places them together. We can only hope for the better.
If there was a plot to this installment, I wonder where it is hiding, because this movie is so convoluted it's all over the place. I tried my hardest to follow through, but it just meanders from one scenario after another and trying to decipher it gave me a migraine. I even watched it again to see what I missed, only to end up regretting it later on as I ran out of pills. It tries to stay in the tradition of the myth behind the Harry Potter lore, but fails to stand on its own. If you're a Potter fan you will likely get a better understanding of the goings-on in the movie. But casual movie viewers will be overwhelmed.
I can at times just skim through the details knowing the series pretty much by knowing what to expect and the adventures of what's to come, but in "Crimes of Grindelwald" you don't see very all that much because the sole purpose of this film is only to cash in a reminder that there are other films in this franchise to follow. It gets to the point that it could become quite tedious as scenes are rushed with no full explaining which results in everything being quite empty. Sure there is some CGI magic featured here, but it still isn't enough to carry the film in terms of plot, story or theme. Just all style and no substance.
The indecisiveness in where it wants to go can be nauseating and the editing seems very absent in the long turn. Scenes are presented in little fragments and then are forgotten and only come back later again without any full explaining going on. There are way too many characters in the movie and they have no real significance to them to care about or even have something to grab our attention. In order to get the better feel of the plot, the need to introduce the characters one more time and to find a surface where the subplots intertwine. There are old characters and newer ones, unfortunately none really do much service because too many things happening and very little is coming out.
Though the bad outweighs the good stuff, "Crimes of Grindelwald" can at least claim that the characters coming back was a pleasure in addition the newer ones offer some kind of hope for the future like Jude Law as a young Dumbledore. Also though not very well-rounding the wizardry effects were very impressive. It would be a scintillating run if Rowling lets us in on the wizardry in Paris. However, there are some scene set there that are put into doubt. With a little hope, we might get more of our questions fulfilled. I guess we'll have to be patient until then.
In the end, it's highly questionable if this sequel will be of equal significance to what is yet to come. Right now all I can say is this second installment is an utter mess. Too many things happening and not enough story being told. This can turn off a lot of people from wanting to see this movie. If this was like a puzzle it may have the pieces, however I hope that the next installments can places them together. We can only hope for the better.
Grindelwald, Dumbledore, Newt and 1000 other things
vsek11 January 2022
Warning: Spoilers
A movie this expensive and with a fan base as large as that has no right being this awful.
The problem lies within the conception of this new saga. Either you tell a story of a magical zookeper with his cute baby Nifflers and quirky adventures to make children and easy to please adults go "awwww" or you tell a convoluted story about gay love, Dumbledore, Nazis and the Wizarding World War.
Those should be two different things.
They don't gel together at all.
Why is Newt seen as a perfect candidate to look for Credence? Just so he can be in the movie again? The less said about the return of Jacob the better. Nagini is now a girl with a curse on her? And wizards pay to see her change into a snake in a circus. But Rowling already established, that changing into animals is what many wizards can do and it shouldn't be special at all. Even teachers and journalists in Harry Potter could do it. All this does is make everything more confusing. So Neville killed a Korean lady in the last movie? How awful! Way to steal his moment!
It's just things like this that drag this movie down. The Titanic, Leta LeStrange, brother of Newt, Tina, Queenie (roofing Jacob to marry him, then joining the Nazis???), Grindelwald, Dumbledore, Credence (Dumbledore's brother?) .. the list goes on an on. This movie is bloated and stuffed with too many characters and plot lines I didn't care about. This is what you get when you want to please everyone.
It made me smile when, at the end of the movie, all characters stand on the bridge at Hogwarts just to look at Newt having a talk with Dumbledore while being out of earshot. It's just a hilarious b-movie moment and that the director was serious about it makes it even more funny.
This movie stumbles around with Newt and his fantastic beasts tied to one leg and a heap of uninteresting charactes on the other, being always where the plot needs him to. He has no business being there - similar to this movie.
JK Rowling and Warner seem to think that all fans want is more lore thrown at them. But it's the characters that drew us into the world of Harry Potter.
This franchise is in trouble. You can see it already by the evolution of the respective movie posters. In FANTASTIC BEASTS AND WHERE TO FIND THEM, the main characters and 20's New York are on the cover. Next up in GRINDELWALD are a boatload of characters and the Eiffel tower in the background (FANTASTIC BEASTS already very small in the logo). And for DUMBLEDORE'S SECRETS (part 3) we have Hogwarts big on the cover. It's like Warner, Rowling and the producers are so desperate as to shout "Please come back, it's about Hogwarts again!!! It's things you know!! Nostalgia!!"
I think people are already more discerning today and don't have blind loyalty to a franchise that just doesn't deliver and doesn't know what it wants. It's gonna be tough if they really want to make 5 movies total of these. I can't see this gaining more fans over time.
I give it 4/10 because relative to it's budget and fan base, it was just awful.
By the way - what were the crimes of Grindelwald? Were that numerous that they warrant this title? I think not.
The problem lies within the conception of this new saga. Either you tell a story of a magical zookeper with his cute baby Nifflers and quirky adventures to make children and easy to please adults go "awwww" or you tell a convoluted story about gay love, Dumbledore, Nazis and the Wizarding World War.
Those should be two different things.
They don't gel together at all.
Why is Newt seen as a perfect candidate to look for Credence? Just so he can be in the movie again? The less said about the return of Jacob the better. Nagini is now a girl with a curse on her? And wizards pay to see her change into a snake in a circus. But Rowling already established, that changing into animals is what many wizards can do and it shouldn't be special at all. Even teachers and journalists in Harry Potter could do it. All this does is make everything more confusing. So Neville killed a Korean lady in the last movie? How awful! Way to steal his moment!
It's just things like this that drag this movie down. The Titanic, Leta LeStrange, brother of Newt, Tina, Queenie (roofing Jacob to marry him, then joining the Nazis???), Grindelwald, Dumbledore, Credence (Dumbledore's brother?) .. the list goes on an on. This movie is bloated and stuffed with too many characters and plot lines I didn't care about. This is what you get when you want to please everyone.
It made me smile when, at the end of the movie, all characters stand on the bridge at Hogwarts just to look at Newt having a talk with Dumbledore while being out of earshot. It's just a hilarious b-movie moment and that the director was serious about it makes it even more funny.
This movie stumbles around with Newt and his fantastic beasts tied to one leg and a heap of uninteresting charactes on the other, being always where the plot needs him to. He has no business being there - similar to this movie.
