Wasn't impressed at all with the first one - this looks a bit better though.
Film Fantastic Beasts: The crimes of Grindelwald
- Thread starter Kasper
- Start date
First one was pretty good, nothing spectacular but entertaining.
I feel the same, I enjoyed the first one, it was decent. This one looks more promising from the trailers.
Looks better than the first one.
The first one had a terribly Walt Disney ending which imo spoiled the film. This one looks to have a bit more substance to it. Should be interesting.
Thought the first one was much more of a set up movie than anything else, it did its job of introducing us to a few new elements while being a decent flick. It set up Newt, Credence/his Obscurial stuff and Grindelwald quite well which hopefully means they can jump straight into the action.
Agreed, undeniable from my perspective that the real success of the first film was the Newt character, he was fantastic.
Getting a proper kicking from critics. Think I'll skip seeing this in the cinema.
I tend not to place much stock in many critic opinions. Thought this was a decent film, few plot holes but it’s not bad. Similar level to the first I suppose. Neither are amazing, neither are terrible.
Harry Potter is the most interesting when it's set in Hogwarts, the world building outside Hogwarts is inconsistent and a mess. This franchise just makes HP worse for me, looks nothing more than a cash grab.
Ended up seeing it this weekend after all. Hadn't expected my near 30 year old friends to actually be keen on going to see a kids film but there you are.
The critics were right, it's a mess of a film. Even compared to the other Rowling films (which weren't exactly cinema high water marks themselves) it's really very poor.
Thought that it was okay. Certainly better than the first one which was instantly forgettable. Great performance by Johny Depp, I thought that he was already past it.
What a shit hole of a deus ex machina 'cliffhanger' ending.
Great visuals. Good acting. Disgraceful directionless plot.
Great visuals. Good acting. Disgraceful directionless plot.
Thought it was not bad but the first one was better. First half of the movie seemed very aimless, it picked up afterwards. Like @Gandalf Greyhame said, visuals and acting were very good but I feel they shouldn't have ried to force that many characters from the first movie into it again. That way, everyone was sort of underrepresentated regarding movie time and character transformations (like Queenie joining Grindelwald?) felt forced, the same for the introduction of new characters. Leta Lestrange was there and basically gone a couple of scenes later.
Grindelwald's gathering and speech was awesome tho.
Grindelwald's gathering and speech was awesome tho.
It's a very bad, messy and convoluted film and some of the plot holes and continuity errors that Rowling introduces to her own universe are almost unforgivable. Will skip the rest of this series unless the latter movies get really great reviews.
Deep is the new cage
I agree it's messy and convoluted and doesn't work as a stand alone film, but I think it's got enough to it to escape being a bad film as such. It looks incredible and there are some well acted subtle moments as well as some great set pieces. I'm not noticing the continuity and plot hole issues that I hear cited: I can think of McGonigall's (sp?) presence (which seems incongruous, but given the life span of some wizards that is well established and not impossible) and there are some serious questions needing answered about apparation but I can't see any obvious issues outside of those. I'm sure they are there, but I'm not seeing them.
I watch this for the visuals and the cinematography. I love anything that tries to capture the essence of a city during a different era, even if exaggerated to its stereotypical tropes. I really enjoyed the first one, again, mostly for the visuals.
The plot was indeed a bit bland. Still enjoy these movies as I love the world it takes place in, but this was admittedly a very mediocre movie. Depp & Law were good castings though.
The cast were fine and the last set piece was fine too. Everything up to that point was a mess though.
There's no plot, just several subplots happening at the same time in vaguely the same place. We only know that Redmayne is the main charcter because the previous film told us he was. The film is mostly exposition and flashbacks, with one scene seeing a character explain his backstory through flashback only to be interrupted by another character explaining her backstory through flashback, only for it to later transpire that neither of those flashbacks are actually accurate. The latter flashback being the second time the film has used flashback to explain that one character's backstory.
