Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
1,235 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
Lestranger than fiction
bob-the-movie-man10 December 2018
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.
182 out of 208 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
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.
1,048 out of 1,242 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
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.
909 out of 1,108 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
The magic has gone
iliasalk21 December 2018
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.
43 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
I don't even remember it
deandsouza1589216 November 2018
Warning: Spoilers
The one thing this movie successfully does, is cast an obliviate on you. I literally just watched it, and I don't even remember what it's about. The magical element of this film is simply having so much happen, while simultaneously, nothing really happens.

There's a little bit of nostalgia, with Easter eggs and great visuals; the actors are great- Johnny Depp has the most menacing introduction I've seen; Jude Law convinced me that he is young Dumbledore; the music is spectacular. But none of that can hide the truth of the fact that this movie is just BORING.

There is literally so much plot thrown at you non-stop. The movie expects you to care about, invest in and remember so many characters, that at some point, you mentally clock out. I'm an intense potterhead, and I love learning more l about the wizarding world. But this is just too much information, being force-fed in very little time. I've enjoyed every single Harry Potter film so far... but I just can't stomach this story.

Remember at the end of the first Fantastic Beasts movie, when you enjoyed watching it,but you hesitated to gravitate towards it. You had a small shred of doubt if it was a one time thing,or does this genuinely have the potential to be something incredible. There's no longer a doubt.
452 out of 624 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Boring
yifeigong16 November 2018
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.
738 out of 1,040 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
What a DISGRACE to the magical world of JK Rowling..
bagelisa14 November 2018
Warning: Spoilers
If I were to describe this movie with one word , I would say it was a "Filler" It was only after the movie that i was informed that the Fantastic Beasts "franchise" is going to be a 5 movie one . After I learned that , this movie's purpose became so clear to me . I just watched a 2-hour movie in which the main characters had NOTHING to do with the plot AT ALL . This movie was all about Grindelwald finding Credence and convincing him to join his army so Credence would kill Dumbledore in the future . Newt , Tina , Jacob and Quennie did nothing in this movie but couple-fighting and catching maybe 1 or 2 magical creatures. We got to follow a story about Newt's childhood love , which led to absolutely nothing . The main characters just made it to the right place at the right time to spectate the end of the movie in which Grindelwald finds Credence , convinces him to join his army and boom , that is the movie . The only thing that Newt did is stealing the "blood-bond" between Grindelwald and Dumbledore by using the Niffler. All in all , it was a really poor movie , the plot was shallow and it was totally a filler . It just gave us a little bit of magic but that's it . I give it a 4 only because i am a huge Harry Potter fan . This movie made me really unhappy by seeing my favorite magical world being milked for money . We don't really need 5 movies with the 2 being fillers , all we needed was 3 magical rides to the Harry Potter world . Thanks for reading this . 4/10
605 out of 864 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
So bad
jobwijnhoff21 November 2018
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.
341 out of 491 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
No plot just effects!!!
androdelov25 November 2018
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.
40 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Bloated beyond repair
rcaesar-8235915 November 2018
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.
339 out of 522 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Disappointed - Crimes of Grindlewald?
jmikamclean17 November 2018
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.
208 out of 319 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A filler for better things to come.
jeetubhat30-233-64693414 November 2018
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.
234 out of 361 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Absolute disaster.
jayceebriscoe18 November 2018
Warning: Spoilers
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.
173 out of 265 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Most Disappointing Film Of The Year.
mshackletonchavez1 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Truly horrendous. Easily the most disappointing film I have seen all year, on a fundamental level this film was flawed, the primary culprit bing J.k Rowling and the extreme amounts of creative dominance she must have been given in the writing process.

First, I must praise certain aspects of this motion picture, although there is little to commend. The performances were for the most part a strength (Although some let the side down), most notably Jude Law as Albus Dumbledore was wonderful as the caring, charming and more complex young Dumbledore. In addition to this, I must comment that Johnny Depp was a surprisingly positive cast member, also Eddie Redmayne was alright, a little overdone on the mumbling aspect but still a pleasure to see. The rest of the cast was fairly competent with the exception of those that will be stated later on.