JK Rowling and Warner seem to think that all fans want is more lore thrown at them. But it's the characters that drew us into the world of Harry Potter.
This franchise is in trouble. You can see it already by the evolution of the respective movie posters. In FANTASTIC BEASTS AND WHERE TO FIND THEM, the main characters and 20's New York are on the cover. Next up in GRINDELWALD are a boatload of characters and the Eiffel tower in the background (FANTASTIC BEASTS already very small in the logo). And for DUMBLEDORE'S SECRETS (part 3) we have Hogwarts big on the cover. It's like Warner, Rowling and the producers are so desperate as to shout "Please come back, it's about Hogwarts again!!! It's things you know!! Nostalgia!!"
I think people are already more discerning today and don't have blind loyalty to a franchise that just doesn't deliver and doesn't know what it wants. It's gonna be tough if they really want to make 5 movies total of these. I can't see this gaining more fans over time.
I give it 4/10 because relative to it's budget and fan base, it was just awful.
By the way - what were the crimes of Grindelwald? Were that numerous that they warrant this title? I think not.
The slim plot is not enough to maintain the magic
Prismark1022 November 2018
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald shows that J K Rowling should not be writing screenplays although I am sure Steve Kloves who is credited as Executive Producer had a hand in the script.
It is also evident that the directorial duties needs a new vision. David Yates has been too long in the Potter world.
The film is a rehash of the early X-Men films. An allegory. Purebloods need to breakout and overcome the humans who are the true monsters. Grindelwald even shows them a vision of the man made future, World War 2 and the rise of Nazism. The trouble is Grindelwald has his own fascist foot soldiers.
The plot consists of Grindelwald predictably escaping. Newt Scamander is sent by Albus Dumbledore to go look for him. The ministry of magic is stifling all dissent and free thinkers. In short they are driving wizards to the arms of someone like Grindelwald. Everyone is after a young man called Credence Barebone who just wants to find his mother and who he really is.
The film has great spectacle but it is too long and the plot is too slim. Parts of the film is set in Hogwarts and actually makes you realise that these prequels are a cynical cash in by Warner Brothers.
It is also evident that the directorial duties needs a new vision. David Yates has been too long in the Potter world.
The film is a rehash of the early X-Men films. An allegory. Purebloods need to breakout and overcome the humans who are the true monsters. Grindelwald even shows them a vision of the man made future, World War 2 and the rise of Nazism. The trouble is Grindelwald has his own fascist foot soldiers.
The plot consists of Grindelwald predictably escaping. Newt Scamander is sent by Albus Dumbledore to go look for him. The ministry of magic is stifling all dissent and free thinkers. In short they are driving wizards to the arms of someone like Grindelwald. Everyone is after a young man called Credence Barebone who just wants to find his mother and who he really is.
The film has great spectacle but it is too long and the plot is too slim. Parts of the film is set in Hogwarts and actually makes you realise that these prequels are a cynical cash in by Warner Brothers.
Bland, Confusing, and Convoluted
ThomasDrufke8 December 2018
I generally hate writing a review about a movie/tv episode that I hate. It feels like a waste of energy, especially knowing that there are plenty of people out there who genuinely enjoy this film series, but I'm just not one of them. I LOVE the Harry Potter movies and grew up with those 8 films, but I've never felt the connection to the Fantastic Beasts series that I did to Potter. It's not necessarily fair to make that comparison but alas, there's virtually nothing good about the Crimes of Grindelwald. Confusing, convoluted, and at times way too convenient for its own good, the film has nothing to grapple onto emotionally. In fact, the one decent thing about the first film (Queenie and Jacob) is entirely ruined in this film's third act. Disappointingly, the film has almost pushed aside the beasts side of the series completely, in exchange for a cliched villain with Grindelwald, who severely lacks in originality. Admittedly, I found myself lost for most of the runtime. Until they inevitably put out "Cursed Child" in 15 years, this may be it for me with this universe.
2.3/10
2.3/10
Utterly confusing
carmelarcher_0131 December 2018
Great cast, stunning visuals and cinematography and totall boring
ButtStuffWerewolf1 March 2019
Watching this gives you the sense that nobody really knew where to go after the first film ended... and it shows. Beautiful film with a great cast, but an ultimately pointless story that sort of flops around like a dead fish not quite aware yet that its dead. This film is disappointing and forgettable.
Even The Last Jedi wasn't this incompetent
MissSimonetta27 December 2019
Warning: Spoilers
THE LAST JEDI is often reviled as far as recent blockbusters go, but at least the editing was competent and the story, while problematic and too eager to shock at the expense of logic or characterization, was coherent. THE CRIMES OF GRINDELWALD cannot claim any of these modest skills. The opening escape scene is a masterpiece of horrible editing, camerawork, and lighting. And it all goes downhill from there.
This movie basically exists to set up later movies. The story just spins and spins, and when it finally goes somewhere, you've not only been bored out of your mind for two and a half hours, but annoyed by the preposterous decisions the characters make-- Queenie joining the wizard equivalent of Nazis so she can marry a Muggle is the most nonsensical thing, and the flashback on the Titanic would have made me laugh had it not been so infuriatingly stupid.
The creatures are cute and the world design is nice, but that's all that saves GRINDELWALD from being 100% unwatchable. As it is, it's pretty close to that mark!
This movie basically exists to set up later movies. The story just spins and spins, and when it finally goes somewhere, you've not only been bored out of your mind for two and a half hours, but annoyed by the preposterous decisions the characters make-- Queenie joining the wizard equivalent of Nazis so she can marry a Muggle is the most nonsensical thing, and the flashback on the Titanic would have made me laugh had it not been so infuriatingly stupid.
The creatures are cute and the world design is nice, but that's all that saves GRINDELWALD from being 100% unwatchable. As it is, it's pretty close to that mark!
Dreadful money grab
Leofwine_draca2 February 2020
Warning: Spoilers
THE CRIMES OF GRINDELWALD is the FANTASTIC BEASTS follow-up that nobody asked for, but I guess there's more money yet to be made from the wizarding world. This turns out to be of the same quality as the first film, i.e. quite dreadful, and it doesn't help that Rowling herself turned in the screenplay. It's unfocused, meandering, almost plotless at times, with way too many uninteresting characters, none of whom appeal. As usual, the emphasis is on delivering snazzy CGI effect after snazzy CGI effect, but this gives the whole thing a real detachment from reality that makes it vapid to watch. Cast-wise, Redmayne is the worst he's ever been, while Johnny Depp's stock villain feels sleazy rather than menacing. It's also one of those mid-series films that has no real beginning, middle or end, and as such feels completely pointless.
When I first saw the trailers for this movie, I thought it was going to suck. But, once I sat down and watched the movie, much to my surprise...I was right.
ajzeg15 September 2019
This is probably my least favourite movie of the year. There are way too many characters with way too many subplots going on all at once, the villain was horribly miscast, everything was confusing and didn't make sense, the story was unfocused and pointless, there was way too much pointless fanservice, everything looked grey, it was BORING, and the whole thing only exists to set up sequels! So, yeah, this one's pretty bad. It's a new low for Warner Brothers and this franchise, and....hold on, wait a minute, there must be a mistake. I'm listing off all the reasons that I hated Batman v Superman, not Fantastic Beasts 2. Oh? They both have the exact same problems? Okay then! Screw this movie! I sure as hell am not seeing the next one until it comes out on demand! They have officially lost my interest!
A weak entry to the wizarding world
studioAT20 August 2019
You can't blame JK Rowling for wanting to keep the 'Harry Potter' saga going, especially on film, but this sequel falls a bit flat.
The first 'Fantastic Beasts' film, while not being great in any shape or form, at least told a good story, one that could have stood alone, and there were some good performances.
This one however tries to do way too much - set up future instalments (do we really need 5 of these films as is anticipated??) introduce us to all the key players who may or may not be useful in these future films, while also providing enough links back to 'Harry Potter' to please the fans.
In the end it does none of these convincingly, and ends up being an odd, quite dark film that doesn't live up to its billing.
The first 'Fantastic Beasts' film, while not being great in any shape or form, at least told a good story, one that could have stood alone, and there were some good performances.
This one however tries to do way too much - set up future instalments (do we really need 5 of these films as is anticipated??) introduce us to all the key players who may or may not be useful in these future films, while also providing enough links back to 'Harry Potter' to please the fans.
In the end it does none of these convincingly, and ends up being an odd, quite dark film that doesn't live up to its billing.
A lot of fantastic elements but not quite fantastic enough overall
TheLittleSongbird3 December 2018
Am something of a fan of Harry Potter, books and films. Having grown up with the franchise and cherishing the fond memories being engrossed in the books, the midnight shopping trips to get the latest one and watching the films in the cinema being entertained, dazzled and at times even scared. Found myself really enjoying the first 'Fantastic Beasts' film, though not all my friends and family did for understandable reasons.
Had high hopes for 'Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald'. It became one of my most anticipated films of the year after being captivated by the trailer. Although the critical reception was mixed, the high hopes were not shattered because word of mouth from friends, whose opinions this reviewer always trusts, was positive and am someone aiming to see all the film for franchise completest sake. My thoughts after watching 'Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald' were mostly positive though with a few fairly serious misgivings.
'Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald' is a sequel that is bigger in spectacle, darker in content and bolder in its basic story. Yet, compared to some sequels that have earned that distinction by me, it is an example of a follow-up that fell short of being better. It wasn't for me vastly inferior and the drop in quality was not large, although visually this film looked better and preferred the cast here too the previous film had more focus and cohesion and the creatures were used better. Can totally see where critics are coming from while also seeing what those who liked it saw in it.
Will get the not so good things out of the way. Do agree with those who have described 'Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald' as over-stuffed. There are too many characters and not all of them are necessary and the others given too short shrift, the inclusion of Nicolas Flamel for instance was pointless with him having literally nothing to do and felt merely there as a thrown in Harry Potter reference. It was great to see life at Hogwarts and feel nostalgic with the references, but that was also hurt by that what was shown didn't seem to fit continuity-wise.
There were too many story strands too, variably explored. Making the story feel cluttered and not always focused, which affects the cohesion. The big revelation(s) in the last act, especially for what seemed to be the conclusion of the main story strand, did confuse me and needed much more breathing space for the viewer to take it all in, one is left in a whirlwind that gets bigger.
Some of the pace could have been tighter, with some of the middle act meandering and not always involving. The ending came over as a bit rushed to me, well-staged but a slowing down pace-wise would have made the crucial revelations much clearer.
However, 'Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald' has a lot of fantastic elements. Once again, it does look great and looks even better perhaps than the previous film. The production design is wondrous, especially once in Paris though loved the look of Hogwarts as well, and it is beautifully shot, with tighter editing and slightly more polished effects (though both were great in the previous film). Loved the little details too. The return of James Newton-Howard was a more than welcome one, with a score that is even more haunting, more whimsical, more ethereal and more rousing, one standout being in the beginning with the phantom carriage.
Enjoyed enough of the script, with enough thoughtful, emotional (did feel for Credence) and amusing parts, the last one being provided by Jacob and the Niffler. Though there are parts that don't make the script here as focused as before and die-hard Harry Potter fans won't be squealing with delight as much and feeling as nostalgic over the references because the continuity fitted much more before. Although the story execution is flawed, there is charm, offbeat wit, imagination and nail-biting suspense, so the magic is there. Another improvement over the previous film is that the beginning gets to the point more and is better paced.
David Yates' direction shows experience and he handles the set pieces very well. The phantom carriage escape and Ministry Library scenes really stand out, while the circus freak show part is suspenseful and intriguing. Would have loved to have seen far more of the creatures and more variety but when they do appear they are delightful and each serve purpose to the story. Again not only are they technical marvels they also have personality, the most used is the Zouwu, while the one that serves most point to the story is Pickett. My favourite will always be Niffler though. The characters are worth caring for generally and the cast are on great form. Eddie Redmayne has even more nuance and charm here and Johnny Depp's evil personified Grindelwald is vastly improved here. Ezra Miller's repression and Zoe Kravitz's empathy are moving to watch while Dan Fogler is amiable and very funny. Genius casting too is provided by Jude Law as Dumbledore, a fine example of creating enormous impression in relatively minor screen time. Katherine Waterston, while still commanding the screen beautifully, is on the underused side and Alison Sudol is not as charming.
Overall, an enjoyable film with many fantastic elements. Just wanted it to be more fantastic than it turned out to be. 7/10 Bethany Cox
Had high hopes for 'Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald'. It became one of my most anticipated films of the year after being captivated by the trailer. Although the critical reception was mixed, the high hopes were not shattered because word of mouth from friends, whose opinions this reviewer always trusts, was positive and am someone aiming to see all the film for franchise completest sake. My thoughts after watching 'Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald' were mostly positive though with a few fairly serious misgivings.
'Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald' is a sequel that is bigger in spectacle, darker in content and bolder in its basic story. Yet, compared to some sequels that have earned that distinction by me, it is an example of a follow-up that fell short of being better. It wasn't for me vastly inferior and the drop in quality was not large, although visually this film looked better and preferred the cast here too the previous film had more focus and cohesion and the creatures were used better. Can totally see where critics are coming from while also seeing what those who liked it saw in it.
Will get the not so good things out of the way. Do agree with those who have described 'Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald' as over-stuffed. There are too many characters and not all of them are necessary and the others given too short shrift, the inclusion of Nicolas Flamel for instance was pointless with him having literally nothing to do and felt merely there as a thrown in Harry Potter reference. It was great to see life at Hogwarts and feel nostalgic with the references, but that was also hurt by that what was shown didn't seem to fit continuity-wise.
There were too many story strands too, variably explored. Making the story feel cluttered and not always focused, which affects the cohesion. The big revelation(s) in the last act, especially for what seemed to be the conclusion of the main story strand, did confuse me and needed much more breathing space for the viewer to take it all in, one is left in a whirlwind that gets bigger.
Some of the pace could have been tighter, with some of the middle act meandering and not always involving. The ending came over as a bit rushed to me, well-staged but a slowing down pace-wise would have made the crucial revelations much clearer.
However, 'Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald' has a lot of fantastic elements. Once again, it does look great and looks even better perhaps than the previous film. The production design is wondrous, especially once in Paris though loved the look of Hogwarts as well, and it is beautifully shot, with tighter editing and slightly more polished effects (though both were great in the previous film). Loved the little details too. The return of James Newton-Howard was a more than welcome one, with a score that is even more haunting, more whimsical, more ethereal and more rousing, one standout being in the beginning with the phantom carriage.
Enjoyed enough of the script, with enough thoughtful, emotional (did feel for Credence) and amusing parts, the last one being provided by Jacob and the Niffler. Though there are parts that don't make the script here as focused as before and die-hard Harry Potter fans won't be squealing with delight as much and feeling as nostalgic over the references because the continuity fitted much more before. Although the story execution is flawed, there is charm, offbeat wit, imagination and nail-biting suspense, so the magic is there. Another improvement over the previous film is that the beginning gets to the point more and is better paced.
David Yates' direction shows experience and he handles the set pieces very well. The phantom carriage escape and Ministry Library scenes really stand out, while the circus freak show part is suspenseful and intriguing. Would have loved to have seen far more of the creatures and more variety but when they do appear they are delightful and each serve purpose to the story. Again not only are they technical marvels they also have personality, the most used is the Zouwu, while the one that serves most point to the story is Pickett. My favourite will always be Niffler though. The characters are worth caring for generally and the cast are on great form. Eddie Redmayne has even more nuance and charm here and Johnny Depp's evil personified Grindelwald is vastly improved here. Ezra Miller's repression and Zoe Kravitz's empathy are moving to watch while Dan Fogler is amiable and very funny. Genius casting too is provided by Jude Law as Dumbledore, a fine example of creating enormous impression in relatively minor screen time. Katherine Waterston, while still commanding the screen beautifully, is on the underused side and Alison Sudol is not as charming.
Overall, an enjoyable film with many fantastic elements. Just wanted it to be more fantastic than it turned out to be. 7/10 Bethany Cox
What a letdown!
Hayden-8605523 November 2020
An overly confusing film, the plot flies from one moment to another and we're introduced to characters that contribute absolutely nothing to the plot. Furthermore, a lot of the characters we were introduced to in the previous film are all muddled up. Queenie allies herself with Grindelwald; a child murdering genocidal maniac. Are we meant to be relating to her, or sympathise with her?
The acting was ok but I felt it was worse than the previous film, Johnny Depp is definitely the best thing about this and I felt his character wasn't used enough, considering how excellent Depp is. The character of Credence is the most confusing thing I've ever seen! I read up on it afterwards and his big plot reveal doesn't even make sense. The new characters weren't developed either like Nagini and Newt's brother, both rather bland.
Additionally there just wasn't enough action or excitement as well, which is an unusual critique of a fantasy film, with the Harry Potter films some didn't have a huge amount of action but at least the plots were good and likewise the characters but here there's neither.
3/10: Very confusing and just not exciting, a disappointment to be sure.
The acting was ok but I felt it was worse than the previous film, Johnny Depp is definitely the best thing about this and I felt his character wasn't used enough, considering how excellent Depp is. The character of Credence is the most confusing thing I've ever seen! I read up on it afterwards and his big plot reveal doesn't even make sense. The new characters weren't developed either like Nagini and Newt's brother, both rather bland.
Additionally there just wasn't enough action or excitement as well, which is an unusual critique of a fantasy film, with the Harry Potter films some didn't have a huge amount of action but at least the plots were good and likewise the characters but here there's neither.
3/10: Very confusing and just not exciting, a disappointment to be sure.
Stunning movie, but where was the plot..?
Tom061014 November 2018
Let me start off by saying that I am a big Harry Potter fan; I loved all 8 HP movies, and really liked the 1st installment of Newt's adventures as well.
This movie just didn't really do the trick for me. There was absolutely nothing to complain about visually; the movie was even more stunning than the first one, with even more beautifully designed 'Beasts'. And as many other people have mentioned, as a Harry Potter fan, you just can't hate this movie. Where Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them only contained a handful amount of references to the Harry Potter series, The Crimes of Grindelwald has tonnes. Enough to hype up any Harry Potter fan.
The problem this movie had for me was its plot, or rather, its almost nonexisting plot. This movie just seemed to serve as background information or something for the upcoming movies in this series (for which we'll undoubtedly have to wait another 2 years or more..), more of like a setup for things to come. It introduced many new characters and revealed certain things about already known characters. But yet, some of these things just felt unnatural, as if JK Rowling just kept writing more and more to squeeze into 1 movie. This basically leads to a movie where the biggest plot is to find Credence's 'true identity' - not really much of a plot at all. Some of the reveals about characters also seemed a bit strange, but that could be just me. All in all, all this dialogue about characters made it extra confusing to know what the movie was about, in addition to it lacking much of a plot to begin with.
This movie is definitely not a waste of money or anything, you could just buy a ticket for the stunning scenes and you'd be satisfied. It's just that this movie was quite a disappointment compared to many people's expectations I think, seeing as it basically is just a setup for the upcoming movies, which lacks a good plot.
