» » Phantastische Tierwesen: Grindelwalds Verbrechen (2018)

Phantastische Tierwesen: Grindelwalds Verbrechen (2018) Online

Phantastische Tierwesen: Grindelwalds Verbrechen (2018) Online
Original Title :
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald
Genre :
Movie / Adventure / Family / Fantasy
Year :
2018
Directror :
David Yates
Cast :
Eddie Redmayne,Katherine Waterston,Dan Fogler
Writer :
J.K. Rowling,J.K. Rowling
Budget :
$200,000,000
Type :
Movie
Time :
2h 14min
Rating :
6.7/10

The second installment of the "Fantastic Beasts" series featuring the adventures of Magizoologist Newt Scamander.

Phantastische Tierwesen: Grindelwalds Verbrechen (2018) Online

In an effort to thwart Grindelwald's plans of raising pure-blood wizards to rule over all non-magical beings, Albus Dumbledore enlists his former student Newt Scamander, who agrees to help, though he's unaware of the dangers that lie ahead. Lines are drawn as love and loyalty are tested, even among the truest friends and family, in an increasingly divided wizarding world.
Cast overview, first billed only:
Johnny Depp Johnny Depp - Grindelwald
Kevin Guthrie Kevin Guthrie - Abernathy
Carmen Ejogo Carmen Ejogo - Seraphina Picquery
Wolf Roth Wolf Roth - Spielman
Eddie Redmayne Eddie Redmayne - Newt Scamander
Zoë Kravitz Zoë Kravitz - Leta Lestrange
Callum Turner Callum Turner - Theseus Scamander
Derek Riddell Derek Riddell - Torquil Travers
Cornell John Cornell John - Arnold Guzman (as Cornell S. John)
Ezra Miller Ezra Miller - Credence Barebone
Ingvar Eggert Sigurðsson Ingvar Eggert Sigurðsson - Grimmson (as Ingvar Sigurdsson)
Poppy Corby-Tuech Poppy Corby-Tuech - Rosier
Andrew Turner Andrew Turner - MacDuff
Maja Bloom Maja Bloom - Carrow
Simon Meacock Simon Meacock - Krafft

Newt Scamander carries a wand, practices magic, and works for the Ministry of Magic even though he was expelled from Hogwarts, which puzzled several fans online especially since Hagrid wasn't afforded those liberties. J.K. Rowling explained that the reason for this will be revealed throughout the series.

This movie features the first time in Beasts franchise that actors from the Harry Potter movies have reprised their roles: Jamie Campbell Bower as Young Grindelwald and Toby Regbo as Young Dumbledore; both briefly appeared in Harry Potter et les reliques de la mort: 1ère partie (2010).

Zoë Kravitz's character, Leta Lestrange, has a much larger part in this film. The Lestrange family has a very notable reputation in the wizarding world, where the series previously featured Bellatrix Lestrange (played by Helena Bonham Carter), who married into the family, and to a lesser extent, her husband Rodolphus and his brother Rabastan. They are one of the original Sacred Twenty-Eight (truly pureblood families) and are known for their extreme wealth, pureblood supremacy, and practice of the Dark Arts. A few members of the family even become Death Eaters.

Tom Riddle (Lord Voldemort) is estimated to be less than a year old when this movie takes place. In "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets", which takes place in 1992, the Chamber is said to had been opened 50 years prior, i.e. in 1942. It is also said that Tom Riddle turned 16 that same year, so he must have been born on December 31, 1926 (since 1942-16=1926). Since this movie is set in 1927, Tom would be one year old by the end of that year.

To prepare for the role of Dumbledore, J.K. Rowling gave Jude Law extremely secret details about his character during a two and a half-hour meeting between two of them during which he was allowed to ask as much questions he needed to know to his content. Law also watched Michael Gambon's performance in the previous six films to help establish the character and performance.

J.K. Rowling has confirmed on Twitter that Newt Scamander is still going be the main character in the following movies.

The interior of the basement where Newt Scamander keeps his beasts is stylized according to the lithograph "Relativity" by Maurits Cornelis Escher.

During his first audition for Theseus, Callum Turner instinctively kissed Eddie Redmayne on the top of his head; he believes that was what got him the role.

The role of Nagini was previously offered to Indonesian actress, Acha Septriasa as J.K. Rowling stated that the character was inspired by folklore from Indonesia. She turned down the offer because of pregnancy.

