MovieChat Forums > Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) Discussion > I watched an advance screening: not very...

I watched an advance screening: not very good, unfortunately (spoilers)

posted 6 years ago by JakeSWITCH (504)
18 replies | jump to latest

* This film introduces too many new characters, each with their own mysterious backstories, a lot of whom are superfluous to the action. For example, Nagini is introduced as Credence's best friend, which happened some time in the six months between the events of the two films. That is her entire role in this film.

* Jacob and Queenie were easily the best characters in the first "Fantastic Beasts" so the sequel ... uh ... separates them by having Queenie join Grindelwald with very little persuasion needed (she's upset that she isn't allowed to marry Jacob by the wizarding community). Instead we get more of Newt and his love triangle with the equally boring Tina and a new character, Leta Lestrange, who gets an entire backstory and flashbacks ... and then gets killed off.

* There is a LOT of dull exposition about heretofore unheard of curses and family histories.

* There's also a distracting amount of CGI set pieces. It shouldn't be a problem for this particular series but, not only is there CGI in every scene, the action-sequences (which are all big and explosive) are filmed in such a chaotic fashion that it's hard to tell what is happening.

* Johnny Depp's Grindelwald is supposed to be an ultra-charismatic warrior wizard - so persuasive, in fact, that he's not even allowed to talk to people while in jail. This is undermined by ... Johnny Depp. He's miscast and the albino make-up and weird eye doesn't help. He's not seductive at all.

* The twist that Credence is Albus Dumbledore's long lost brother just seemed cheap and tacked-on. We needed the entire sub-plot with Leta LeStrange and her long-lost half-brother for that???

* The only implication of any romance between Dumbledore and Grindelwald was a magical blood-pact between two men who shared the same ideology and vowed never to battle each other i.e. a split second of touching hands.

--------------------------------------------
You can read all of my latest film reviews here: https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/about/Jake

[–] HarlemEagle42 (17735) 6 years ago

Seemed chaotic just by the trailer. Disappointing to hear though since I found the first FB a nice surprise.

[–] JakeSWITCH (504) 6 years ago

I enjoyed the first "Fantastic Beasts"... but even then I thought Jacob / Queenie were a more interesting pairing than Newt / Tina and that replacing Colin Farrell with Johnny Depp was a (profit motivated - Depp is a bigger box office draw) misstep.

--------------------------------------------
You can read all of my latest film reviews here: https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/about/Jake

[–] HarlemEagle42 (17735) 6 years ago

Agreed. Though not sure about Depp being a draw these days.

[–] DracTarashV2 (4493) 6 years ago

I like the things I’ve heard from those who felt more positive about it (some people I follow closely). Kinda makes me even more excited to see it.

We shall see.

[–] BrunoAntony (1198) 6 years ago

It sucked. Admit it.

[–] captainbucky (15252) 6 years ago

It’s just that you didn’t understand

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Why should we care about Grindelwald? Because he was defeated at the same time as Hitler in 1945, making him basically Wizard Hitler? Who cares? VOLDEMORT was a much more engaging villain. What heinous dabbling in the Dark Arts did Grindelwald do? I'm sure he didn't have Horcruxes and such. And what IS it with the two's goal of ruling the world with their pureblood ilk and doing away with mudbloods and muggles? Rowling really doesn't have much imagination when it comes to the motives for her Dark Lords, it's always Hitler.

[–] JakeSWITCH (504) 6 years ago

My impression of Voldemort is that he was obsessed with racial purity (because of his own upbringing), whereas Grindelwald is more about wizards stepping into the open to take control of world events (for unexplained reasons). Same end goal.

David Yates (or someone) basically said that Grindelwald is supposed to be a more insidious, elegant villain, who rules through his persuasive ideology ... compared to Voldemort, who is basically a "thug" who rules through fear and brute power.

It sounds great in theory but I just don't feel it in the dialogue or in any of the actors who portrayed the character, especially Johnny Depp. There are sooo many British actors who would have been more effective in that role.