The problem this movie had for me was its plot, or rather, its almost nonexisting plot. This movie just seemed to serve as background information or something for the upcoming movies in this series (for which we'll undoubtedly have to wait another 2 years or more..), more of like a setup for things to come. It introduced many new characters and revealed certain things about already known characters. But yet, some of these things just felt unnatural, as if JK Rowling just kept writing more and more to squeeze into 1 movie. This basically leads to a movie where the biggest plot is to find Credence's 'true identity' - not really much of a plot at all. Some of the reveals about characters also seemed a bit strange, but that could be just me. All in all, all this dialogue about characters made it extra confusing to know what the movie was about, in addition to it lacking much of a plot to begin with.
This movie is definitely not a waste of money or anything, you could just buy a ticket for the stunning scenes and you'd be satisfied. It's just that this movie was quite a disappointment compared to many people's expectations I think, seeing as it basically is just a setup for the upcoming movies, which lacks a good plot.
More focused on franchise building than telling a good story!
maiajay1315 November 2018
As both a lover of the Harry Potter Universe and a lover of movie going, I was thoroughly disappointed, even angry with this movie. While the visuals are as magical as ever, it's clear that the filmmakers are so distracted by trying to build a franchise that they're forgetting to actually tell a good story! The chemistry between our main four heroes was diluted by so many new characters being introduced. With so many new people and also so many questions for our old heroes, there wasn't enough time for any kind of (explainable) character development or for the viewers to connect with anyone on the screen. The only "character development" with one of our main heroes felt random and out of character and we aren't given much reason or warning for this change. I was also very disappointed with the writing behind Tina's character as her role was demoted from a strong willed Auror and woman to merely a side kick and love interest. Huge and important elements of the story were left for us only to assume what had happened when discussing the one year time jump between the two films (like the Jacob/Queenie relationship, Jacobs memory, etc.). As a whole, the film screamed "money hungry" and "franchise building" rather than letting us really connect with the characters. It also seemed as if they were only adding in twists that would surely get a reaction from viewers despite the fact that they not only discredited the original Harry Potter films, but just felt like unrealistic and a little too convenient! In short, as a huge fan of the Harry Potter Universe, I was disappointed, upset and felt really let down, and as a film goer, I was confused with the plot and frustrated with the lack of character connection and development! The only reason I have given a 4/10 instead of a 1 is for Eddie Redmayne's perfect execution of the shy, socially awkward but loveable and charming Newt Scamander and for the alluring performance from Jude Law's Dumbledore who leaves us wanting to know more of his history! But in the end, it was a huge disappointment as a stand-alone movie.
Most Disappointing Film Of The Year.
mshackletonchavez1 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Truly horrendous. Easily the most disappointing film I have seen all year, on a fundamental level this film was flawed, the primary culprit bing J.k Rowling and the extreme amounts of creative dominance she must have been given in the writing process.
First, I must praise certain aspects of this motion picture, although there is little to commend. The performances were for the most part a strength (Although some let the side down), most notably Jude Law as Albus Dumbledore was wonderful as the caring, charming and more complex young Dumbledore. In addition to this, I must comment that Johnny Depp was a surprisingly positive cast member, also Eddie Redmayne was alright, a little overdone on the mumbling aspect but still a pleasure to see. The rest of the cast was fairly competent with the exception of those that will be stated later on.
The screenplay of this film, what can I say. I have only negatives to deliver on this aspect. I can only image that what occurred was similar to George Lucas during the Star Wars Prequels - constantly surrounded by people who would only say 'Yes' to all the decisions. Because they are the one who mad the great original series, surely they can do no wrong. Oh how history has repeated Itself.
This screenplay fails on the basic fundamentals of story telling, show don't tell. Most of this picture is two hours of continuous uninteresting drear, badly written with actors struggling to convey the poor choices and dialogue delivered by Rowling. I may be mistaken but in one scene in particular, in Hogwarts, Theseus Scamander gets called a 'Weasley' - If this is memory is true, it is symbolic of the shoddiness and laziness of the screenplay and many of the the basic failures of this film.
The film follows two almost entirely unconnected threads, one of Credence and the other of Scamander. Both are boring, and the juxtaposition between them is jarring and fuel for confusion. The Credence plot-line is particularly of failure, it is highly unclear and unexplained, and is just 45 minutes of useless meandering with no emotional impact or significance to the plot as a whole. I even found Ezra Miller to almost seem as of he was struggling to even portray this incredibly bland, standard and boring character. I am one who knows a fair amount about the Harry Potter universe and at first I even didn't get the Nagini reference, until she became a snake in a very unnecessary and out of the blue scene, for she has zero effect upon even Credences story, I cant remember if she spoke a single line, and was so badly delivered by her actress by the fault of Rowling's screenplay.
Newt Scamander's plot-line was almost equally as uninteresting and badly executed, for in his plotline, he barely does anything. Once could have removed Tina, Jacob, Queenie, Leta Lestrange, Theseus, Yusuf and Abernathy and the plot-line would have ended in petty much exactly the same place. It is overcrowded, and it is truly a waste of acting talent. For all these performers are of a high caliber and here do nothing. All these characters were uninteresting with the exception of Queenie who had a somewhat interesting arc but was executed badly due to Rowlings screenplay, this singular arc had much more potential.
This plot-line is extremely convoluted, Newt Scamander has just over an hour of screen time, despite this being his movie, he is surprisingly not in it a great deal. There is one scene in particular which evokes my mention of the lack of the basic "show don't tell" fundamental of story telling. In this scene Leta Lestrange, Yusuf and the rest of the gang excluding Queenie, they use flashbacks to explain a plot thread about one characters lineage. It is extremely convoluted, and involves the Titanic, forced exposition and some complain about forced diversity (In making one of the Lestrages Black) but I dot not say that is a valid criticism. Overall this is supposed to tie up and be an evocative emotional moment for the majority of the characters in the narrative, but as the characters had little to no initial characterisation, the convolutedness only adds to the boredom, as the audience simply does not care for what is being presented, as well as how it is just exposition bing vomited at the audience, it is flimsy, boring and at the most fundamental bad film making, and entirely undefendable.
As a result, all of the new characters introduced in this feature hold no significance to the plot, nor are emotionally invested in, thus a waste of time. In addition to this, Jacob is fairly wasted in this feature, he doesn't grow as a character and simply tags along like a fish out of water that is no longer funny for the most part. Although the running salamander joke was effective, but this was his sole contribution to the film, all he does is look shocked or hold buckets.
Tina Goldstein played by Katherine Waterston is absolutely wasted as both a character and an actress. Such promise laid in this films precursor and yet contributes nothing to this feature, she had no function to the story nor any emotional impact on the audience at all. A total waste of Katherine Waterston who is a great talent in other motion pictures.
