Directed by:
David YatesScreenplay:
J. K. RowlingCinematography:
Philippe RousselotComposer:
James Newton HowardCast:
Eddie Redmayne, Katherine Waterston, Dan Fogler, Johnny Depp, Jude Law, Alison Sudol, Ezra Miller, Zoë Kravitz, Claudia Kim, Carmen Ejogo, Jessica Williams (more)VOD (5)
Plots(1)
At the end of the first film, the powerful Dark wizard Gellert Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) was captured by MACUSA (Magical Congress of the United States of America), with the help of Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne). But, making good on his threat, Grindelwald escaped custody and has set about gathering followers, most unsuspecting of his true agenda: to raise pure-blood wizards up to rule over all non-magical beings. In an effort to thwart Grindelwald’s plans, Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law) enlists his former student Newt Scamander, who agrees to help, unaware of the dangers that lie ahead. Lines are drawn as love and loyalty are tested, even among the truest friends and family, in an increasingly divided wizarding world. (Warner Bros. UK)
(more)Videos (4)
Reviews (11)
I didn't expect that. After the previous film, which I really liked, came the second installment from the very same creators... And it's so much worse. Boredom, familiar characters who suddenly didn't matter to me, and new characters who were quite similar, their shallow dialogues, action scenes without many ideas and the attractions named Johnny Depp and Jude Law are barely used. While the previous film revealed new chapters of the Harry Potter world and enlarged it pleasantly, this one just strangely tangles it. Two and a half.
()
The first film proved that audiences are still quite curious about this cinematic world and will gladly pay to return to it. So what do we do in the second one? What makes sense. We're gonna add in everything that we think people might like, to keep it wringing it out for a few years. This approach is fine, it's just what Hollywood does with big movies, but unfortunately the second Fantastic Beasts shows that it's not always for the best. For example, getting a film directed by the biggest routine artist Hollywood has at its disposal, or wanting to milk the studio so badly that it sets up a lot of plots, subplots, characters, heroes and creatures that there's no time at all for a plot that makes even rudimentary sense. The result is a bunch of mediocre, albeit good-looking action, a lot of twists and turns that would put the creators of Wild Angel to shame, and a cauldron of book and movie references that fans are likely to enjoy. That last thing makes The Crimes of Grindelwald rather good, and if you head to the cinema expecting someone to simply shove things you probably like and probably want to see under your nose, you'll enjoy it. As an attempt to kickstart a grand fantasy franchise, however, it brutally fails in practically every way. Boring movie, and perhaps even a little embarrassing at times.
()
Another unimaginative film in which the duel between young Dumbledore and Grindelwald is in the cards, but it really is only in the cards - and it will probably take several more films before it actually happens. Rowling and a few others are unsuccessfully trying to fill sparse and artificially stretched story, based more or less only on the search for a wizard around Paris (surprisingly not Grindelwald), with sub-plots with the completely banal issues of a large number of characters, some of whom are presented just to be in the film, but they do not say or do anything significant at any point (and they probably won’t do anything meaningful until future sequels). In the background there seems to be the onset of an epic story arc about the fateful clash of the two greatest wizards of their time, but the film as such does not tell a great story and only rides on the fringe lukewarm romantic storylines of its heroes, Potter nostalgia and digital animals, which are only there for decoration. Visually, the film is beautiful and full of imaginative and fun-filled suggestions, which make it just an amusement park of colorful attractions and unfulfilled promises.
()
The production is so well tailored to patient Potter fans that it's killing me, as it doesn't stand a chance of being heartfelt for anyone else. It has everything, but most of it in such trace amounts that anyone who isn't satisfied by the fact that it's mostly just a glimpse at historical parallels and genealogical research will be disappointed. Once again, the most introverted action hero of all time takes us through the world of both magic and non-magic, but for those who haven't spent the past two years exploring diverse fan theories, the moments when new species of animals want to enchant us again in a hundred and one ways are not enough. The world of the audience has understandably begun to forget, and it will be even worse in two years' time. Although Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald lends tension and anticipation to the story wonderfully, this time it isn't the usual closed dramatic arc that we are accustomed to from the wizarding world. It is explicitly assumed that the viewer remembers even the more fleeting emotional moments from the first installment and the third installment again leaves a very precarious foundation for an open ending, a narrative betrayal unknown to the Hogwarts saga. I understand the audience's confusion: it is not possible to turn to the books for hints and answers, which many of them still consider a betrayal by J.K. Rowling. I don't, because I am extremely grateful that this world can open up to us again and again, and I barely breathed during the touching nostalgia of the outlines of that most beautiful castle. The change of scenery is finally complete, the deceit is over.
()
The sequel to Fantastic Beasts is quite a stylish film. It looks very nice, and all those pre-war aesthetics and costumes spiced up with witch elements are pleasing to the eyes. But the drama is a bit lazy, Mlok and the animals don't play a major role, Grindelwald appears for only a few minutes... Somehow, it failed to add life to these refined images.
()
Ads