The screenplay of this film, what can I say. I have only negatives to deliver on this aspect. I can only image that what occurred was similar to George Lucas during the Star Wars Prequels - constantly surrounded by people who would only say 'Yes' to all the decisions. Because they are the one who mad the great original series, surely they can do no wrong. Oh how history has repeated Itself.

This screenplay fails on the basic fundamentals of story telling, show don't tell. Most of this picture is two hours of continuous uninteresting drear, badly written with actors struggling to convey the poor choices and dialogue delivered by Rowling. I may be mistaken but in one scene in particular, in Hogwarts, Theseus Scamander gets called a 'Weasley' - If this is memory is true, it is symbolic of the shoddiness and laziness of the screenplay and many of the the basic failures of this film.

The film follows two almost entirely unconnected threads, one of Credence and the other of Scamander. Both are boring, and the juxtaposition between them is jarring and fuel for confusion. The Credence plot-line is particularly of failure, it is highly unclear and unexplained, and is just 45 minutes of useless meandering with no emotional impact or significance to the plot as a whole. I even found Ezra Miller to almost seem as of he was struggling to even portray this incredibly bland, standard and boring character. I am one who knows a fair amount about the Harry Potter universe and at first I even didn't get the Nagini reference, until she became a snake in a very unnecessary and out of the blue scene, for she has zero effect upon even Credences story, I cant remember if she spoke a single line, and was so badly delivered by her actress by the fault of Rowling's screenplay.

Newt Scamander's plot-line was almost equally as uninteresting and badly executed, for in his plotline, he barely does anything. Once could have removed Tina, Jacob, Queenie, Leta Lestrange, Theseus, Yusuf and Abernathy and the plot-line would have ended in petty much exactly the same place. It is overcrowded, and it is truly a waste of acting talent. For all these performers are of a high caliber and here do nothing. All these characters were uninteresting with the exception of Queenie who had a somewhat interesting arc but was executed badly due to Rowlings screenplay, this singular arc had much more potential.

This plot-line is extremely convoluted, Newt Scamander has just over an hour of screen time, despite this being his movie, he is surprisingly not in it a great deal. There is one scene in particular which evokes my mention of the lack of the basic "show don't tell" fundamental of story telling. In this scene Leta Lestrange, Yusuf and the rest of the gang excluding Queenie, they use flashbacks to explain a plot thread about one characters lineage. It is extremely convoluted, and involves the Titanic, forced exposition and some complain about forced diversity (In making one of the Lestrages Black) but I dot not say that is a valid criticism. Overall this is supposed to tie up and be an evocative emotional moment for the majority of the characters in the narrative, but as the characters had little to no initial characterisation, the convolutedness only adds to the boredom, as the audience simply does not care for what is being presented, as well as how it is just exposition bing vomited at the audience, it is flimsy, boring and at the most fundamental bad film making, and entirely undefendable.

As a result, all of the new characters introduced in this feature hold no significance to the plot, nor are emotionally invested in, thus a waste of time. In addition to this, Jacob is fairly wasted in this feature, he doesn't grow as a character and simply tags along like a fish out of water that is no longer funny for the most part. Although the running salamander joke was effective, but this was his sole contribution to the film, all he does is look shocked or hold buckets.

Tina Goldstein played by Katherine Waterston is absolutely wasted as both a character and an actress. Such promise laid in this films precursor and yet contributes nothing to this feature, she had no function to the story nor any emotional impact on the audience at all. A total waste of Katherine Waterston who is a great talent in other motion pictures.

Gellert Grindelwald was played by Johnny Depp. And wow, what a mixed bag, one the one had he was handled well by Depp however in terms of characterisation and villainy, Rowling has really let the side down. Apart from the reasonably good opening scene, Grindelwald is unthreataning, bland and disappears for large chunks of the narrative. Fo a film which bares his name, he was hardly the focal point (Nor was Newt Scamander, thus who is the foci of this film?) Grindelwald flat out says he doesn't want to kill muggles, or hurt them, so why is he a threat? What are his crimes? All the characters simply talk about how bad he was, it is never shown apart from one cliche scene of killing a family, it hold little emotional wight or significance. Once again this flaw falls on Rowling and fundamental rule of "Show don't tell". Which I needn't divulge again. But this displays the fatal flaw of this film, how it fails on a very basic level, to deliver a crude, boring, uninteresting and convoluted product. In addition to this, Rowling includes very unsubtle Anti-Trump undertones which when delivered well can be thought provoking but in this film, are not delivered well and give an even more jarring and convoluted third act.

