Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald

Agent Coulson

Slydice

Comic Con trailer:

jaxxx

Agent Coulson wrote: »

1:37 Sign of the Deathly Hallows!

Mr E

Final trailer...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy25p3gTMZw

HandsomeBob

So... Twitter is going mad over the casting of

Nagini.

I think I'm losing the will to live or at the very least, take action to separate myself from the constant outrage.

jaxxx

HandsomeBob wrote: »

So... Twitter is going mad over the casting of

Nagini.

I think I'm losing the will to live or at the very least, take action to separate myself from the constant outrage.

Oh don't get me started on that nonsense. Just because she's Asian and Nagini is essentially a 'slave'... ugh. Would these pc tw@ts ever f*ck off of planet Earth and go somewhere where they can keep their idiotic snowflake opinions to themselves.


Or even simpler, take a long walk off a short pier.. It's pathetic it really is. The slightest thing nowadays and everyone's up in arms. Get a grip!!

megaten

jaxxx wrote: »

Oh don't get me started on that nonsense. Just because she's Asian and Nagini is essentially a 'slave'... ugh. Would these pc tw@ts ever f*ck off of planet Earth and go somewhere where they can keep their idiotic snowflake opinions to themselves.


Or even simpler, take a long walk off a short pier.. It's pathetic it really is. The slightest thing nowadays and everyone's up in arms. Get a grip!!

Why do you feel this way

cian68

I can actually completely understand why people would be sick of seeing Asian women portrayed as submissive but it would be disingenuous of me to day I'm sincerely offended. I just want to watch the silly wizard movie

Agent Coulson

HandsomeBob

Still not sure about Depp. Could be a stroke of genius casting him or could just compound his star fading.

Ultimately I think an unnecessary risky decision by WB.

Gbear

HandsomeBob wrote: »

Still not sure about Depp. Could be a stroke of genius casting him or could just compound his star fading.

Ultimately I think an unnecessary risky decision by WB.

Production on the first one probably started, what 3 or 4 years ago now? He probably wasn't seen to be in decline to the same extent as now. Pirates of the Caribbean 5 came out after that, and the controversy about his marriage did as well.

It's a pity Colin Farrell wasn't actually Grindelwald.

HandsomeBob

Gbear wrote: »

Production on the first one probably started, what 3 or 4 years ago now? He probably wasn't seen to be in decline to the same extent as now. Pirates of the Caribbean 5 came out after that, and the controversy about his marriage did as well.

It's a pity Colin Farrell wasn't actually Grindelwald.

True I forgot he had a cameo in the first film.

I'll be curious to see if the chemistry between him and Law is strong because it will need to be. Based on the trailers however.... I wouldn't be surprised if they don't have all that much screen time together.

megaten

Gbear wrote: »

It's a pity Colin Farrell wasn't actually Grindelwald.

Same, wasn't expecting anything from the original but he was quite good in it.

JP Liz V1

Gbear wrote: »

Production on the first one probably started, what 3 or 4 years ago now? He probably wasn't seen to be in decline to the same extent as now. Pirates of the Caribbean 5 came out after that, and the controversy about his marriage did as well.

It's a pity Colin Farrell wasn't actually Grindelwald.

Colin was very good in the first

JP Liz V1

"1920 set X-Men with wizards" one review I've read

Exclamation Marc

My review of it. Keeping it spoilered as its not out yet

I enjoyed it somewhat but found it very inconsistent in places and riddled with serious 'second in a trilogy' syndrome.

Eddie Redmayne and the 'fantastic beasts' were brilliant in it though and whilst I wasn't Newts biggest fan after the first film but loved him in this. In contrast, other characters like Grindelwald were very poorly developed which was a shame despite Depp doing well with limited screen time.

Plenty more to say but #protectthesecrets so there's some things I won't even write or refer to and spoiler tag.

Sleepy

Saw it last night with the kids. It's quite clear JK Rowling is writing for the now adult fans that grew up with the books.

Some real flaws in the motivation of some characters (Queenie's arc is inexplicable), characters that shouldn't be alive yet appearing for the sake of fan service, a "shock twist" that's a blatant red herring leave this overly reliant on the viewer's love for the original movies.

I did enjoy it, and still love Redmayne's aspergers inspired portrayal of Newt but it's sadly a much weaker movie than the first.

murpho999

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

My review of it. Keeping it spoilered as its not out yet

I enjoyed it somewhat but found it very inconsistent in places and riddled with serious 'second in a trilogy' syndrome.

Eddie Redmayne and the 'fantastic beasts' were brilliant in it though and whilst I wasn't Newts biggest fan after the first film but loved him in this. In contrast, other characters like Grindelwald were very poorly developed which was a shame despite Depp doing well with limited screen time.

Plenty more to say but #protectthesecrets so there's some things I won't even write or refer to and spoiler tag.

Just wondering why spoilers were used as you revealed nothing of the plot but just gave a review.

It makes it impossible to read on mobile devices.

Thephantomsmask

murpho999 wrote: »

Just wondering why spoilers were used as you revealed nothing of the plot but just gave a review.

It makes it impossible to read on mobile devices.

For me (on android) selecting text as though I am copying and pasting allows spoiler tags to be read.

jlm29

Sleepy wrote: »

Saw it last night with the kids. It's quite clear JK Rowling is writing for the now adult fans that grew up with the books.

Some real flaws in the motivation of some characters (Queenie's arc is inexplicable), characters that shouldn't be alive yet appearing for the sake of fan service, a "shock twist" that's a blatant red herring leave this overly reliant on the viewer's love for the original movies.

I did enjoy it, and still love Redmayne's aspergers inspired portrayal of Newt but it's sadly a much weaker movie than the first.

What age are your kids? Is it scary for a seven ye old?

Drumpot

Thephantomsmask wrote: »

For me (on android) selecting text as though I am copying and pasting allows spoiler tags to be read.

Or just quote the post and the spoiler stuff is cleared...

murpho999

Thephantomsmask wrote: »

For me (on android) selecting text as though I am copying and pasting allows spoiler tags to be read.

Drumpot wrote: »

Or just quote the post and the spoiler stuff is cleared...

Thanks, but why should I have to do that if spoilers are not required?

Sleepy

jlm29 wrote: »

What age are your kids? Is it scary for a seven ye old?

Ours are 10 and 13. There's nothing that stands out as overly scary. If the 7 year old is fine with the dementors in the later HP movies they should be fine.

Exclamation Marc

murpho999 wrote: »

Thanks, but why should I have to do that if spoilers are not required?

Because it was reviewed three days before it was released in cinemas and maybe die hard fans didn't want to read a review before seeing it.

Falthyron

I should mention that I really enjoyed Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. Also, I have read all of the Harry Potter books and seen all of the films, but this is easily the poorest film set in Rowling's world so far.

Very disjointed film altogether. In the space of 20 minutes, this film went from fantasy drama (

Newt being interviewed in the Ministry of Magic

), to comedy (

Jacob under the enchantment

), to love story (

Queenie and Jacob's drama about getting married

, to being very dark (

Grindelwald's assistant killing the toddler

). And this continued for the entirety of the film.

I have never seen a film so bereft of rhythm; up and down tonally throughout. I felt Law and Depp were the best and underused, which is a shame. To me, the Crimes of Grindelwald really comes across as two films chopped and changed to fit into one. Far too many plot lines and given very little time to develop. I wonder if it was a race to confirm Grindelwald's modus operandi so we are clear he is the bad guy and why, and a race to the

reveal of Credence at the end - which, I believe could be a complete stunt pulled by Grindelwald to begin with.

There is a really good book here somewhere that has been crushed down into a two hour film. No doubt, there are some solid parts that help to build upon our knowledge of Rowling's world, but I just can't get over how this film is so all over the place.

4.5/10

wakka12

I really enjoyed it! I thought it really captured a lot of the magic of the old harry potter films, nice mixture of dark and humourous tones, quirky animals and strange but interesting characters, beautiful set pieces, great action scenes, some of the characters were quite random and unnecessary though like nagini and lita, but I really liked tina and newt. Overall though what Im really impressed by is the vivid world they create that just makes you want to visit

jlm29

Sleepy wrote: »

Ours are 10 and 13. There's nothing that stands out as overly scary. If the 7 year old is fine with the dementors in the later HP movies they should be fine.

He hasn’t seen the later HP movies- but just because we haven’t gotten around to them yet. No one else will come to see FB with me though!

nix

jlm29 wrote: »

He hasn’t seen the later HP movies- but just because we haven’t gotten around to them yet. No one else will come to see FB with me though!

