Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (David Yates, November 16th, 2018) Movie • Page 2

It’s apparently hip to hate this movie but I really liked it

 

I still plan to go see it this weekend.

 

My little sister is a Harry Potter enthusiast. They were the first fantasy books she read and loved. I've since introduced her to Mistborn but watching Harry Potter with my family is a magical, nostalgic experience and I won't be missing this one either.

 

Yeah I loved the first, but everybody seemed to hate it. Probably be the same for this one too.

 

I thought this was just tedious. Felt like a two hour lecture on HP universe mythology but none of it makes any sense and none of it pays off

 

This was fine. There's a lot of fun magic visuals, which is what I've come to enjoy most about these Fantastic Beasts movies. Overall, this definitely felt like a "middle" movie. Builds off the first one some, but mostly sets up stuff for the next one.

 

I might be cynical but I feel like four out of the five films are going to feel like they're mostly setting up things for what is to come! I don't know if I can cope with three "middle" movies, but I'll definitely check this out at some point. Didn't realise it was out already!

 

All the press/interviews I’ve seen for this makes it seem like they’re not totally set on five movies. People keep answering with “oh, maybe 5, if people are enjoying them!” I could definitely see them trimming it down to 4, or 3 if this one bombs.

It won’t bomb though.

 

You are right, it definitely won’t bomb. Sorry, I thought five films had been announced and haven’t followed the press for this at all so didn’t realise their backtracking that now.

 

Is this better than the first movie? I saw the first one on the weekend and it was really bad.

 

People's biggest problem with this movie (and, to some extent, mine) is that at worst it feels as if the movie re-writes HP history and lore. At least it's giving us backstories and plot lines that we never really needed or asked for.

I thought that Law's Dumbledore was well done, and I enjoyed part of the film. There were other parts of the movie that left me confused or frustrated. Many of the characters lacked motivation for the actions they chose, and the film's climax is confusing to follow with a twist that changes HP lore.

 

I saw this on Tuesday, and really enjoyed it. But I also have a lot of faith that JK Rowling knows what she's doing and the "plot holes" and twists will turn out to make sense in the end. I can see how this would be a frustrating movie for those that don't closely follow everything happening in the wizarding world though.

 

I guess but a lot of the criticism is valid. I liked all of the HP movies and dug FB quite a bit too. But this was a drip for a number of reasons. It very much feels like a middle chapter in a trilogy but we're getting three more. That's among several issues I have. It's not a bad movie... just a rare (for me) misstep in the franchise.

 

And has Rowling addressed the McGonagall confusion?

 

This was pretty boring

 

So i want to trust Rowling as she usually has everything pretty thought out... but I didn’t love a lot of this and don’t love some of the teases.

the way Jacob was written in was horrible. So rushed and made little sense. Also the whole but with the Lestrange stuff was unnecessary and didn’t really add to the story. And why the hell was Nicholas Flamell in this?

 

It seemed like they were just trying to shove as much "HEY REMEMBER THIS???" crap in the movie, between Flamel, the sorceror's stone, the mirror, Nagini, McGonagall, the DADA classroom, the boggart, the way they shot the Newt/Leta childhood scenes, Cormac McLaggen's grandfather, probably a Malfoy patriarch, etc. It was exhausting.

Grindewald also didn't like ... do anything. He breaks out then spends most of the movie chilling in an Airbnb before giving a big stump speech. Do some crimes, man.

Jacob is a terrible character. It's like they wrote him with Josh Gad in mind then couldn't get him and hoped people wouldn't notice.

 

I dug Jacob in the first one but feel like the way he was written into this was horrible. Also Queenie’s motivations and decisions are ridiculous this time around.

not to be all Harry Potter nerdish but i haaaate the McGonagall mention at Hogwarts. Like she would have been a child at that time and she wasn’t a teacher during Tom Riddles time so what the hell.

And you are right, Grindelwald really doesn’t commit any crimes.

Also i heard an interesting theory about Credence’s Obscurious being Ariana’s and that’s why Grindelwald said Credence is Dumbledores bro. I like that idea faaaar more than a secret brother

 

So this was like, insultingly bad right? I don't have massive emotional stakes in the Harry Potter universe but that McGonagall cameo... isn't she supposed to be like 30-50 years younger than Dumbledore making that whole thing impossible. And adding a previously unmentioned brother for Dumbledore feels cheap as hell

 

She's supposed to have been born in 1935. The scene in question is in the 1910s. So yeahh........ not great

 

I feel like it was made for fans, but is at the same time pretty insulting for fans. Especially fans that are into the wider canon and lore.

 

Overall I enjoyed it, though it's definitely got it's fair share of issues.

Jacob isn't given anything to do, which sucks. I wish there was more Newt screentime, given he's why I love the first one as much as I do. Also more Jude Law would be nice. Does suffer from basically setting up for the future movies.

Still, it's a good looking movie and it's fun to watch wizards do magic shit. Maybe I'm just weak for this type of stuff and really like Newt's character so I'm willing to overlook flaws.

 

This is how I feel as well. I really like Newt's beasts too. Jacob and Queenie were my least favourite part of the movie and wish they were just cut out.

 

And, like, somehow none of y'all have mentioned the fact that Grindelwald could very easily be lying about his identity as a yet-unknown Dumbledore. One of the most evil wizards of the universe could very easily lie to manipulate an emotionally unstable person.

^ a take almost guaranteed to backfire on me at some point

Or that it could've been McGonagall's mother. But this was definitely probably just a lazy writing misstep.

 

Grindelwald could be lying, but that seems like it would make for a fairly cheap storytelling ploy when two movies have led to the reveal of Creedence’s real identity. Not to mention that the Dumbledore reveal was the big “wow” moment of this movie.

As far as McGonagall goes, it’s already established canon that her mom’s name is Isobel and that she was born before 1918, so she’s too young to be that character.

Prof McGonagall did have a great grandmother named Minerva, but on her mother’s side, so her last name wouldn’t have been McGonagall. Truth is, Rowling messed up