Gellert Grindelwald was played by Johnny Depp. And wow, what a mixed bag, one the one had he was handled well by Depp however in terms of characterisation and villainy, Rowling has really let the side down. Apart from the reasonably good opening scene, Grindelwald is unthreataning, bland and disappears for large chunks of the narrative. Fo a film which bares his name, he was hardly the focal point (Nor was Newt Scamander, thus who is the foci of this film?) Grindelwald flat out says he doesn't want to kill muggles, or hurt them, so why is he a threat? What are his crimes? All the characters simply talk about how bad he was, it is never shown apart from one cliche scene of killing a family, it hold little emotional wight or significance. Once again this flaw falls on Rowling and fundamental rule of "Show don't tell". Which I needn't divulge again. But this displays the fatal flaw of this film, how it fails on a very basic level, to deliver a crude, boring, uninteresting and convoluted product. In addition to this, Rowling includes very unsubtle Anti-Trump undertones which when delivered well can be thought provoking but in this film, are not delivered well and give an even more jarring and convoluted third act.
Now in must explore the screenplay as a whole. Of the greatest holes in the consistency of this feature is its two concurrent plots. For they are strenuously linked and are left unexplained, this results in headache, confusion and boredom. Nothing is resolved by the end, since there was no real problem at the beginning either, it feels like over two hours of useless meandering just propped up by bad hints to earlier greater works and setting up a future series, and every single film ever made in which isn't focus was to set up more films has been bad. For this film has no describable plot, it's a mess. Unlike other more successful films that have set up a future, such as phase one Marvel or heck even the first Hobbit film, they had discrete narratives of their own, and characters to invest in, this film does not have those fundamentals.
The plot-twists of this film are unconvincing and unimaginative and hold no weight other than that hey relate to earlier films. This a lazy trick used by Rowling and is simply bad storytelling. For due to the lack of proper character development or emotional weight, the twists hod, no impact to the audience and thus are simply cheap ploys used by Rowling to try and save the feature, which clearly didn't work on most of the audience.
On a technical level, this film holds some good aspects. The sound design and visual effects are for the most part fun and vivid but are fairly standard by modern blockbuster standards. The cinematography though, oh my god, it is terrible. Extreme disorientating closeups then suddenly standard unimaginative angles. It is truly jarring. The colouration is so incredible bland, other than the blue fake dragon at the end, no other image sticks in my head as memorable or even noteworthy or fun. It is almost black and white, so grey and depressing. This doesn't feel like a family friendly fantasy film about fun silly creatures and a Magizoologist, this feels like a fascist take over. If I had children I wouldn't show them this film, its grey, boring and jarring, all things unsuitable for young children over great distances of time.
As a result of the abhorrently bland cinematography and colour palette, the costume design, set design, makeup and visual effects all suffer. The image becomes flat, uninteresting, after the last film won the Academy Award (Oscar) for Costume Design, this colouration choice really does an injustice to this achievement, and to the hard work the costume designers must have gone to to trump their previous achievement. Nothing about this films image is good, its truly a mistake and must be fixed if people are to remember any future instalments, or find them fun. For this blandness works against the film, it is not stylish but instead is boring. Not like 'Schindler's List' which was in almost pure B&W which gave the film character or more recently the film 'Her' which used a lot of red hues to heighten the loving and bemused atmosphere. This film has no clear focus as to what its colouration/cinematography was seeking to achieve. For if it seeks to be dark, it belongs not in a film called 'Fantastic Beasts', the pathetic fallacy fails on a fundamental level, the semantic's do not match up. This film sis so confused in so many aspects. Even the score was completely unremarkable and completely forgettable, I cant remember a single part of it. Showing that its only function was to dictate emotion, not to heighten or compliment it as a good score does. 2/10.
First, I must praise certain aspects of this motion picture, although there is little to commend. The performances were for the most part a strength (Although some let the side down), most notably Jude Law as Albus Dumbledore was wonderful as the caring, charming and more complex young Dumbledore. In addition to this, I must comment that Johnny Depp was a surprisingly positive cast member, also Eddie Redmayne was alright, a little overdone on the mumbling aspect but still a pleasure to see. The rest of the cast was fairly competent with the exception of those that will be stated later on.
The screenplay of this film, what can I say. I have only negatives to deliver on this aspect. I can only image that what occurred was similar to George Lucas during the Star Wars Prequels - constantly surrounded by people who would only say 'Yes' to all the decisions. Because they are the one who mad the great original series, surely they can do no wrong. Oh how history has repeated Itself.
This screenplay fails on the basic fundamentals of story telling, show don't tell. Most of this picture is two hours of continuous uninteresting drear, badly written with actors struggling to convey the poor choices and dialogue delivered by Rowling. I may be mistaken but in one scene in particular, in Hogwarts, Theseus Scamander gets called a 'Weasley' - If this is memory is true, it is symbolic of the shoddiness and laziness of the screenplay and many of the the basic failures of this film.
The film follows two almost entirely unconnected threads, one of Credence and the other of Scamander. Both are boring, and the juxtaposition between them is jarring and fuel for confusion. The Credence plot-line is particularly of failure, it is highly unclear and unexplained, and is just 45 minutes of useless meandering with no emotional impact or significance to the plot as a whole. I even found Ezra Miller to almost seem as of he was struggling to even portray this incredibly bland, standard and boring character. I am one who knows a fair amount about the Harry Potter universe and at first I even didn't get the Nagini reference, until she became a snake in a very unnecessary and out of the blue scene, for she has zero effect upon even Credences story, I cant remember if she spoke a single line, and was so badly delivered by her actress by the fault of Rowling's screenplay.
Newt Scamander's plot-line was almost equally as uninteresting and badly executed, for in his plotline, he barely does anything. Once could have removed Tina, Jacob, Queenie, Leta Lestrange, Theseus, Yusuf and Abernathy and the plot-line would have ended in petty much exactly the same place. It is overcrowded, and it is truly a waste of acting talent. For all these performers are of a high caliber and here do nothing. All these characters were uninteresting with the exception of Queenie who had a somewhat interesting arc but was executed badly due to Rowlings screenplay, this singular arc had much more potential.
This plot-line is extremely convoluted, Newt Scamander has just over an hour of screen time, despite this being his movie, he is surprisingly not in it a great deal. There is one scene in particular which evokes my mention of the lack of the basic "show don't tell" fundamental of story telling. In this scene Leta Lestrange, Yusuf and the rest of the gang excluding Queenie, they use flashbacks to explain a plot thread about one characters lineage. It is extremely convoluted, and involves the Titanic, forced exposition and some complain about forced diversity (In making one of the Lestrages Black) but I dot not say that is a valid criticism. Overall this is supposed to tie up and be an evocative emotional moment for the majority of the characters in the narrative, but as the characters had little to no initial characterisation, the convolutedness only adds to the boredom, as the audience simply does not care for what is being presented, as well as how it is just exposition bing vomited at the audience, it is flimsy, boring and at the most fundamental bad film making, and entirely undefendable.