Hogwarts exteriors, like some interiors, were shot in the historic Lacock Abbey, dating from 1229. This abbey, located in Wiltshire, England, had already been used for the same purpose for the first films of the Harry Potter saga .

Coincidentally, Callum Turner and Eddie Redmayne (who play brothers) grew up less than a hundred meters from each other. Their childhood homes in Chelsea, London are a 3 minute walk from each other. The two many milestones in the same places, such as learning to swim in the same pool. ("There's something in that, an essence in the part of the world where we both grew up. It's no coincidence that we're now playing brothers," says Turner.)

Because the script was top secret, the characters had code names for members of the film crew.

Filmed almost entirely at Leavesden's Warner Studios (located in western Hertfordshire County, about 30 kilometers from London), which has been home to the wizarding world for almost twenty years.

As with the first film, animal making required months of graphic, pattern, and animation testing to determine the appearance, behavior, movements, attitude, and personality of each creature. J.K. Rowling was inspired, for many of them, by legendary creatures from different cultures, such as the Chinese Zouwu, the Scottish Kelpie and the French Matagot.

Although Theseus is the older brother of Newt, Eddie Redmayne, who played Newt, is 8 years older than Callum Turner who portrayed his brother Theseus in the film.

Costume designer Colleen Atwood has been dressing Johnny Depp for all kinds of characters for over 30 years.

The renewed casting of Johnny Depp as Gellert Grindelwald (a role he had briefly played in Les animaux fantastiques (2016)) caused considerable controversy among fans, due to Depp's highly publicized divorce which was accompanied by allegations of domestic abuse (which he denied). Writer J.K. Rowling, however, has defended the casting choice, releasing statements in which she fully supports Depp's involvement in the film and its upcoming sequels.

Jude Law used an authentic sleight of hand move he had learned for the scene where Dumbledore presents his card to Scamander. Whether the visual outcome has then been further "tweaked" in post production or not, is (as of the film's release) up for debate, but the move itself is still easily recognisable to anyone who's ever so much as dabbled into the art of sleight of hands.

Filming began in January 2017. On Twitter, J.K. Rowling announced that Alison Sudol would return, alongside the already confirmed Eddie Redmayne and Katherine Waterston.

In Dumbledore's Dark Arts Class he calls one of the students by the name McClaggan. Some think this student could be the grandfather of "Cormac McClaggan" who was a prominent character in The Half Blood Prince. That character's last name, however, is spelled McLaggen in the books, and this character is listed as McClaggan in the film credits, which lead to some confusion and speculations as to whether they should be regarded as related or not. But the most likely explanation for this is that someone simply misspelled the name for the credits (which wouldn't be the first for a film by a long way), and that the nod to the previously established character was nevertheless the actual intention.

Some dispute seems to be as to how the name Grindelwald should actually be pronounced, with for instance "young" Dumbledore putting a very noticeable German spin on it (i.e. the Wald part pronounced much like in the English word "Vast"), whereas most other characters use a more conventional English pronunciation (i.e. the Wald part pronounced much like in the English word "Wall"). There actually is a city in Switzerland by the name of Grindelwald, so Dumbledore's version (who also knows the man more intimately than most) certainly has some foundation.

The early rumors on who would play the young Albus Dumbledore included Christian Bale, Benedict Cumberbatch and then Jared Harris (the son of the late Richard Harris, who played the older Albus Dumbledore in the first two Harry Potter movies).

Grindelwald's skull hookah is engraved with the words "für das größere wohl" (For the Greater Good") and the date 1898. The motto is related to his own philosophy: e.g. he is not trying to dominate muggles and wizards for power sake, but for the greater good. The date can be a reference to Gindelwald's years in the Durmstrang institute of magic, according to Pottermore.

A set of puppeteers allowed the actors and the technicians to physically take the place of the animals which were then finalized in post production thanks to the visual effects. Robin Guiver, the puppeteer responsible for creatures, led the team. He is a recognized professional since his creation of the character of "War Horse" on Broadway and his participation in Les animaux fantastiques (2016). The puppets were of different sizes and materials depending on the beast: for example, small bags of marbles were used to double the Niffler and his babies. And the enormous Zouwu required no less than three puppeteers, one manipulating his large sculpted head while the others moved his body and tail nearly three meters long that they swayed at the end of a pole.