Things that happened in the first film are quickly brushed over, things that happen in this film leap from one another incoherently. That's without mentioning the actual plot points which vary from "like watching a Harry Potter film without having read the books" to "like having to read the Cursed Child again", while also seeming to retcon previously established facts.
Rowling is many things but a screenwriter ain't one of them.
There's no plot, just several subplots happening at the same time in vaguely the same place. We only know that Redmayne is the main charcter because the previous film told us he was. The film is mostly exposition and flashbacks, with one scene seeing a character explain his backstory through flashback only to be interrupted by another character explaining her backstory through flashback, only for it to later transpire that neither of those flashbacks are actually accurate. The latter flashback being the second time the film has used flashback to explain that one character's backstory.
Things that happened in the first film are quickly brushed over, things that happen in this film leap from one another incoherently. That's without mentioning the actual plot points which vary from "like watching a Harry Potter film without having read the books" to "like having to read the Cursed Child again", while also seeming to retcon previously established facts.
Rowling is many things but a screenwriter ain't one of them.
Last edited:
The McGonagall one is a blatant error/retcon. Pottermore, which according to Rowling should be considered canon, has her birth-year listed as 1935 (or had, it's been conspicuously removed since a few days ago), and in the books she has stated that she started at Hogwarts in 1956. Yet here she is, a professor at Hogwarts in the 1920's (and in the 1910's in a flashback). That's incredibly lazy on Rowling's part.
With Credence born around 1910, it's simply inconceivable for him to be Dumbledore's brother. Dumbledore's mother died in 1899, and his father never left Azkaban after being placed there in 1890. Also, the fact that another Dumbledore sibling was never even hinted at, despite Rita Skeeter digging up dirt on Dumbledore's past, makes it seem like another retcon.
Then there's the revisionism in terms of how stuff works in the universe. The blood pact between Voldemort and Dumbledore is a whole new concept and seems to only be introduced because unlike an unbreakable vow, which seems extremely similar, it can apparently be broken (so why in the world would they, or anyone, pick that spell instead?). The idea that obliviate only erases bad memories is also new and doesn't hold up with what else we know. And Tina apparently doesn't control the Elder Wand despite disarming Grindelwald in the first film.
With Credence born around 1910, it's simply inconceivable for him to be Dumbledore's brother. Dumbledore's mother died in 1899, and his father never left Azkaban after being placed there in 1890. Also, the fact that another Dumbledore sibling was never even hinted at, despite Rita Skeeter digging up dirt on Dumbledore's past, makes it seem like another retcon.
Then there's the revisionism in terms of how stuff works in the universe. The blood pact between Voldemort and Dumbledore is a whole new concept and seems to only be introduced because unlike an unbreakable vow, which seems extremely similar, it can apparently be broken (so why in the world would they, or anyone, pick that spell instead?). The idea that obliviate only erases bad memories is also new and doesn't hold up with what else we know. And Tina apparently doesn't control the Elder Wand despite disarming Grindelwald in the first film.
Last edited:
Watched the first one over the weekend as I liked the look of the trailer for this 2nd one, But I thought the 1st movie was very average. Not what I expected at all.
Completely agree. If she had stuck with the canon it would have all been a nice puzzle to figure out before the next film (especially end plot twist). However the teacher at Hogwarts inclusion (can’t use spoilers on phone) shows it’s clearly all just lazy writing and ruined the canon in order to make things fit.
Yes, I am a Harry Potter nerd.
Hmm, not sure I agree with all of that:
Agree on McGonagall, that's a weird lazy appearance, seems also very pointless.
Regarding Credence, we don't know much about his heritage yet, it could also turn out to be a complete bluff by Grindelwald (which would also be quite lame tbf). I agree tho, if it's some sort of half brother whatever explanation it would feel forced.
I'm not a fan of the blood pact thing, not because of the likeliness to the unbreakable vow, where you need a third person which is why they probably didn't do it (Dumbledore and Grindelwald) but because I would've found it more fitting and logical if Dumbledore refrained from going after Grindelwald for so long because of emotional reasons not some Indiana vow rubbish.
Jacob wasn't obliviated but instead had to step into the rain from this eagle creature, which was already revealed to only erase bad memories in the first movie, which is why a lot of people already speculated that he'll remember eventually. So that's okay.
Tina didn't "beat" Grindelwald in the first film, it was that weird creature of Newt. The aspect of "beating" the opponent in order to "win" the wand has been very specific in the HP books so I see no problem there.
[\spoiler]
Overall the movies suffers from trying to force to many bridges between the HP story and the actual one, the first movie only had a loose connection and was therefore better in my opinion. But I think the potential continues to be there.
Regarding Credence, we don't know much about his heritage yet, it could also turn out to be a complete bluff by Grindelwald (which would also be quite lame tbf). I agree tho, if it's some sort of half brother whatever explanation it would feel forced.
I'm not a fan of the blood pact thing, not because of the likeliness to the unbreakable vow, where you need a third person which is why they probably didn't do it (Dumbledore and Grindelwald) but because I would've found it more fitting and logical if Dumbledore refrained from going after Grindelwald for so long because of emotional reasons not some Indiana vow rubbish.
Jacob wasn't obliviated but instead had to step into the rain from this eagle creature, which was already revealed to only erase bad memories in the first movie, which is why a lot of people already speculated that he'll remember eventually. So that's okay.
Tina didn't "beat" Grindelwald in the first film, it was that weird creature of Newt. The aspect of "beating" the opponent in order to "win" the wand has been very specific in the HP books so I see no problem there.
[\spoiler]
Overall the movies suffers from trying to force to many bridges between the HP story and the actual one, the first movie only had a loose connection and was therefore better in my opinion. But I think the potential continues to be there.
Honestly, I don't necessarily mind the continuity being butchered. Rowling can do whatever she wants with her own universe, after all. You can explain away anything. I don't mind Johnny Depp looking ridiculous or Dumbledore teaching in a dapper suit. I don't really mind that the plot is a bit nonsensical because I didn't expect a great story.
What I DO mind, however, is that they made a film about full of magic and magical beasts and managed to make it boring. How do you do that? How can you make wizardry as dull as an investors' conference? I wanted it to be over around 40 minutes in because literally nothing interesting was happening at all. A bunch of paper thin characters were running around doing mostly inconsequential things for some incomprehensible purposes.
Nifflers are still great though. Can we get a film about them next time?
(honestly, the whole Grindelwald story should have been separate from the Fantastic Beasts thing. Way too many people and plot threads are crammed into this film as it is)
What I DO mind, however, is that they made a film about full of magic and magical beasts and managed to make it boring. How do you do that? How can you make wizardry as dull as an investors' conference? I wanted it to be over around 40 minutes in because literally nothing interesting was happening at all. A bunch of paper thin characters were running around doing mostly inconsequential things for some incomprehensible purposes.
Nifflers are still great though. Can we get a film about them next time?
(honestly, the whole Grindelwald story should have been separate from the Fantastic Beasts thing. Way too many people and plot threads are crammed into this film as it is)
Harry Potter movies as a whole were badly acted, boring shit in the first place. Radcliffe could be replaced with a lump of wood, Emma Watson was on the other end of the spectrum with her overacting, and even veterans like Gary Oldman and Alan Rickman looked a bit lost at times.
But at least they had a story, since the books were incredible. Fantastic Beasts is just a cashgrab as you said, with Rowling trying to stay relevant post-HP since her other novel that she wrote didn't take off well. These films, along with tactical statements dropped along the way, such as "Dumbledore was gay actually" are just her way of keeping the attention on herself.
Johnny Depp is great though.