As a result, all of the new characters introduced in this feature hold no significance to the plot, nor are emotionally invested in, thus a waste of time. In addition to this, Jacob is fairly wasted in this feature, he doesn't grow as a character and simply tags along like a fish out of water that is no longer funny for the most part. Although the running salamander joke was effective, but this was his sole contribution to the film, all he does is look shocked or hold buckets.
Tina Goldstein played by Katherine Waterston is absolutely wasted as both a character and an actress. Such promise laid in this films precursor and yet contributes nothing to this feature, she had no function to the story nor any emotional impact on the audience at all. A total waste of Katherine Waterston who is a great talent in other motion pictures.
Gellert Grindelwald was played by Johnny Depp. And wow, what a mixed bag, one the one had he was handled well by Depp however in terms of characterisation and villainy, Rowling has really let the side down. Apart from the reasonably good opening scene, Grindelwald is unthreataning, bland and disappears for large chunks of the narrative. Fo a film which bares his name, he was hardly the focal point (Nor was Newt Scamander, thus who is the foci of this film?) Grindelwald flat out says he doesn't want to kill muggles, or hurt them, so why is he a threat? What are his crimes? All the characters simply talk about how bad he was, it is never shown apart from one cliche scene of killing a family, it hold little emotional wight or significance. Once again this flaw falls on Rowling and fundamental rule of "Show don't tell". Which I needn't divulge again. But this displays the fatal flaw of this film, how it fails on a very basic level, to deliver a crude, boring, uninteresting and convoluted product. In addition to this, Rowling includes very unsubtle Anti-Trump undertones which when delivered well can be thought provoking but in this film, are not delivered well and give an even more jarring and convoluted third act.
Now in must explore the screenplay as a whole. Of the greatest holes in the consistency of this feature is its two concurrent plots. For they are strenuously linked and are left unexplained, this results in headache, confusion and boredom. Nothing is resolved by the end, since there was no real problem at the beginning either, it feels like over two hours of useless meandering just propped up by bad hints to earlier greater works and setting up a future series, and every single film ever made in which isn't focus was to set up more films has been bad. For this film has no describable plot, it's a mess. Unlike other more successful films that have set up a future, such as phase one Marvel or heck even the first Hobbit film, they had discrete narratives of their own, and characters to invest in, this film does not have those fundamentals.
The plot-twists of this film are unconvincing and unimaginative and hold no weight other than that hey relate to earlier films. This a lazy trick used by Rowling and is simply bad storytelling. For due to the lack of proper character development or emotional weight, the twists hod, no impact to the audience and thus are simply cheap ploys used by Rowling to try and save the feature, which clearly didn't work on most of the audience.
On a technical level, this film holds some good aspects. The sound design and visual effects are for the most part fun and vivid but are fairly standard by modern blockbuster standards. The cinematography though, oh my god, it is terrible. Extreme disorientating closeups then suddenly standard unimaginative angles. It is truly jarring. The colouration is so incredible bland, other than the blue fake dragon at the end, no other image sticks in my head as memorable or even noteworthy or fun. It is almost black and white, so grey and depressing. This doesn't feel like a family friendly fantasy film about fun silly creatures and a Magizoologist, this feels like a fascist take over. If I had children I wouldn't show them this film, its grey, boring and jarring, all things unsuitable for young children over great distances of time.
As a result of the abhorrently bland cinematography and colour palette, the costume design, set design, makeup and visual effects all suffer. The image becomes flat, uninteresting, after the last film won the Academy Award (Oscar) for Costume Design, this colouration choice really does an injustice to this achievement, and to the hard work the costume designers must have gone to to trump their previous achievement. Nothing about this films image is good, its truly a mistake and must be fixed if people are to remember any future instalments, or find them fun. For this blandness works against the film, it is not stylish but instead is boring. Not like 'Schindler's List' which was in almost pure B&W which gave the film character or more recently the film 'Her' which used a lot of red hues to heighten the loving and bemused atmosphere. This film has no clear focus as to what its colouration/cinematography was seeking to achieve. For if it seeks to be dark, it belongs not in a film called 'Fantastic Beasts', the pathetic fallacy fails on a fundamental level, the semantic's do not match up. This film sis so confused in so many aspects. Even the score was completely unremarkable and completely forgettable, I cant remember a single part of it. Showing that its only function was to dictate emotion, not to heighten or compliment it as a good score does. 2/10.
Too concerned with moving the chess pieces into place to deliver a coherent story
tomgillespie200225 February 2019
Aside from Peter Jackson's epic Lord of the Rings trilogy (the less said about his more recent adaptation of The Hobbit, the better), no cinematic journey into the realms of the fantastical has captured the imagination of audiences in recent years quite as much as J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter, a cash-making juggernaut for both Warner Bros. and the author herself. When the franchise came to a conclusion in 2011, it was never going to be away from our screens for very long, and the 'Wizarding World' universe was expanded in 2016 with the surprisingly charming Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. Like Harry Potter, Beasts managed to find a nice balance between wand-swishing set-pieces, enduring us to a new set of compelling characters, and building a tangible new world for it all to take place in. And with Eddie Redmayne's Newt Scamander - a shy and awkward David Attenborough type - at the centre of it all, the pieces were in place for an engrossing - and different - saga to get out teeth into.
The delicate balance found by Rowling and director David Yates the first time around is sadly nowhere to be found in this follow-up, The Crimes of Grindelwald. This is part two of a five-part story, so introductions are brushed aside in favour of plot, plot and some more plot. The first hour is taken up by bringing this new group of characters back into the fold, finding Newt grounded by the Ministry of Magic following his shenanigans last time around, just as a new threat rears its ugly face in the form of Johnny Depp's muggle-hating Grindelwald. The bad wizard is searching for the troubled Credence (Ezra Miller), who has emerged in Paris with a circus performer called Nagini (Clauia Kim), but Auror Tina Goldstein (Katherine Waterston) is already on the case. It seems as though everybody is searching for Credence. Even the young Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law), who is mysteriously reluctant to face his old friend-gone-bad himself, tries to convince Newt to go to Paris in his stead. Muggle Kowalski (Dan Fogler) is also back with his memory mainly in tact, as is his girlfriend Queenie (Alison Sudol), who is struggling to deal with a Ministry ban on Wizard-Muggle relationships.