Ólafur Darri Ólafsson (who plays the role of Skender) was the Icelandic voice for Hagrid in Harry Potter et la chambre des secrets (2002).

Costume designer Colleen Atwood was inspired by 1940s black and white films, most notably Carol Reed's Le troisième homme (1949)

Principal filming was completed on December 20, 2017.

Gellert Grindelwald has now been played by four actors: Colin Farrell, Johnny Depp, Jamie Campbell Bower and Michael Byrne.

Rather than filming in Paris, the producers decided to reconstitute the French capital at Leavesden studios, where it was possible to control the events, as was the case with New York in the first opus. Production designer Stuart Craig and his team began photographing different parts of Paris for their research in order to get shots that visual effects teams could use as backgrounds to extend the city to the horizon.

There actually exists a city in Switzerland by the name of Grindelwald.

It is the second installment in the Fantastic Beasts film series, and the tenth overall in the Wizarding World franchise, which began with the Harry Potter film series.

Jude Law previously appeared in Capitaine Sky et le monde de demain (2004) with previous Dumbledore Michael Gambon. He also appeared in Les sentiers de la perdition (2002) with Ciarán Hinds, who played his brother Aberforth. In Sherlock Holmes: Jeu d'ombres (2011) he worked with Jared Harris, son of previous Dumbledore Richard Harris. In L'imaginarium du docteur Parnassus (2009), he worked with Johnny Depp and Colin Farrell.

The Fantastic Beasts had generated more than $800 million in box office revenue worldwide for a budget of $180 million. This is not, however, David Yates' biggest hit since Harry Potter movies he directed, Harry Potter et l'ordre du Phénix (2007), Harry Potter et le prince de sang-mêlé (2009), Harry Potter et les reliques de la mort: 1ère partie (2010) and Harry Potter et les reliques de la mort: 2ème partie (2011) made $943, $935, $960 and $1,342 million in global revenue, respectively.

Principal photography for the film began at Warner Bros. Studios, Leavesden London in July 2017. Filming also took place in England, including London, Switzerland, and Paris.

Based on the published screenplay, Claudia Kim (Nagini) has only five spoken lines throughout the entire film.

Just prior to shooting, Callum Turner broke his wand during a screen test.

This is (at least) the fifth time actor Jude Law takes on a film role of a character that's previously been portrayed by other actors: twice in remakes of films originally starring Michael Caine (Sleuth and Alfie); the character Dr. Watson, who's been portrayed by several actors in numerous Sherlock Holmes films; Heath Ledger's role in The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus (which was slightly reimagined to accommodate being recast with Law, Johnny Depp, and Colin Farrell following Ledger's untimely death); and now Albus Dumbledore, previously played by Richard Harris and Michael Gambon in the original Harry Potter franchise.

Ingvar Eggert Sigurðsson (Grimmson) and Ezra Miller (Credence Barebone) appeared together in Justice League (2017), playing the roles of "Mayor" and"Barry Allen/The Flash" respectively.

According to the screenplay of Les animaux fantastiques (2016), Leta Lestrange was conducting an experiment at Hogwarts which went wrong and endangered the life of a student. Newt Scamander took the blame, and it's rumored that's why he was expelled from the school.

Johnny Depp signed on without reading a script. He wanted to be a part of the series because he is a self-proclaimed massive fan of the series.

When Nicolas Flamel opens his locker, the Philosopher's Stone can be seen glowing inside.

Grindelwald wields the Elder Wand, one of the Deathly Hallows, which was a huge plot point in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

Scamander took the blame for the experiment and the other professors threatened to expel him from Hogwarts but Dumbledore stood up for him, so he was never expelled, he is listed as a graduate.

In this film, we see a young Dumbledore teaching Defense Against the Dark Arts in 1927 at Hogwarts. The Harry Potter book series only ever mentions him as being the Transfiguration teacher, and the potions master and in fact names a Professor Galatea Merrythought as having taught the class for around fifty years at the time of Voldemort's graduation from Hogwarts, which conflicts with this depiction. The film also shows a young Professor McGonagall, who would be assumed to be teaching Transfiguration, as it isn't specified, but the book series details that in Harry Potter's fifth year, she has held the post for around forty years, roughly, if not exactly, the same amount of time that Dumbledore has served as headmaster.

Nicolas Flamel (maker of the Philosopher's Stone) is featured in this movie after being mentioned multiple times in Harry Potter à l'école des sorciers (2001).

The movie establishes that Nagini is a wizard born human under a curse named maledictus, forcing her to change the shape to a snake. In the Harry Potter movies Nagini is Voldemort's pet after the curse forces her to live as snake permanently.

There are many references to future events for Harry Potter and his friends, most notably: Thestrals make an appearance, as does various areas of Hogwarts, Dumbledore, Professor McGonagall, and possible ancestors of future students, including Cormac McClaggen and members of Draco's gang. Dumbledore is teaching a Defense Against the Dark Arts class about Boggarts. Nicholas Flamel, and the Philosopher's Stone both appear. Dumbledore looks at himself in the Mirror of Erised. There is a Quidditch practice going on in the background of a scene. Leta walks through the Great Hall. Nagini has a significant role, confirmed to be a person prior to becoming a snake.

In a flashback of Newt and Leta during their time as Hogwarts students, it's revealed that Leta belongs to Slytherin house and Newt belongs to Hufflepuff house, as can be seen in the prominent colors (green and gold, respectively) and House crests embroidered on their uniforms.

Throughout the film, Newt references salamanders. Salamanders are commonly associated with witchcraft and alchemy, being considered an elemental of fire. Also, newts and salamanders are both members of the amphibian family.

During Grindelwald's meeting in Paris' Pere Lachaise cemetery, Grindelwald claims to see the future of the mankind, showing some images about the World War II. The war really happened from 1939 to 1945, twelve years after Grindelwald's prediction. J.K. Rowling claimed that the arc of Fantastic Beasts will span 19 years, ending accurately in 1945.

In the beginning of this movie, Jacob breaks off his engagement to Queenie. In the beginning of the first movie, there was a scene in which Jacob's fiance breaks off their engagement. The scene was ultimately deleted.

Brontis Jodorowsky plays the Alchemist known as Nicolas Flamel who, in the Harry Potter universe, is the creator of the Philosopher's Stone that yields the Elixir of Eternal Life. Brontis' father, famous cult director and comic book writer Alejandro Jodorowsky, played a powerful (but nameless) Alchemist in his third theatrical film La montagne sacrée (1973).


User reviews

Lanin

Lanin

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.
digytal soul

digytal soul

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.
Tam

Tam

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.
Cildorais

Cildorais

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.
Ferri - My name

Ferri - My name

A totally dysfunctional and unrelated cast, an incomprehensible story and tons and tons of computer graphics. The result is a confusing and totally boring movie. A waste of money.
asAS

asAS

Where are the fantastic beasts? What are the crimes of Grindelwald? This is not magic, it's CGI. It lost that essential taste of friendship and bond between characters within magical context of the original HP series.
Mojind

Mojind

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
Kiutondyl

Kiutondyl

This film hurts. It is so bad that I am confused. What did I just see? What happend? There is so much going on with so many forgettable characters... who are they? Why should I care? This movie wants to blow your mind so bad that they come up with the most random stuff. To be honest, the opening was trult spectaculair. But after that it went downhill really fast. I LOVE Harry Potter, but man, I hate this movie so much.
Dibei

Dibei

Basically everything wrong with the movie can be summed up with its title. Fantastic Beasts. The Crimes of Grindelwald. These two things have nothing to do with each other.

In my opinion the faults of this movie date back to the first film, where we had the compelling story of a young wizard named David Attenborough whose animals escaped in New York and he had to find them. Great. Sold. Unfortunately they had to make the film much worse by adding in unnecessary and convoluted subplots about a repressed boy named Credence who could change into a dangerous obscuris. Or something. The filmmakers obviously didn't learn from their mistakes.

Anyway, the second movie stars off pretty decent. Eddie Redmayne and Dan Fogler give two great performances, I really bought into their chemistry even more than in the first one. Jude Law is also great as always, though underused. The comedy scenes are also pretty consistently good, adding some much needed levity to this total mess. The visual effects looked great except for the times they looked awful, especially in the Hogwarts scenes which was where the film took a nose dive, never to recover.

The rest of the (far too numerous) supporting cast range from average to terrible. When Johnny Depp was revealed as Grindelwald in the first movie it was clear to me that he was totally miscast, and my suspicions were quickly confirmed. Colin Farrell was way better, you hacks. A lot of characters are introduced and have nothing to do, so just stand around waiting for an arc in future instalments.

