Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald

kuman07kuman07 Kansas City
Didn't see a thread for this one started yet and since I think it is going to be a pretty big movie I am curious to hear what everyone thought of it. I just saw it this morning and really liked it. Its not perfect but it definitely brought the nostalgia back from the Harry Potter films, which I enjoyed. I liked it better than the 1st one. Critics seem to be split on it with around a 40% on Rotten Tomatoes. But audience score of a B+ currently.

So what did everyone think?
Starshine1988

Comments

  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    edited November 2018
    The movie is a bit of a mess, but I still thoroughly enjoyed myself. The atomic bomb scene gave me chills. I LURV when fantasy gets real world. Not enough of that IMO. 

    Queer baiting though, it's a real shame. "We were closer than brothers." Like, fuck you China and your sweet sweet cash. China will straight up ban this movie for being more literal, even though it's so obvious what's going on anyway... I guess it's for the kids? I don't know. I hate it, because that's the most interesting part of the movie to me and I'm not hopeful this plot line will get any more explicit than this.

    I wanted more of our Fab Four. I love Jacob! "I always wanted to go here!" Brilliant writing and delivery.

    I have a theory now that JK Rowling will release novelized versions of this story later. There's just too much going on... then again, there's a lot of sloppiness, like McGonagall being at Hogwarts at that time... and the idea that Leta switched babies with another magic user.....

    Sloppy ending IMO. Don't end on a cliffhanger that destroys canon and makes an entire character arc (Leta's) a sham if it were true. Because then we're going to think it's not true and then it's just a shitty fucking ending.

    I still like the first one better, I think.

    What a great opening action piece though.
    kuman07darwinfeeshy
  • kuman07kuman07 Kansas City
    All very good points. Man, my dumbass didn't even pick up on that "closer than brothers" part but I totally see that now. Hopefully it goes beyond on that because you are right, their relationship is super interesting and hopefully gets more in depth in future films.
    I didn't mind the end tbh. I guess I don't necessarily trust what Grindewald was telling him. Feels like a good way to manipulate him to try and kill Dumeldore I guess. But maybe they are going with that. And knowing there are more movies to come and story to be built that I was ok with the cliffhanger.
    I might have enjoyed it more because I am on a nostalgia high because it felt more like a Harry Potter film than the 1st one. Going back to Hogwarts was had me in all the feels.
    But for are for sure getting another film in Nov 2020 I think is what I read. And I believe JK said the plan is for 5. I am definitely in for more to see how the story plays out.
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    Yeah, if Grindelwald were female there would have been a fucking kiss in the mirror of Erised. JK Rowling said in 2007 that Dumbledore was gay and all the Grindelwald stuff in book 7 is what the fans assumed she was talking about. It's not the most brilliant prediction in the world, but I predicted the unbreakable vow between them after seeing movie 1 and also the trailer where he said he couldn't move against Grindelwald.

    Anyway, they're doing it with another franchise right now and it's really getting on my nerves. Oh, Frozen. I saw an interview where director Jennifer Lee said the sequel will be a continuation on the themes of the first, lots of sisters bonding. I hear that and my hopes that they would ever move in the lesbian direction dies. 
     
    Just a pet peeves right now haha.
    kuman07Kate23
  • Saw it over the long holiday weekend. It was visually beautiful, and it always feels so nice to be in the Potterverse again. But the bulk of the story felt unearned and out of nowhere. Pros include the sweet magical creatures, vintage settings and style, and throwbacks to our favorite characters. Eddie Redmayne is great to watch. Jude Law handled Dumbledore well. 

    I think my main complaint is that there wasn't enough tee-ed up in the first Fantastic Beasts to have the movies feel connected. The lestrange story line about the guy who wanted to murder his half sibling as revenge didn't pay off to me, and now I'm sad we don't have her as a character anymore. Why even make her a lestrange if not to connect more deeply to the story and characters we already know of that bloodline? 

    Are we supposed to think Queenie is dumb for joining Grindlewald? Or just too easily manipulated? She's not an evil person. Why was it so simple for her to join up with someone who wants to enslave the muggles if she in fact loves one? That didn't work for me. 

    Was Grindlewald... kind of right? Humans DO kind of suck and we DID have that whole holocaust/nuclear bomb thing. As impactful as the visuals were, it kind of clouded my judgement around him as an evil character. If I knew for a fact that a nuclear bomb was going off in another decade or so, I'd probably justify a lot in effort to stop that. I think a scene describing how he was using that to manipulate his audience rather than actually fearing what humans are capable of would have gone a long way with me. 

    Ezra Miller seemed a little underused. He's a hard character to identify with in this movie because his screentime is limited and he doesn't feel like a fully fleshed out character. 
  • Are we supposed to think Queenie is dumb for joining Grindlewald? Or just too easily manipulated? She's not an evil person. Why was it so simple for her to join up with someone who wants to enslave the muggles if she in fact loves one? That didn't work for me. 