The Crimes of Grindelwald throws everything it can into the mix: a rain-soaked battle in the air, Newt caught up in no less than three romantic entanglements, a detour to Hogwarts, and more name-drops and Easter eggs than you can shake a stick at. It's an unfathomable wall of information, punctured by an occasional set-piece that only truly come to life when the titular (and frustratingly sidelined) beasts are involved. The Harry Potter films dodged this bullet by allowing the audience to grow into this world, and often grow up with the characters, but Fantastic Beasts goes all out without really justifying its flagrant disregard for coherency, or earning the right to take such an approach. Although he is often pushed out of the spotlight by the many side-plots occurring, Redmayne just about holds it all together with another endearingly twitchy performance, and Law, who combines some of Michael Gambon mannerisms with a more youthful swagger, proves to be a shrewd bit of casting. Ultimately, this follow-up is too busy moving the chess pieces into place to focus on character, and many are pushed into the background as a result. There are great revelations, but after two hours of trying to keep up with who's who and what's what, they don't have much impact. It isn't enough to derail the series completely, but I'll have a hard time remembering where the hell we are by the time the third entry rolls around.
The delicate balance found by Rowling and director David Yates the first time around is sadly nowhere to be found in this follow-up, The Crimes of Grindelwald. This is part two of a five-part story, so introductions are brushed aside in favour of plot, plot and some more plot. The first hour is taken up by bringing this new group of characters back into the fold, finding Newt grounded by the Ministry of Magic following his shenanigans last time around, just as a new threat rears its ugly face in the form of Johnny Depp's muggle-hating Grindelwald. The bad wizard is searching for the troubled Credence (Ezra Miller), who has emerged in Paris with a circus performer called Nagini (Clauia Kim), but Auror Tina Goldstein (Katherine Waterston) is already on the case. It seems as though everybody is searching for Credence. Even the young Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law), who is mysteriously reluctant to face his old friend-gone-bad himself, tries to convince Newt to go to Paris in his stead. Muggle Kowalski (Dan Fogler) is also back with his memory mainly in tact, as is his girlfriend Queenie (Alison Sudol), who is struggling to deal with a Ministry ban on Wizard-Muggle relationships.
The Crimes of Grindelwald throws everything it can into the mix: a rain-soaked battle in the air, Newt caught up in no less than three romantic entanglements, a detour to Hogwarts, and more name-drops and Easter eggs than you can shake a stick at. It's an unfathomable wall of information, punctured by an occasional set-piece that only truly come to life when the titular (and frustratingly sidelined) beasts are involved. The Harry Potter films dodged this bullet by allowing the audience to grow into this world, and often grow up with the characters, but Fantastic Beasts goes all out without really justifying its flagrant disregard for coherency, or earning the right to take such an approach. Although he is often pushed out of the spotlight by the many side-plots occurring, Redmayne just about holds it all together with another endearingly twitchy performance, and Law, who combines some of Michael Gambon mannerisms with a more youthful swagger, proves to be a shrewd bit of casting. Ultimately, this follow-up is too busy moving the chess pieces into place to focus on character, and many are pushed into the background as a result. There are great revelations, but after two hours of trying to keep up with who's who and what's what, they don't have much impact. It isn't enough to derail the series completely, but I'll have a hard time remembering where the hell we are by the time the third entry rolls around.
What a DISGRACE to the magical world of JK Rowling..
bagelisa14 November 2018
Warning: Spoilers
If I were to describe this movie with one word , I would say it was a "Filler"
It was only after the movie that i was informed that the Fantastic Beasts "franchise" is going to be a 5 movie one . After I learned that , this movie's purpose became so clear to me .
I just watched a 2-hour movie in which the main characters had NOTHING to do with the plot AT ALL . This movie was all about Grindelwald finding Credence and convincing him to join his army so Credence would kill Dumbledore in the future .
Newt , Tina , Jacob and Quennie did nothing in this movie but couple-fighting and catching maybe 1 or 2 magical creatures.
We got to follow a story about Newt's childhood love , which led to absolutely nothing . The main characters just made it to the right place at the right time to spectate the end of the movie in which Grindelwald finds Credence , convinces him to join his army and boom , that is the movie . The only thing that Newt did is stealing the "blood-bond" between Grindelwald and Dumbledore by using the Niffler.
All in all , it was a really poor movie , the plot was shallow and it was totally a filler . It just gave us a little bit of magic but that's it . I give it a 4 only because i am a huge Harry Potter fan . This movie made me really unhappy by seeing my favorite magical world being milked for money . We don't really need 5 movies with the 2 being fillers , all we needed was 3 magical rides to the Harry Potter world . Thanks for reading this . 4/10
Um... What?
maximovlE23 February 2019
I'm an intelligent person. I have a great attention span. I loved the Harry Potter movies. I rather liked the first beasts movie, even though it was a little over the top. But this??? This wasn't a movie, it was a damn mess. Shed loads of amazing CGI with no explanation or plot. I'm confused as hell. I feel that I am expected to simply remember and understand every last aspect of the wizard world so I can follow what's going on. God help anyone who's not studied HP in depth.
IMDb asks me if this contains spoilers. Really? But I have no idea what just happened!!!
IMDb asks me if this contains spoilers. Really? But I have no idea what just happened!!!
Overstuffed with ideas but badly executed
senderik6 September 2020
Warning: Spoilers
The Crimes of Grindlewald had me thoroughly confused in more than one way. First there's the threat of Grindlewald, who seems a much bigger villain than Voldemort ever was but somehow didn't make it as the arch nemesis of Dumbledore and the crew. By himself, he could have turned this movie in a kind of magical James Bond story. But no they had to throw in at least 5 other plotlines, some of which magically disappear before the end of the story. The amount of loose ends you're, left with are enough to start a Game of Thrones like tv series. Speaking of GoT, the end of CoG is just as rushed. Instead of an epic fight between Grindlewald and his former beau, Dumbledore there is a lot of blue fire and.. a Chinese dragon? What is this, Pokémon? What happened with the great revolution? Did it fizzle out like all those blue flames? Also, apparently Grindlewald gave up and died in 1995 in Austria. So nothing happened? They didn't go after him? He didn't try anything again? The intricate politics behind the escape of Grindlewald and the struggle between pure blood (read Aryan) extremists and the moderates isn't explained further. Apparently all was well until some other three bit evil wizard unsuccessfully tried to take over a school.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews