User Reviews

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.

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.

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.

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.

Successful players, good visual effects but no story

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

WE WANT JOHNNY DEPP AGAIN......No body can do the role of Grindelwold like Depp.... we want him back in.

The second sequel in the fledgling spinoff follows a familiar pattern, but too many characters and too many storylines rob it of its most enduring charms

Even magic takes a little bit of planning, and in David Yates' "Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald," both are in short supply. In it second outing, the cracks are starting to show in J.K. Rowling's much-hyped followup series to "Harry Potter," a franchise that is at the mercy of slapdash planning (these films are cobbled together from various pieces of "Wizarding World" material, not single novels) and the kind of higher-up decree that promised five films (five!) before the first one hit theaters. It's a lot of time to fill, and while the second film in the franchise nudges its narrative forward, it's at the expense of a bloated, unfocused screenplay.

Mostly, "The Crimes of Grindelwald" is hampered by the unwieldy meshing together of disparate plots that could service their own films (some of them surely better than others). At the center (when he's not been shunted aside by all those competing narratives), there's ostensible franchise star Eddie Redmayne as nervous magizoologist Newt Scamander. Newt's ditzy charm grounded the first film; and when he's allowed to lead this second story, it's as whimsical and good-hearted as any in the franchise.

It's all the other subplots that damage that notion, from a charisma-free Johnny Depp taking over the role of evil Wizard Gellert Grindelwald to a convoluted section all about the family tree of Credence Barebone (Ezra Miller). Portions involving a young Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law) can't reach their full potential; they're consistently cut short to zing back to yet another plotline (and that's without diving into all the subplots about Newt's brother, his ex-girlfriend, his beloved New York friends, and Credence's companion Nagini). All this convolution promises to converge during Grindelwald's coming-out party, a fear-filled rally that is as timely as it is unsettling. Before that, Yates and Rowling must bring together a motley crew of wizards and muggles both good and bad.

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.

Picture that awkward situation when you are at the cinema, feeling uncomfortable, looking at the clock and thinking... Is this movie too long?

Well, that was my feeling towards half of the movie. Even though I enjoyed a couple of CGI scenes, I soon found a lack of action scenes and character development, driven by the intention of telling a twisted, too long story of new characters, which leads us to a frustraing but desired ending.

Is not the direction, the photography nor the scenery, but the J.K Rowling script. Therefore, this movie tries to compensate the lack of novelty with too much of an unresolved, empty plot, failing in it's main intention: entertaining Harry Potter fans while revealing some of the desired background information.

I stopped watching Harry Potter movies at the cinema when they started to divide movies in parts, just to make more budget. This movie felt just the same. Don't think I'll watch the next one, at least at the big screen.

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.

The special effects were great as was the scenery, however the movie was disjointed and did not flow. It seemed to jump from one special effect to the next and following the plot was tedious to the point of total boredom.

How i decided my rating:

Jude Law - 0.7 Eddie Redmayne - 0.8 Katherine Waterston - 0.7 Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol - 0.5 Ezra Miller and Johnny Depp - 0.7 Other cast(Zoe Kravitz, Claudia Kim, Callum Turner) - 0.5 Action and adventure - 0.8 Graphics - 0.8 Story and Screenplay - 0.5 Plot twist - 0.6 Comedy - 0.4 Total - 7

(Spoiler free review so not giving away anything except my opinion)

Another thrilling adventure with exotic creatures with extraordinary features. Jude, Eddie and Johnny gave an exceptional performance and so did the rest of the cast. A few scenes could have been shortened or written differently but overall this movie sets up an epic story that I'm sure WB will build on.

The beasts did not disappoint either. The niffler stole the spotlight everytime it came on screen while there were also a few new amazing beasts. Although most of the focus was on Grindelwald the audience had a fair share of beasts on screen.

The on screen romances were a little forced but they didn't linger on it too long. I expected more from Nagini but maybe this movie is not for her and the next night be. Did not like Zoe's character arc and either a lot of wasted potential on a few other characters or just left open for the next 3 movies to come.

The young and charismatic Dumbledore played by Jude Law was my favourite and he added so much more depth to the character while staying true to the Dumbledore portrayed in Harry Potter .

A healthy dose of magical spells and a dash of misunderstood beasts kept me hooked to this incredible little universe that I'll re-live in my imagination forever.

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.

Excellent film. Much darker than the first and the other Harry Potter ones. Gave a really good history and background to the Harry Potter films. Nice to get some of the history from the books that was missed. Really enjoyed. Better than the first.

Movie could not live up to the expected standard. Couldnt find the quality and the feeling of realism we found In Harry Potter movies. This is too much I believe

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.

There literally is no third act. It goes act one-act two-end. Worthless writers.

Almost impossible to keep up with what was going on! Just jumped from one thing to the next with no development, such a shame

Yes, there are many flaws in this movie and lots of goofs, but under all the cracks it is entertaining and a pretty good script. Not sure about Credence and what happened at the end of the movie (I won't spoil). But yes! Dumbledore is back and he's Jude Law! Yes, this movie IS much darker than the first but why does that mean it's bad? It's not gory- just not as much goofs/messing around/happy music. And Depp made a brilliant performance as Grindelwald, and I know fans were disappointed and now he's been fired and replaced with Mads Mikkelson because of the carrier he OOFED up that only Tim Burton will still cast him. I have enjoyed all the Depp films and love him as Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean. You should watch this movie! It's good! Ignore the bad reviews and you might find that it isn't that bad.