--------------------------------------------
You can read all of my latest film reviews here: https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/about/Jake

[–] fishpan (544) 6 years ago

Agree Voldemort is supposed to be your straight up Hitler type. Grindelwald is more your fascist for this age. He doesn't want 'rid' of muggles, just control them or not have them in power etc etc. Basically Grindelwald is a popularist in the terms of Steve Bannon.

It is a shame though they do have Depp playing him though - think it would have been so much better if they had Depp as Graves last film and Farrell taking over as Grindelwald. But guess the studio would never have taken that punt before, plus I doubt Depp would have been brave enough to have the scene where Graves basically grooms Credence the way that Farrell did in the first one

[–] JakeSWITCH (504) 6 years ago

If I remember correctly, Depp was cast in "Fantastic Beasts" before his break-up with Amber Heard, allegations of abuse and that disastrous Rolling Stone interview where he comes off as unhinged and self-destructive.

I think he's a millstone around the neck of this franchise, because he signed on as one of the world's most bankable movie stars and now ... not so much.

--------------------------------------------
You can read all of my latest film reviews here: https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/about/Jake

[–] SloneKaru (15) 6 years ago

I really enjoyed it

There were alot of new characters introduced but seeing as there are going to be 5 films in total it was going to happen at some point, I did find it strange that Leta had a whole backstory and was killed off but to be fair it was also in part Credences back story. It was a stepping stone to finding out who he is.

Queenie joining Grindelwald was quite surprising, you'd think with her ability to read minds she would catch something that wouldn't make her go with him but maybe that will play out later.

I have to say everyone seems to have jumped on the Credence is Albus Dumbledores brother but the film never says that. Grindelwald tells him he's a Dumbledore and yes having a first name beginning with an A kind of hints at maybe a brother but there are other options out there, cousin, nephew. I mean with Credence being 18ish then Aberforth could actually be his father, he would have been 25/26 when he's born. We don't know who the woman was on the ship, maybe she was Credences mother maybe not, maybe his mother never told the family about the birth and thats why she was going to America.

I would have argued that Ariana could have been Credences mother but she was too young, interestingly enough however Aberforth described his sisters magic as turning inwards and being explosive in Deathly Hollows, sounds just like credence. Might explain why Dumbledore wants Newt to find Credence because he knows whats happening to him

[–] fishpan (544) 6 years ago

There is a spinster Aunt who was engaged to a wizard in the Dumbledore family.

It would be cool if she was Credence's mother and that his father was Voldemort's grandfather. Ages would work for that and it would explain why Nagini would bond to Voldemort. She isn't caring about him being evil, she's bound to him at first because he would be Credence's nephew.

[–] SloneKaru (15) 6 years ago

Yes we thought credence is going to have something to do with Tom riddle because of nagini as well

[–] fishpan (544) 6 years ago

It could explain why Dumbldore also didn't do something about Tom Riddle when he first met him and could see he was a wrongin. Dumbldore isn't exactly been the most virtuous of characters so why when we saw him being creeped out by Riddle he didn't do something about curtail the kid outside sending him to Hogwarts?

But if Credence had just been killed or been hurt and linked to both families wouldnt Dumbldore hold back on dealing with Credence's nephew out of guilt?

[–] Eleazar (251) 6 years ago

I enjoyed it as well. Don't get the bad reviews.

But Leta ... we never saw her vanish completely. Just the beginning. Pretty sure she is still alive.
And I liked her background story as well. Even or because it turned out differently.

[–] Ziggy (1799) 6 years ago

If you look at harrypotter.wikia.com/, they list the DOB and year of death of all the Dumbledores. If the dates are correct, Credence was born after the parents died and even after Ariana‘s death. So we really don’t know how he’s related to Albus.

[–] PaladinNJ (21510) 6 years ago

I thought the story was very disconnected. Maybe because it was so busy.

[–] JakeSWITCH (504) 6 years ago

There were definitely too many characters and plotlines crammed into the film.

It also doesn't help that Newt isn't a very engaging central character.

--------------------------------------------
You can read all of my latest film reviews here: https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/about