Go on your own

jlm29

nix wrote: »

Go on your own

I would happily, but since he discovered HP Lego, he’s interested in the films, and he thinks he’d like to see the new movie! I think I’ll chance taking him!

alchemist33

Very disappointed with that. Overly complicated, with either a new character, or one I'd forgotten about, every few minutes. I found myself not really caring about anyone, not even babe magnet Newt. And the reveal at the end just seemed an extension of "he's this, he's that, he's this."

pixelburp

In general, I'm broadly ambivalent about the Potter books and films (only taken in one novel, and a scattering of the films), so perhaps I can't speak with any great authority as a fan or casual consumer of the franchise. I'd classify myself as a well-wisher; I've liked what I've watched but not pushed over pursuing more. One thing I'm fairly certain of though: having watched both Fantastic Beasts films, there's little doubt in my mind JK Rowling is a dreadful film scriptwriter.

The sequel to the 2016 film showed Rowling had learnt nothing from her mistakes in that previous script: once again, the pacing was excruciating, vacillating between tedious exposition and noisy action with whiplash inconsistency; a plot that was needlessly, hopelessly convoluted; dialogue clogged up by info-dumps and exposition, culminating in an execrable 10 minute patch of Surprise Revelations, while the entire cast stood agog in a small room; scenes were packed with redundant moments and characters that led nowhere and added nothing - often simply disappearing from the story altogether (I suspected some were blatant fan service). There was little to no organic flow to the narrative, just a series of Stuff That Happened, and I think part of the problem was caused by having an protagonist without any narrative agency and purely peripheral to events; Newt was a constant reactionary force at the whim of the plot.

I mean sure, the FX were great and there were still moments of magical whimsy that reminded you of the universe this was set in - but they were fleeting vignettes, drowned out by chaotic script and Johnny Depp's latest, tedious & distracting makeup job. Even the location was wasted, as the new setting of Paris offered no variations or cultural flourishes to separate it from the CGI New York of the previous film. As utterly cliché as it would have been, the fact the film makes no use of the Eiffel Tower, Notre Dame or any other landmark was pretty weak.

By now though, it's clear the Potterverse has evolved into a behemoth akin to the MCU and Star Wars; this will make a fat tonne of cash no matter how awful the script was. But I'm not sure if even fans will enjoy this en masse.

santana75

I actually really enjoyed this, which surprised me considering I thought the first film was flat and boring. I'll admit to not having a barneys what was going on at least 50% of the time but still I found it to be a lot more engaging (and better scripted) than fantastic beasts. Looking forward to the next one

Zorya

Watched it today, big loud movie, loads of FX, some great parts. Overall I found it very dark, would not take preteens to see it, I think it is too heavy. When they got to Paris and eliminated whole family including baby I reckoned they crossed a line. Lots of political undertones too, the implication of radicals attracted to the dark and othering. I just think the whole thing is too dark for children

homerun_homer

Amazing how little uptake this thread has given the Potter universe. I didn't care for the first one and I cared even less for this one after finally seeing it. The film just didn't function as it's own movie, far too concerned with setting up for other movies. I wouldn't mind if it balanced a bit of both.

I don't think Newt had any effect on the plot going on around him, he was merely our vessel into the story. Take him out and it's probably like taking Indy out of Raiders of the Lost Ark, nothing changes. At least Raiders is a great film, and only concerned about being it's own film.

There were too many characters, the majority of them with secrets to keep you guessing as to what's going on. It got very tiring very quick. As for the twists and revelations? I don't believe the final one or how it would be possible. A friend had to try explain it to me after how it doesn't seem feasible and more likely that

Grindelwald is lying to Credence

. If so that is a major cop out and would further ruin this as standalone movie.

I also wonder how saying this to Credence would have any relevancy to him. He's an orphan from NYC.
He doesn't know who Dumbledore is.

I think the more JK tries to add to the universe with these films, the more she is detracting from the Potterverse. As bad as my opinion is of them, I wish they would be their own worlds and stop trying to tie everyone to someone from the original novels/films.

RobbingBandit

Just seen it today continuity changes again have to think Depp adlibbed hating Paris can't believe the flip by one particular character Grindelwald was pantomime but manipulate hope number 3 is out sonner than 2 years.

The Golden Miller

Thought the Harry Potter books were very good, but the films were rubbish. The two Fantastic Beast films have their problems, but a big step up from the HP films imo

The Golden Miller

Someone was surprised this film struggled relative to the size of HP fandom, comparing it to Star Wars. Star Wars is a high bar to set to be fair, HP will never been on that level really. The books/films were huge when they came out, but it's fandom has waned a bit since. Star Wars seems to be a bit of an anomaly, in that even with no new material for decade's/poor new material, it's just perennially huge under every metric