Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) - November 16, 2018

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Kevinicus

What was the point of the book? The whole plot was around preventing Voldemort from hearing a prophecy that helps him in no way. It was dumb. There are some interesting secondary elememts, but that's all.

The prophecy also states that either Harry or Voldy will die, so that’s important. But I agree, the vast majority of that book’s contributions to the larger narrative were smaller stuff (first peek into Snape’s backstory during the Occlumency lessons, etc.).

[rwc]

Originally Posted by Schwartzy

Did anyone see this in 3D? Worth it? I liked the movie and it was 2D showing.

Just got back from the IMAX 3D showing. I was absolutely blown away, completely took me by surprise, even though I’d rewatched the first film last night in 3D to remind myself.

There were so many genuine 3D pop-outs I stopped counting, far more than the first film. As expected, ‘fantastic beasts’ are often the stars of the pop-outs.

There were even more “extra-frame” pop-outs and expansions (that could work in 2D IMAX but are made for 3D), where all manner of things made use of the black-bar space - this occurred so often (literally every minute or two) that I couldn’t have counted if I’d tried, although I definitely noted the varied ways that the expansion was used - whether it was something like a necklace briefly ‘hanging down’ over the bottom black bar, something of a large scale (a wall of exploding water) expanding to full-frame suddenly, or something popping/flying out over the upper or lower black bar (a niffler flying in slow-mo on a champagne cork wins my prize for favourite pop-out of the year).

A very original use of the expanded ratio (strengthened by 3D) is a scene where we see Credence’s head from the side in full zoom, but translucent (as a magical hologram floating high in a room), in full frame; while the physically real scene, with Grindelwald standing centre screen looking up towards the camera (technically he’s gazing at the translucent image of Credence’s head that lies between us and him) is in regular wide frame. It’s a subtle and surprisingly artistic use of expanded ratio that most people wouldn’t notice as it’s gradually immersive.

There are no full scenes that are expanded, possibly because the black bars are invaded by visual effects more than live action elements. The “flirting” with expanded ratio was a regular feature and frankly felt necessary for the effectiveness (and fun) of many shots and even sequences - to the point that I’m already worrying that they may not include it on the physical release. Even more vital seems the 3D. Like the first film, David Yates has clearly designed the film with 3D in mind, as many of the shots without great depth/pop-out action are at least 3D-enhanced with outer-frame foreground context, and/or closer-to-the-ground upward camera angles.

Right up there with my favourite 3D films of the year, and I totally wasn’t expecting it to be. Glad that the UK 3D edition is already up for preorder on Amazon UK. Here’s hoping expanded ratio is included (so much visual effects work went into it, surely it will be...).

[jayman3]

I was never overly fond of the idea about turning a 130 page 'guide book' into a five film franchise.

Sure it is used as inspiration and a gateway to tell 'original' stories in the Harry Potter Universe, but it just didn't work for me personally.

At least in The Hobbits case, Peter Jackson took a 300-page novel (adapting 100 pages per film) and added pre-existing material from the Appendices to beef up the plot so it can carry a trilogy.

[gundamcero]

Just saw this and it was OK. Boring and lots of setup for a sequel I hope is better. Didn't care for any of the new characters especially Leta. Hated her. Jacob I didn't care for in this one. He's just there and feels like he was brought back just cause he was a highlight in the first. Queenie was annoying too and didn't care what she did. Wish Depp had more focus along with Law. The brother relationship was a plus for Newt.

[InuYashaCrusade]

Originally Posted by jayman3

I was never overly fond of the idea about turning a 130 page 'guide book' into a five film franchise.

Sure it is used as inspiration and a gateway to tell 'original' stories in the Harry Potter Universe, but it just didn't work for me personally.

At least in The Hobbits case, Peter Jackson took a 300-page novel (adapting 100 pages per film) and added pre-existing material from the Appendices to beef up the plot so it can carry a trilogy.

I really did not like the first Fantastic Beasts but I'm looking forward to seeing this one. I'm thinking about seeing it back to back with Creed 2 on Thanksgiving day. I hardly remember anything about the first FB, think I tried to wipe it from my mind after finishing it.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by jayman3

I was never overly fond of the idea about turning a 130 page 'guide book' into a five film franchise.

It’s not an adaptation of the guide book lol, it’s basically an adaptation of backstory stuff from Deathly Hallows that the proper HP movies didn’t have time for.

[dommie]

This film is a visual treat but that's about it. Without going into any plot spoilers, I will simply note that I found the narrative a bit convoluted with too many characters and a lot going on did not make it any more interesting. It's easy to get lost in this story, and I don't mean that in a good way. It's also slow going, especially in the beginning. The acting is OK but uninspired and I didn't really care what happened to these characters. The obvious set-up for a sequel makes me hope they improve upon this but I am not holding my breath. It's a shame really since Rowling was so effective a story teller with the Harry Potter films. However, after two films, the Fantastic Beasts franchise seems to be on life support for me. That's unfortunate because both films have been impressive looking but lacking in substance. It's not a completely awful film but given the people involved, and the history of Rowling's capability to tell a compelling story, this was disappointing. That's just my take.

[jayman3]

Originally Posted by InuYashaCrusade

I really did not like the first Fantastic Beasts but I'm looking forward to seeing this one. I'm thinking about seeing it back to back with Creed 2 on Thanksgiving day. I hardly remember anything about the first FB, think I tried to wipe it from my mind after finishing it.

I only seen it once. Took me two days to get through it. Which rarely happens as I can marathon the HP movies all day.

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

It’s not an adaptation of the guide book lol, it’s basically an adaptation of backstory stuff from Deathly Hallows that the proper HP movies didn’t have time for.