Thought it was ok but a bit boring at times. The entire movie was just s build up with no epic ending or big fight (apart from the whole blue fire thing which wasn't much an epic fight).
I'll continue to watch them, though.
I'll continue to watch them, though.
For a movie about fantastic beasts, they barely featured any other than the the Snake and the flying lion thing.
Thought it was OK.
Biggest negative for me was the identity of Credence.
Typical fun-to-watch-on-Netflix movie that is seen at the cinema because of the universe it belongs to.
Biggest negative for me was the identity of Credence.
Typical fun-to-watch-on-Netflix movie that is seen at the cinema because of the universe it belongs to.
The flying lion thing was just terrible
Watched the movie on Saturday. Was terrible, I was bored out of my mind. And that was followed by our game against Palace.
Non Spoiler rant.
Exposition, exposition and wait for it -- more exposition. Some dude named Yusuf whose character was really not even required, a bloated backstory for Leta Lestrange that I barely understood properly, and couldn't give a shit about, a backstory for even Voldemort's fecking snake...
And every freaking body is after this Credence guy. Dumbledore wants Credence, Newt wants Credence, Grindelwald wants Credence, my nan wants Credence...I mean ffs, is this guy really that important to Grindelwald? I'm not even sure the twist ending or his purported specialty warrants the importance given to a zombielike Ezra Miller. Was hoping he would change into the Flash or something in a DC-HP crossover to spice up the narrative.
And don't think I didn't notice the rehashed characters. Newt is the awkward Harry Potter like character while there is extra screen time for his two mindnumbingly boring friends Queenie (Hermione wannabe) and Jacob (Ron wannabe). Rowling did a proverbial pallet swap -- while Hermione was a muggle and intelligen and Ron was a wizard and dumb, here it is Jacob who is the muggle and intelligent while Queenie is a witch and dumb. Fecking hell.
One positive is that they are better actors than the Harry, Ron and Hermione trio. And Depp is great as usual, with Redmayne doing a decent job as well.
3 more movies will make my head explode with the 1001 expositions Rowling will inevitably cook up. I think I will skip them and wait for the 5th only to see Dumbledore vs Grindelwald battle that would happen in the end.
Non Spoiler rant.
Exposition, exposition and wait for it -- more exposition. Some dude named Yusuf whose character was really not even required, a bloated backstory for Leta Lestrange that I barely understood properly, and couldn't give a shit about, a backstory for even Voldemort's fecking snake...
And every freaking body is after this Credence guy. Dumbledore wants Credence, Newt wants Credence, Grindelwald wants Credence, my nan wants Credence...I mean ffs, is this guy really that important to Grindelwald? I'm not even sure the twist ending or his purported specialty warrants the importance given to a zombielike Ezra Miller. Was hoping he would change into the Flash or something in a DC-HP crossover to spice up the narrative.
And don't think I didn't notice the rehashed characters. Newt is the awkward Harry Potter like character while there is extra screen time for his two mindnumbingly boring friends Queenie (Hermione wannabe) and Jacob (Ron wannabe). Rowling did a proverbial pallet swap -- while Hermione was a muggle and intelligen and Ron was a wizard and dumb, here it is Jacob who is the muggle and intelligent while Queenie is a witch and dumb. Fecking hell.
One positive is that they are better actors than the Harry, Ron and Hermione trio. And Depp is great as usual, with Redmayne doing a decent job as well.
3 more movies will make my head explode with the 1001 expositions Rowling will inevitably cook up. I think I will skip them and wait for the 5th only to see Dumbledore vs Grindelwald battle that would happen in the end.
Last edited:
First time I've ever fallen asleep in the cinema
First half was boring but i thought it redeemed itself to be okay.
My only real gripe and it's a fairly big one, none of the main characters actually changed events at any point. They just followed the action as by-standers.
My only real gripe and it's a fairly big one, none of the main characters actually changed events at any point. They just followed the action as by-standers.