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.
1,371 Reviews
The magic has gone
iliasalk21 December 2018
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.
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.
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.
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!!!
Slightly conflicted about potential plot holes and a couple forced lines, otherwise-well done
peacedisturber17 November 2018
This movie was definitely more in line with the spirit of where the series is heading-the first Fantastic Beasts was a little fluffy. I liked the tone, I liked the pacing and the backstories. I liked the expositions of new characters. I am super interested to learn more about how Nagini's story will her to being the right hand man of Voldemort. I felt like a couple lines were forced, such as "Grindelwald doesn't value that which is simple." I get that it was a recall to what Dumbledore says about Voldemort to Harry, but I felt like there was no motivation for that line since Newt would've had no reason to say this based on Newt's experiences with Grindelwald. There were some interesting things that could potentially set up some plot holes in the Potterverse. And I would say that I am not worried at all, but Cursed Child made plenty of mistakes in terms of plot direction that cheapened or poked holes in the Potterverse.
I actually like Grindelwald movie version more than Voldemort movie version (book version is a different story), he seems more sophisticated and his motives more reasonable.
Overall, I liked the tone. And felt encouraged by this installment. It seems to be following the Potter series in that it improves with each installment. I just really hope she does not poke holes in timelines, or plot points.
I actually like Grindelwald movie version more than Voldemort movie version (book version is a different story), he seems more sophisticated and his motives more reasonable.
Overall, I liked the tone. And felt encouraged by this installment. It seems to be following the Potter series in that it improves with each installment. I just really hope she does not poke holes in timelines, or plot points.
Lack of plot. Random scenes tied together
daniel-james-browne16 December 2018
This movie is a fever dream of ideas. There is a lack of cohesion among the ideas. There is a lot of CGI and really bad cuts from one scene to another. It feels like a drafted idea that was never completed. There is world building but it's pointless because the characters are bountiful. Who are these people and why should I care.
What has happened to the Wizarding World?
cricketbat31 December 2018
For a film about magic, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is sure lacking it. This sequel to the spin-off features too many characters, an overly complicated plot and blurry, choppy action sequences that makes it impossibly difficult to follow. The dark and brooding tone made me miss the whimsy of the Harry Potter series. What has happened to the Wizarding World?
Stop please
amarshoaib11 August 2020
Harry Potter themed trash
Chance_Boudreaux197 January 2019
The only redeeming qualities that keep this from an even lower score are the events that happen towards the end of the movie. The rest is just filler, it's such a blatant cash grab it's existence is offensive. The whole point of this film is just to set up future sequels. I understand that some might enjoy this movie but defending this sort of practice will lead to more lazy, uninspired sequel-bait borefests like this. I'd talk about the story of the movie but it's practically nonexistent, it's just a series of events. Fantastic beasts should have been completely different from the main saga, it should have centered around Newt and the hunt for fantastic beasts as the name suggests. Prequels, sequels, spin-offs and their like need to die, they should only be done if the ideas are interesting and bring something to the existing universe. This doesn't, it's just a series of references to things you might recognize that were done much better in the past. What do I know though, they'll make 5 more of these and they'll all make a tonne of money...
Just a filler to plot for next movies
xaviorcool11 December 2018
Reasonably good expansion of the Wizarding World
snoozejonc28 May 2023
Dumbledore sends Newt after Grindelwald.
It has an interesting but convoluted story that gives some decent backstory to characters like Grindelwald and Dumbledore. It has moments that work nicely, such as the allusions to conflict in 20th Century and the final act that everything builds towards, but the focus changes so much between various characters that the overarching plot does not flow particularly well.
If you are a fan of the Wizarding World you will likely not be disappointed, considering the screen time it gives to certain characters. All performances are strong, but some actors, such as Johnny Depp, are underused because of the amount of time spent elsewhere.
Visually it has plenty of action and effects that are all pretty spectacular if you value this aspect of movies.
It has an interesting but convoluted story that gives some decent backstory to characters like Grindelwald and Dumbledore. It has moments that work nicely, such as the allusions to conflict in 20th Century and the final act that everything builds towards, but the focus changes so much between various characters that the overarching plot does not flow particularly well.
If you are a fan of the Wizarding World you will likely not be disappointed, considering the screen time it gives to certain characters. All performances are strong, but some actors, such as Johnny Depp, are underused because of the amount of time spent elsewhere.
Visually it has plenty of action and effects that are all pretty spectacular if you value this aspect of movies.
meh.
TheOneThatYouWanted15 September 2020
Hardly a story...
wicher-bos28 September 2020
Viewing this 2 years after "Fantastic Beasts." OK, but not my type of movie.
TxMike21 May 2019
I watched this at home on DVD from my public library. My wife started with me but left midway, she never got immersed in the story.
In fact a "story" is not easy to find. The movie contains lots of "magic" and various fantasy beasts, some flying, some swimming. Grindelwald seems to be an untrustworthy magician, and a real rascal, and Johnny Depp plays him very well. It seems they want him dead but he is not easy to get rid of and the final scenes leave clues to the next installment.
In my review 2 years ago of "Fantastic beasts" I wrote, "I really enjoyed the various Harry Potter movies, their stories were more clearly presented, but this movie, while mostly entertaining, is not that special." And I can say pretty much the same thing for this one. It was mostly fun to watch but not a movie that I would ever want to see again.
In fact a "story" is not easy to find. The movie contains lots of "magic" and various fantasy beasts, some flying, some swimming. Grindelwald seems to be an untrustworthy magician, and a real rascal, and Johnny Depp plays him very well. It seems they want him dead but he is not easy to get rid of and the final scenes leave clues to the next installment.
In my review 2 years ago of "Fantastic beasts" I wrote, "I really enjoyed the various Harry Potter movies, their stories were more clearly presented, but this movie, while mostly entertaining, is not that special." And I can say pretty much the same thing for this one. It was mostly fun to watch but not a movie that I would ever want to see again.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews