Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald

By JD Phillips, geekr.org

The Harry Potter movies are great but one of the main flaws of the original franchise was the struggle the films had condensing the lengthy novels into movies under three hours. Despite the Fantastic Beasts sequel not being based on a book, it still somehow feels like its stressing to condense a five hundred page book into a smaller narrative.

The movie runs from scenario to scenario so quickly that its hard to remember what all happened in its muddled story. Thats not to say the film is terrible at all, surprisingly. For a movie that has serious pacing problems throughout and has more interest in setting up sequels than it is at finding a memorable plot of its own, its actually very entertaining.

Th...

The first Fantastic Beasts movie was excellent. It was a bright and magical adventure. This one is going down another path and I cannot say that I was overly thrilled by that.

This movie is putting emphasis on political machinations, division between the wizards and the non-wizards, betrayals etc. etc. Take away the magic component and you really have a fairly regular racial-differences, humans are bad and all that, movie of the kind that Hollywood is all too eager to mass produce these days. Sure it is not as blunt, preachy and totally ridiculous as a lot of their creations but still not the path I wanted these movies to take.

At least there are plenty of magic and beasts around in this movie to make the dark and, at times, boring s...

The first Fantastic Beasts movie was excellent. It was a bright and magical adventure. This one is going down another path and I cannot say that I was overly thrilled by that.

This movie is putting emphasis on political machinations, division between the wizards and the non-wizards, betrayals etc. etc. Take away the magic component and you really have a fairly regular racial-differences, humans are bad and all that, movie of the kind that Hollywood is all too eager to mass produce these days. Sure it is not as blunt, preachy and totally ridiculous as a lot of their creations but still not the path I wanted these movies to take.

At least there are plenty of magic and beasts around in this movie to make the dark and, at times, boring s...

First of all, just like in the last movie the acting in this film is excellent but with a few exceptions. Eddie Redmayne was still excellent as Newt but I think he did a better job in the first film. Same thing with Dan Fogler who didnt seem as funny but useless and could have just been written out of this film. But I did really like Jude Law as a young Dumbledore and Joshua Shea who plays young Newt. Joshua played younger Newt so well that he actually looked like a younger version of Eddie. Jude Law brought the same kind of attitude towards Dumbledore that we all know and love. The special effects and set designs still looked marvellous. The creatures special effects just like last time were great and looked like if we saw them in real lif...

I re-watched the original Fantastic Beasts today to prep for Crimes of Grindelwald and it made me realise that the only reason I gave that first film a positive review was because of Queenie Goldstein. She's just such a sweetheart. Her character wasn't the only thing I liked about that movie, but without her, it still gets pushed down into Rotten. So when they took her in this one and first made her a rapist and then a Nazis, I was uh... Not exactly stoked. But that's a personal thing, and I try to, at least partially, put that aside and review on things like technical aspect. And in that Avenue, Crimes of Grindelwald is an abysmal failure. This is not the outright worst film of the year, but it was definitely the worst on...

Better than its predecessor, even if I still didn't really dig it.

'Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald' has more of a vibe about it, especially early on, and is marginally better paced. Overall, though, I'm kinda split on how I feel about this second instalment. It is a definite improvement, and yet I don't have any noteworthy positives to share about it. The cast, despite names I like, are just so forgettable to me in this.

As such, I don't feel like I can give it any more than a 6/10 rating - which feels harsh, but 7/10 feels too high. With that said, I still plan to check out 'Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore'. It just needs that little extra oomph and these would be films that I'd enjoy, so hopefully that 2022 release will produce.

Confused, lost, Johnny Depp always awesome. I think the days of me playing in the Harry Potter world are over.

Well, there was one too many twists here and I only say that because it was unnecessary. The plot would have been cleaner if they just let that one go...and don't worry, you'll know what is being mentioned when you watch it.

It would have worked in a novel, but in a screen play it just made it a bit messy and loose. And, unfortunately, that is what the critics are going to focus on. But then, J.K. is a novelist and it got a bit lost in translation from one writing style to another.

But, beyond that you have a wonderful cast and the film as a whole is delightfully fun.

Eddie Redmayne is once more the lead, and he does a decent job...but what is better is how generous both Johnny Depp and Jude Law were in the film. Each have, in thei...