    Was Grindlewald... kind of right? Humans DO kind of suck and we DID have that whole holocaust/nuclear bomb thing. As impactful as the visuals were, it kind of clouded my judgement around him as an evil character. If I knew for a fact that a nuclear bomb was going off in another decade or so, I'd probably justify a lot in effort to stop that. I think a scene describing how he was using that to manipulate his audience rather than actually fearing what humans are capable of would have gone a long way with me. 

    Re: Queenie-- my wife clarified to me that Queenie wasnt being listened to by anyone, including Jacob. Yes, Jacobs logic about not wanting to marry her was sound, but he wasnt listening to her. The ministry would never entertain her requests, and so the only person who listened to her and offered her the future she wanted was Grindle. 

    Re: Grindle being kinda right-- I agree. But it's similar to how Thanos was "kinda right". Most fear-mongering leaders use an element of truth in their argument that sounds logical to gain a following and once they have you on board they turn up the radicalization.  
  • edited November 2018

    I thought with regards to Queenie, perhaps she was actually under an enchantment (like what she did to Jacob) and that from drinking the tea, perhaps she was very susceptible into following Grindlewald, especially since he wanted to use his mind reading abilities.

    With regards to Grindlewald, people like him will pray upon people's fears to gain their following and then once you're with him, then, he could do as he pleases with absolute power/control.  His slogan of "for the greater good" basically is saying that you don't know how to run your life but he does and so he'll tell you how to you should be living.  So, can't say he's right about that.

    My problem with the movie is the whole secret Dumbledore reveal.  Unless it's actually revealed as a giant lie, I have a problem of this happening in this timeline but there is not a mention of it in the Harry Potter books, especially the last one with the whole The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore.  If Dumbledore has another brother (even if it's somehow a half-brother), that still should have shown up in the Rita Skeeter book.  But I think in general, this is the problem of prequels in nature when they try to come up with other twists and turns and in the process, end up screwing up with the original series and some of their stories.

  • This movie was kinda entertaining but I didn't feel the charm or fun of the Harry Potter movies. The main character almost feels like a silent protagonist in a video game. He barely reacts when people talk to him and never answers any questions and just like awkwardly hangs out in scenes while things happen around him and for some reason everybody loves him. Why would you ever want to spend time with this guy? The only relatable thing about him is that he likes animals more than people, but the movie is about an evil wizard that this guy doesn't even care about or have any interest in fighting.

    The Queenie stuff kind of bothered me but I wasn't really sure why the people in this movie were doing much of anything they were doing and as far as I can tell nothing really happened other than the bad guy breaking out in the beginning and then the reveal at the end. The animals are cool though.

  • My problem with the movie is the whole secret Dumbledore reveal.  Unless it's actually revealed as a giant lie, I have a problem of this happening in this timeline but there is not a mention of it in the Harry Potter books, especially the last one with the whole The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore.  If Dumbledore has another brother (even if it's somehow a half-brother), that still should have shown up in the Rita Skeeter book.  But I think in general, this is the problem of prequels in nature when they try to come up with other twists and turns and in the process, end up screwing up with the original series and some of their stories.

    Wasnt it meant to be understood that Skeeter is an unreliable author willing to bend truths and print inaccuracies? Right now, Grindle and Credence are the only ones that are aware of this revelation and maybe some of his close followers. If it remains that way and Credence is defeated along with Grindlewald, then the secret dies with Dumbledore and presumably Newt. My mother in law didn't realize she had a long lost sister until she was 55 so it's not out of the question that a similar situation could happen to Dumbledore 
  • While Skeeter can be unreliable, it seems like the book she wrote was actually all true.  She did uncover a lot of secrets because she was able to talk to Batilda Bagshot.  It just seems like if there was a 4th Dumbledore, that would have been revealed.

    Additionally, the math doesn't really work out that well.  This movie takes place in 1927.  Dumbledore's mother dies in 1899.  His father was imprisoned around 1890 and there wasn't any revelation that he ever escaped prison.  And not entirely sure, but it seems like once you get sent to Azkaban, you sort of are there for the rest of your life (I don't think I recall them saying you get a sentence of 2 to 3 years there for example).  So, if Credence is by Dumbledore's mother, at a minimum, he has to be 27 to 28 in this movie.  I don't the character is meant to be more than 25 and possibly still more like an 18 yr old.  So, there's a problem.  If Credence is related to Dumbledore's father, that means, that he had a child while in Azkaban which also seems highly unlikely.  But for argument sake, maybe he found a way to get someone pregnant (if another inmate, then the baby would have had to be snuck out of prison as well).  But it also seems like conjugal visits, might not have been a thing either for Azkaban.  Something is just entirely off and really needs explanation.  But no way it can be the mother's child without Dumbledore knowing (or his younger brother) and it seems highly unlikely (but not impossible) that it's the father's child.  But still seems like Dumbledore would have known about it.  So, hence my vote goes to a Grindlewald just lying to make Credence want to fight Dumbledore.

    gguenot
Sign In or Register to comment.