Now in must explore the screenplay as a whole. Of the greatest holes in the consistency of this feature is its two concurrent plots. For they are strenuously linked and are left unexplained, this results in headache, confusion and boredom. Nothing is resolved by the end, since there was no real problem at the beginning either, it feels like over two hours of useless meandering just propped up by bad hints to earlier greater works and setting up a future series, and every single film ever made in which isn't focus was to set up more films has been bad. For this film has no describable plot, it's a mess. Unlike other more successful films that have set up a future, such as phase one Marvel or heck even the first Hobbit film, they had discrete narratives of their own, and characters to invest in, this film does not have those fundamentals.

The plot-twists of this film are unconvincing and unimaginative and hold no weight other than that hey relate to earlier films. This a lazy trick used by Rowling and is simply bad storytelling. For due to the lack of proper character development or emotional weight, the twists hod, no impact to the audience and thus are simply cheap ploys used by Rowling to try and save the feature, which clearly didn't work on most of the audience.

On a technical level, this film holds some good aspects. The sound design and visual effects are for the most part fun and vivid but are fairly standard by modern blockbuster standards. The cinematography though, oh my god, it is terrible. Extreme disorientating closeups then suddenly standard unimaginative angles. It is truly jarring. The colouration is so incredible bland, other than the blue fake dragon at the end, no other image sticks in my head as memorable or even noteworthy or fun. It is almost black and white, so grey and depressing. This doesn't feel like a family friendly fantasy film about fun silly creatures and a Magizoologist, this feels like a fascist take over. If I had children I wouldn't show them this film, its grey, boring and jarring, all things unsuitable for young children over great distances of time.

As a result of the abhorrently bland cinematography and colour palette, the costume design, set design, makeup and visual effects all suffer. The image becomes flat, uninteresting, after the last film won the Academy Award (Oscar) for Costume Design, this colouration choice really does an injustice to this achievement, and to the hard work the costume designers must have gone to to trump their previous achievement. Nothing about this films image is good, its truly a mistake and must be fixed if people are to remember any future instalments, or find them fun. For this blandness works against the film, it is not stylish but instead is boring. Not like 'Schindler's List' which was in almost pure B&W which gave the film character or more recently the film 'Her' which used a lot of red hues to heighten the loving and bemused atmosphere. This film has no clear focus as to what its colouration/cinematography was seeking to achieve. For if it seeks to be dark, it belongs not in a film called 'Fantastic Beasts', the pathetic fallacy fails on a fundamental level, the semantic's do not match up. This film sis so confused in so many aspects. Even the score was completely unremarkable and completely forgettable, I cant remember a single part of it. Showing that its only function was to dictate emotion, not to heighten or compliment it as a good score does. 2/10.
31 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
9 stars for the effects, 2 stars for the plot.
tinktinkk15 November 2018
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.
317 out of 505 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
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.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The entire movie is a setup for the next one/strays from the beasts
mfrenzy14 November 2018
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.
201 out of 330 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
At least the seats were comfortable
mikewp-8681424 November 2018
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.
99 out of 157 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Boring and too long.
herrzeba18 November 2018
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.
49 out of 74 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Garbage
piecookie18 November 2018
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.
113 out of 182 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A horrible butchering of everything I know and love
christinamurphy9620 November 2018
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.
26 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
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.
215 out of 368 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Sad result for all that talent
sfreisinger22 November 2018
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.
59 out of 93 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
This film is just an information dump and they shouldn't be trying so hard squeeze 5 films out of this series
james-3242810 February 2019
Warning: Spoilers
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.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
It's a mess
vancewinstead18 November 2018
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.
51 out of 81 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed