Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald

Perfect and amazing movie to watch

Loved it. The animals used by Newt were incorporated in an excellent way that didn't feel unnecessary, the acting was tremendously good as well as the dark theme to it all.

I can not agree with the ones who did not like it. I did not except any fight between Dumbledore and his antagonist, so I felt this explained and showed magic in a great way. It felt like no scene was unnecessary screen time.

Loved it.
10 out 10 (which doesn't happen often)

I saw the first episode too the movie i really enjoy the movie. I was amazed truly enjoyed this series better then harry potter and i do enjoy them . But this went into how they started and you saw so much more about the people and how they become in the other movies . The cast was wonderful and there was a twist in the movie but you will find out . The movie isn't boring at all . I can't wait for the other one to come out.

still don't understand the bad ratings it's an amazing movie beautiful visuals and effects ...
the story also is beautiful

So finally JK Rowling acknowledged her biggest flaw writing-wise the black and white morality. Not all Slytherins are evil or wish to harm others. Also, Grindelwald makes Voldemort look like amateur hour. Really great movie and extremely dark, not quite Infinity War dark, but certainly up there. So many Harry Potter references and you further see the more adult side of the world.

[spoiler]I enjoyed it and even think it addressed what people worried about, that Dumbledore did have more than friendship with Grindelwald and also the scenes are subtle which is less insulting. I loved it and actually prefer to it the other movie because I love the HP World, but dislike the Harry Potter books, so love when you see the world outside of Hogwarts.[/spoiler]

I really really really love these movies lol

I have to say, I was a bit scared about this movie as the critics I've heard beforehand where all rather negative. But: The movie was really good, and I enjoyed it a lot.

I've seen it in 3D and it was one of the best 3D movies I've seen lately, so I can really recommend watching it in 3D. The setting was really great, and I liked it quite a bit better than the first Fantastic Beasts ; we get a great 1920s vibe, the look is incredible. We are mainly in London and England, and we get to see a lot of new magical creatures and again, what I really liked was that this movie is opening doors and becomes a bit more "international" - so instead of just the creatures of our own mythology (dragons, unicorns, centaurs, giants) we get Asian and South American folklore creatures such as Kappas, Chupacabras, Zouyus, etc. And to me, this is what "Fantastic Beasts and where to find them" is still a main aspect that this series should be all about - expanding the known British magical universe told in Harry Potter to both, new locations as well as new creatures and folklore. Of course as it is closely connected to the Harry Potter universe, there are also a few references, and a number of new background information is provided to a number of characters - some where interesting and of course this is majorly done as fan service. Most of the time I thought that this wasn't necessary, though and I could have lived without them.

What I did enjoy though, where the effects, and I think they where even much better than the in the first movie - with one exception [spoiler]those hairless cats in the French ministry of magic? Seriously: WTF?! Did the budget for the animator run out and so they hired an intern?! It looked like CGI we know from cheap television series such as Xena or Buffy[/spoiler]. Other than that, however, I loved the effects, and also the tone that is set in this movie - different to the first one, this one is really dark and grim the entire time - the cuddly aspect of the first one that is spiked with funny jokes and "aww" moments of the first movie are nearly entirely gone. Instead we get to experience an evil emperor like person (a new "Hitler"-like character if you will) slowly gain power and influence with ideas that are horrible but still find their followers. The movie walks into a lot of new territory: becoming more political and mature than any other movie in the Potter universe, but also more dramatic and sad. And I really like that.

Acting-wise everybody is again on a very high level. Eddie Redmayne plays as lovely as in the first movie and I really like the Newt Scamander character. Katherine Waterson is great as well but has much less screen time than in the last movie (unfortunately) and Alison Sudol is again totally charming and beguiling, and one of my favorite characters in this series. But of course everyone was most interested in Johnny Depp and Jude Law; when hearing about the cast I was more covinced of Depp than of Law, but in the end both where really great. Law's Dumbledore is so good that you can really see him as the young version of Dumbledore as we have known him for 8 movies - something that is really hard to achieve. And Depp had one of his greatest performances since probably a decade? Perfectly on spot, never too much, never boring, giving you the chills especially during his monologue.

When talking with other Potter-Fans the greatest criticism I heard was the character break of [spoiler]Qeenie[/spoiler], and I was puzzled as well, but in the end, I see so many little aspects that might give you hints of what might have happened [spoiler]take for instance, the tea scene. What was that all about? Why do they obtrusively try to give her tea which she declines the entire time? Also she is not at his side from the beginning and even raises her wand once he enters - however we never get to know what the talked about - the movie cuts away - maybe something that is revealed in a later movie?[/spoiler], and I can somehow empathize with her - given that it is 6 months later and in all this time she has suffered a lot under the society and their conventions that do not fit her unconventional choice. So even though some of her actions seem extreme and at first glance unreasonable, try to put yourself into her shoes and think of the situation as something so frustrating with no way out where everyone works against you, and then finally you get a "way out". Is her action still so unrealistic?