What is this movie about? I couldn't tell you. It's not really about Newt Scamander. It's kind of about Grindelwald, but not completely. The plot is incomprehensible, and there are numerous exposition dumps so dense and laughable I wanted to burst out laughing, and did several times much to the chagrin of my friends. There's also way too much unnecessary fan service. I won't go in to details, I'll let you be offended by it.

There's two or three movies going on, and they all have different tones. One is a Fantastic Beasts movie, and it's funny and emotional, one is a dark fantasy movie about Grindelwald, and it's awful. They're all B plots, and for all the stuff in the screen, very little appears to be really happening. Why is Credence a character?? His story was lacklustre in the first one and is even worse here. Add to that an awful climax, and this movie is easily the worst Wizard movie. I don't know why David Yates is still attached to direct future instalments as in my opinion he peaked with Deathly Hallows Part 1.

Overall, if you're invested in the wizarding world go see it, you'll probably get a kick out of it. If not, give it a miss. No idea why it's called the Crimes of Grindelwald, because he doesn't really commit many crimes, nor are there enough fantastic beasts in the movie. Honestly it's more like a 4/10 but I feel bad giving a HP movie a negative rating.

Edit: 4/10 it is.
Anen

Anen

I love Harry Potter, I have been reading and watching HP since the first book was released. I went to the theatre with an open mind. I saw negative reviews and a lot of positive ones. It pains me to give this movie a bad review. The reason I gave this movie 3 stars was due to the chinese cat dragon monster which was quite hilarious.

Positives 1. Special effects were good 2. Jude Law as Dumbledore works well 3. Newt is still an awesome character

Negatives 1. Absolutely No Storyline 2. There were No actual crimes commited by Grindlewald 3. Johnny Depp should never have been cast as Grindlewald 4. Too many irrelevant characters 5. Disregards all of the known information about the wizarding world

Anyone that has read or watched Harry Potter would immediately notice that things do not add up. I enjoyed the first movie in the Fantastic Beast series because it was different. If they are going to bring in characters from Harry Potter at least make it historically correct. If this movie did not have the Harry Potter fans it would have been a complete flop. I am very disappointed in J.K. Rowling, this is well below her standards for writting. I think David Yates should have been canned after the the Half Blood Prince movie was released. He managed to butcher one of the best books in the series, this is a repeat of that debacle. The extended trailor was better than the 2 hour long movie.
Уou ll never walk alone

Уou ll never walk alone

Although a lot was promised in the trailers, it falls short of those promises in the movie. Having said that, this movie is much like Deathly Hallows Part 1 in the sense that it does not stand out when watched in isolation but understandable in the greater scheme of things, as it sets up the future movies perfectly without offering much on its own. The acting did a good job although the script doesn't allow for anyone to standout apart from Johnny Depp, who seems to make audiences aware of the fact that he's Johnny Depp every once in a while. Overall, I feel this movie will be better received when its sequels come out, but mediocre as it stands.
from earth

from earth

Very, very disappointed. I'm a huge fan of the world that J.K. created, but this film falls seriously flat. The plot was convoluted, there were times that something occured and I wasn't sure where on Earth it was occurring. At times Jacob would just sort of appear on screen and you're left wondering how or why he got there. The character building that took place during the first movie was completely ignored in this movie. Queenie was enchanting Jacob, when we all know he's head over heels for her, then goes over to Grindelwald for some reason? I hope she's been enchanted. Tina, after falling for Newt in the last one, reads a misprint in a random magazine that Newt is engaged and, rather than sending a letter like any normal person might, freaks out and starts the movie basically hating Newt. Nagini could be completely removed and nothing would have to chance. She was complete useless in the movie, and the only person who even acknowledges her presence is Creedence. Lita Lestrange appears, along with Newt's brother, to... What? They could have been removed and that would have made the plot way more concise, rather than introducing new characters just to sacrifice one. I couldn't figure out if I needed to be sad or relieved that her convoluted character arc was over. Not to mention the godawful twist at the end that, if true, destroys the already established canon. Overall, the visuals were lovely, but the plot was such a disaster that it was clear this movie exists simply to get to the next one. 2/10 for being pretty, at times.
Xanzay

Xanzay

It been a long time since I've watched such a boring movie. There was literally no plot at all. The "plot" was forced by some completely random happening stuff. The movie was CGI effects only and nothing more.

1. Crimes of Grindelwald? Where were they, because I haven't seen one. 2. What was the point of the Fantastic Beasts other than pure CGI appearances? 3. Everything was so dumbed down I felt insulted while watching it. Literally! 4. No good soundtrack.

Overall 1/10 - even this is much.
Pumpit

Pumpit

Hence the 4 stars. Just read any review with the tag "spoiler", and you're all set for the next movie. It's just that unimportant. What a shame of a good IP.
Mori

Mori

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.
Nayatol

Nayatol

I saw this movie 2 days early for the Fandom event and was extremely disappointed. The entire movie is a history/explanation of Harry Potter characters instead of focusing on Newt and his beasts. The movie is called crimes of grindelwald but they don't even tell you what his crimes were. The entire movie is confusing, full of background explanations, and leaves you feeling unsatisfied. Worst movie in the Harry Potter Universe by far and will go down as a failure.
Broadraven

Broadraven

Wow, how bad can a movie get. Over 60 minutes of meaningless CGI. Spent the whole movie trying to find the story, oh wait, there wasn't one.
Quamar

Quamar

Absolute garbage. Why?

Well, no plot for 2 hours, might aswell show me the first 5 minutes and the last 10. The rest of the time is just a complete transport track to the end.

Even more unpersonal soul-lacking random CGI-creatures than the first movie just for the heck of it.

I have no idea what I really saw, since there was basically no plot.

Stay away and save your time and money.
Damdyagab

Damdyagab

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.
Warianys

Warianys

I felt like I was binge watching 10 episodes of TV show, but couldn't fast forward boring story plots, fillers and flashbacks. There is no drive. Nothing really happens and when it does, it's underwhelming. For a movie about magic the script is very unimaginative.

This script has the same block buster problems that are money focused rather than than wanting to tell a good and exciting story. People talking about things I don't care about in scenes directed very lazily to fill the run time and setup franchise. For what it has to offer, 1hr and 25min would suffice. There is no flow, pacing is terrible. Same like SW last ep.

Newt is fun, opening scene is great visually but dumb logically. Kovalsky side kick does nothing to me in this one, humour forced. The most thrilling parts are HP nostalgia moments.

When franchise is that popular, people will go and see it no matter what. When it makes money back, it's not because it is a good movie, it's because it's s popular and you liked that HP movies and books. I hope they end up with 3rd one, as making such a boring lazy script is an insult to us, viewers. However if they can milk it beyond that, avarage viewer is to blame. I'm not watching another one.
Eseve

Eseve

I call this the Big Sleep of adventure films: great talent and an indistinguishable plot. I defy any viewer to describe the story arc. And more so to describe anything comprehensible said by the Redmaine character. No descernable plot, underuse of talent, very poor audio quality. Pass on this one and hope the next one realizes their flaws.
Gerceytone

Gerceytone

The editing was horrible, the shot choices were jarring and confusing, the dialogue was all clunky and expository, the characters don't progress at all, the story is awkward and disjointed. If you haven't read all the books and Pottermore you won't understand anything. If you have, you might understand a third or so.
Fearlesshunter

Fearlesshunter

Such a failure of a harry potter film. Easily the worst film in the "Wizarding World". The film is poorly structured, hard to follow, literally just a massive information dump. The scene I always use to criticise this movie is the scene which goes: Here's my backstory, and then here's my backstory which counteracts your backstory, and here's my backstory, WATCH OUT DRAGON! And its just so weirdly structured and boring and I still don't care about Tina. Jacob is a worse character than in the first one, their excuse for him coming back is stupid. Queeny is annoying now, she was great in the first one. Newt is fine. Dumbledoor is the saving grace of this movie but here's barely in it.
Vertokini

Vertokini

This movie is all over the place. At it's core it is a movie about Grindlewald's rise to power. However, this plot is bogged down by so much unnecessary information that it's very frusturating to watch. Newt and his friends are very inconsiquential and feel shoehored in along with a couple other side plots. Grindlewald, Dumbledore, and Creedence were all interesting characters, but everyone else seemed pointless and unnecessary. I wanted to like this movie, but I ended up walking out feeling disappointed.
inform

inform

Bad story writing and story telling, what a shambles that strays from the foundations that FB1 set up and completely disregards points from Harry Potter canon. Too many characters randomly introduced that you don't care about, and don't hold significance to the HP story. This movies intent was solely to set up a bigger money making franchise and forgets to tell a story on its own.