I know that silly, I just meant as in using that label (Fantastic Beasts) as a platform to make it a franchise never appealed to me.

[Kevinicus]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

The prophecy also states that either Harry or Voldy will die, so that’s important. But I agree, the vast majority of that book’s contributions to the larger narrative were smaller stuff (first peek into Snape’s backstory during the Occlumency lessons, etc.).

Is it really that important, though?

[ratandjmt]

This is the 1st movie I've watched in quite a while that was just OK. We all really enjoyed the 1st one but this one was really disappointing. The entire movie was basically a slow setup for the 3rd movie. The worst part about the movie was that it was missing the Fantastic Beast that made the 1st movie so special. If your a Potter fan and don't have tickets already I'd wait for the cheap show.

[jacobsever]

Originally Posted by ratandjmt

This is the 1st movie I've watched in quite a while that was just OK. We all really enjoyed the 1st one but this one was really disappointing. The entire movie was basically a slow setup for the 3rd movie. The worst part about the movie was that it was missing the Fantastic Beast that made the 1st movie so special. If your a Potter fan and don't have tickets already I'd wait for the cheap show.

I disagree with every single thing you said. Lol.

The beasts in the 1st movie are what made it lame. The human aspect of this movie is what makes it great. Coming from one of the biggest Potter fans.

But it does seem, people who liked the first one aren't too hot on this one...and people let down with the first one, end up liking this a lot more.

[nerdboyrockstar]

Originally Posted by jacobsever

I disagree with every single thing you said. Lol.

The beasts in the 1st movie are what made it lame. The human aspect of this movie is what makes it great. Coming from one of the biggest Potter fans.

But it does seem, people who liked the first one aren't too hot on this one...and people let down with the first one, end up liking this a lot more.

I would agree with this one. I think the cheese factor with the focus on the beasts was greatly lessened and the characters and their interweaving stories really drew me in, a.k.a. "the problem."

[Holmes]

This is dreadful. I highly enjoyed, even loved, the first Fantastic Beasts: the rambunctious Roaring Twenties-era Manhattan milieu; the delightful and inventive creatures; and an, I thought, endearing set of new characters, particularly those portrayed by Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol. Most of those pleasures are squandered here. The characters return, but they are largely separated and/or written in an obnoxious, unflattering way: as American witch Tina, for example, Katherine Waterston has to spend most of her scenes acting angrily juvenile over a false newspaper story. The fantastic beasts themselves become an afterthought.

The film leaps from Manhattan to London to Paris, but the gorgeous production design feels superficial and devoid of life. There is no energy in any featured locale, no sense of lives and loves and politics beyond the dour central "story."

Emphasis on dour and the quotes around the word story...Christ almighty is this film a bore, full of characters in which we are not invested very (very, very) solemnly explaining what is significant and why. The exposition is interminable and painful, and the film seldom feels productive in terms of moving the story forward; it is hard to imagine a mystery less beguiling and involving than dreary Credence's (Ezra Miller) lineage, and it builds to a hilariously contrived plot twist which is going to haunt this franchise.

The screenplay in general is a lamentable misstep for the beloved J. K. Rowling as a storyteller. She flashes an unexpectedly mean spirit with more than one ornamental child death (edgy!). She foregrounds almost encyclopedia-style B-plot miscellany over narrative momentum. And, most sadly, she fails to infuse her previously excellent world building with any genuine magic or mischief this time around.

I admit Jude Law cuts a striking and charismatic figure as a young Dumbledore, but his screen time is scarcer than I expected. Johnny Depp seems half asleep as Grindelwald; he feels out-of-place in a Potter film as a ultra-famous American movie star, and he is neither frightening nor seductive.

[rollinwith26s]

I enjoyed the first film well enough, and even after poor reviews for the second film I will still go and see it simply due to the fact there aren't any other movies I'm interested in this month. My local theatre is small, so anything that isn't a blockbuster/major studio release won't be here.

Sure, Ralph Breaks the Internet will definelty come to town, but the first movie was so obnoxious I won't subject myself to another round of that crap.

Newt wins November, I guess.

[Porco Azzurro]

I really liked it.

[sanriel]

I liked even more than the first one. Fantastic movie.

[DarkEco910]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

OOTP is one of the best adaptations precisely because it leaves so much out.

We just became best friends. So much fat was trimmed. That book was a chore. The film is fantastic.

[JustinB13]

Just saw this and this is by far the worst Harry Potter movie. It lacks momentum, or any sense of urgency and instead flashes from character to character and shows us scenes that aren’t even that exciting. What was the point of this movie? But still the acting is great, the visuals are great(although worse than every other Harry Potter movie), and some of it was fun. So unfortunately the critics were right: this is the first Harry Potter/Wizarding World movie that isn’t good. It’s okay in my book. Here’s my ranking:

1. Deathly Hallows Part 2 5/5
2. Half-Blood Prince 4.5/5
3. Order of the Phoenix 4.5/5
4. Sorcerer’s Stone 4/5
5. Deathly Hallows Part 1 4/5
6. Prisoner of Azkaban 4/5
7. Goblet of Fire 4/5
8. Chamber of Secrets 3.5/5
9. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find them 3.5/5
10. The Crimes of Grindelwald 3/5

I don’t blame Yates. He directed my absolute favorite in the series and one of my favorite movies of all time. He also directed the worst but he’s not the one to blame.

[cinemaphile]

It's funny how even in a thread where the posts show the vast majority found the film disappointing and mediocre (or worse), the poll still has most people giving it a 4.

[Vangeli]

I just got out of a showing, enjoyed it enough, and heard people in the audience saying it was better than Harry Potter. I wouldn't go that far but I was expecting it to be a lot worse given the chatter.