Another criticism is of course the open end, and the fact that this movie does not proceed in any way. And I share that feeling - but it's exactly the same way I felt about "The Two Towers" - in the end you can say "well great, Sam and Frodo are at the same situation they where in right when the movie started". Of course, story-wise we don't get any progression. But it's not about the story, but rather about building up characters and their emotions and motivations, putting all the pieces together for a great finale, and I myself find that "The Crimes of Grindlewald" does this perfectly and while doing so there is a lot of good stuff going on, character-wise. Also I do believe in J. K. Rowling - she presented as with Harry Potter and had a master plan and an ending that heavily relied on character trades and actions that happened right in the first book - she had a plan - a great one, that unfolded itself over 7 books that where written subsequently as the story progressed, and I cannot imagine that she worked differently when conceptualizing "Fantastic Beasts". So even though the ending seems strange and does not appear to make any sense, I think one should bare with it, and see where the journey will end. Many other movies (such as Infinity War) get better critics even though it is totally clear to everyone that they will just undo everything done in that movie, making it both meaningless and boring. Why be so hard with a movie where everything still is absolutely open?

I myself was really excited - I enjoyed the movie a lot, I think it's worth watching a second time to look into details overlooked the first time, I enjoyed the characters, the magic, the discovery of new worlds - all in all, I really had good fun and liked this one even better than the first movie.

First, and probably only, quibble I have about this movie is the inclusion of a particular Miss McGonagall. Whilst the actress portrays the character wonderfully both in her voice and mannerisms, we all know she wasn’t even born yet.
I enjoyed the toying with the possibility that certain characters might’ve boarded the Titanic.
Incredible visuals throughout, fantastic acting from all and good scores.
A great movie from start to finish. Credence is so much more likeable in this movie compared to the last. Johnny Depp, as per, offers a sterling performance and the big China cat thing is cool.

Having only seen it once, I really can't give this a rating. But from the opening sequence on I just had the strangest feeling throughout the movie - it just felt kind of _off_. The best way I can describe it is that major dramatic events felt kind of flat, not impactful. I don't know if it was the lack of exposition, the strange cuts, Johnny Depp's unconvincing performance, the film's score (which especially in the beginning was weirdly out-of-sync with the action it was supposed to dramatise), or just the generally confusing/meandering nature of the plot, but I kept thinking "something's missing." Then again, I also remember feeling that the first time I watched the first movie, and not at all the second time. Plus, as others have pointed out, it's hard to judge a movie like this without having seen the sequels - certainly Empire Strikes Back is changed significantly by the existence of Return of the Jedi, so I'm holding out for something similar happening here.
Otherwise, I really like this universe and I loved Dumbledore in this, especially the fact that (contrary to complaints) it is made quite clear that Dumbledore was/is actually in love with Grindelwald and this was not just a 'bromance'. In fact, Jude Law's performance was so convincing that i actually thought that [spoiler] the reason he could not fight Grindelwald was because it would be too emotionally painful, not because of the blood pact[/spoiler]. Despite the fact that he doesn't get that much screen time, this movie really showed the depth of Dumbledore, who's easily the most complex character of the entire fictional universe - his inherent kindness and good-heartedness, the intense loyalty he inspires, but also the way he uses that loyalty to further his own goals (even if they are for the greater good), his almost pathological secret-keeping, etc. Unfortunately, in comparison to this Depp's Grindelwald falls completely flat, despite the fact that he should be Dumbledore's equal not only in magical power, but also emotional manipulation. And while we are told that Grindelwald is compelling and persuasive and see people reacting to him as if he was, he does not actually come over as that.
I liked the scenes at Hogwarts, especially [spoiler] the flashback with the relationship between Leta and Newt, and I liked how her boggart was actually something really traumatic - something that has also been pointed out before in relation to this exercise [/spoiler]. I think the movie will probably get better with a second viewing, considering that even now that I've had a few hours to think about it a lot of plot points which seemed to come out of nowhere actually were hinted at in some way beforehand.

ETA: Having seen it a second time now, I completely lost that feeling I described above - in fact, I actually rather liked the movie the second time around. Make of that what you will - 8/10.

I had fun, i can't really dwell on much else until i see it again. I love the world J.K has created, i want to just watch it exist and i find myself just wanting to read about the smallest of details about how something works or certain creatures.