Search
Search results
Erika (17788 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) in Movies
Sep 10, 2017
I really liked this movie, but it could have been so much more. I wanted to see Newt hunting the magical beasts all over the world. Hopefully, some of that gets into the next film. What I did not like: Johnny Depp. Why was he in the movie? Why did WB spend money on hiring him? They should have just kept Colin Farrell as Grindelwald.
The niffler was by far, my favorite beast.
The niffler was by far, my favorite beast.
Sonofdel (6238 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Mar 29, 2019
What was the point
Contains spoilers, click to show
Well i saw the first one of these and i was pleasantly surprised. It had just the right amount of good story, characters, humour and special effects so i was looking forward to this second instalment. What a disappointment !!!!
The story was so convoluted and drawn out that half way through i almost fell asleep. Its got the wrong title for me as Grindlewald (Johnny Depp) is only in the film for about thirty minutes at the most. Its central character is a man who is trying to find out who he really is and so a rather thin plot then develops involving mythical creatures, characters from the first film and a rather too brief glimpse of the Niffler (who made the first film according to my wife). Now she is a massive fan of the Wizarding World and even she got bored and lost in the ridiculous plot. Her description (not mine as i enjoyed it) 'Its like the middle film of The Lord of The Ring Trilogy, pointless and nothing worth watching' unquote. All in all a big disappointment and to me its been stretched into five films because of the financial possibilities. Not worth buying for me.
The story was so convoluted and drawn out that half way through i almost fell asleep. Its got the wrong title for me as Grindlewald (Johnny Depp) is only in the film for about thirty minutes at the most. Its central character is a man who is trying to find out who he really is and so a rather thin plot then develops involving mythical creatures, characters from the first film and a rather too brief glimpse of the Niffler (who made the first film according to my wife). Now she is a massive fan of the Wizarding World and even she got bored and lost in the ridiculous plot. Her description (not mine as i enjoyed it) 'Its like the middle film of The Lord of The Ring Trilogy, pointless and nothing worth watching' unquote. All in all a big disappointment and to me its been stretched into five films because of the financial possibilities. Not worth buying for me.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Nov 22, 2018
Dull, boring & confused
I'll start by saying I've never been enamoured with the idea of the Fantastic Beasts films. For me, the wizarding world should have been left alone. The first film was enjoyable to a point (mainly because of Eddie Redmayne and the niffler), but this second film is inexcusable. And the fact that they're making another 3 more... totally unnecessary.
This film doesn't get off to a good start with the opening sequence, and rarely gets any better throughout the entire 2+ hour runtime. Some of the camera angles and shots used are terrible, jumping around all over the place even when it's just dialogue and the action scenes are virtually unwatchable. Whilst the effects are good, the plot is convoluted, confusing and just plain old boring. The majority of the film is just dialogue, and not well scripted dialogue at that and it gets very dull very quickly.
The characters that were likeable in the first film were either poorly used or turned into something completely different to what was likeable about them in the first place. There are far too many characters in this and even with the far too long run time, there isn't much time for character development. Johnny Depp is horrendous as Grindelwald. Not only because the character himself is the least menacing villain you've ever seen, but he's just not a very good actor anymore. I actually think his original incarnation as Colin Farrell in the first film would've been much better. I also couldn't figure out what crimes he had committed until the final act. The only person to come out of this film fairly intact was Jude Law, who played a likeable Dumbledore even if he wasn't on screen nearly enough. And really, it was only the creatures that made this worth watching and there just wasn't enough of them. Definitely not enough Niffler antics!
My main issue with this film is that it's messing with canon, bringing in characters we don't want to see and telling a story we don't need to hear. We didn't need to see Hogwarts, Dumbledore, McGonagall, Nagini and a few others I won't name. It's turning the wizarding world into a convoluted mess. They could have made a fairly decent standalone first Fantastic Beasts film that didn't link in with Grindelwald or the history at all, but instead they've made this nonsense.
And if I didn't think it could get any worse, the reveal of Credence's real identity right at the end nearly had me shouting at the screen it was that bad and ridiculous.
I probably could have walked out of this film after half an hour and not been bothered. Terrible.
This film doesn't get off to a good start with the opening sequence, and rarely gets any better throughout the entire 2+ hour runtime. Some of the camera angles and shots used are terrible, jumping around all over the place even when it's just dialogue and the action scenes are virtually unwatchable. Whilst the effects are good, the plot is convoluted, confusing and just plain old boring. The majority of the film is just dialogue, and not well scripted dialogue at that and it gets very dull very quickly.
The characters that were likeable in the first film were either poorly used or turned into something completely different to what was likeable about them in the first place. There are far too many characters in this and even with the far too long run time, there isn't much time for character development. Johnny Depp is horrendous as Grindelwald. Not only because the character himself is the least menacing villain you've ever seen, but he's just not a very good actor anymore. I actually think his original incarnation as Colin Farrell in the first film would've been much better. I also couldn't figure out what crimes he had committed until the final act. The only person to come out of this film fairly intact was Jude Law, who played a likeable Dumbledore even if he wasn't on screen nearly enough. And really, it was only the creatures that made this worth watching and there just wasn't enough of them. Definitely not enough Niffler antics!
My main issue with this film is that it's messing with canon, bringing in characters we don't want to see and telling a story we don't need to hear. We didn't need to see Hogwarts, Dumbledore, McGonagall, Nagini and a few others I won't name. It's turning the wizarding world into a convoluted mess. They could have made a fairly decent standalone first Fantastic Beasts film that didn't link in with Grindelwald or the history at all, but instead they've made this nonsense.
And if I didn't think it could get any worse, the reveal of Credence's real identity right at the end nearly had me shouting at the screen it was that bad and ridiculous.
I probably could have walked out of this film after half an hour and not been bothered. Terrible.
Erika (17788 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Nov 16, 2018 (Updated Nov 19, 2018)
Newt (2 more)
The beasts
Jude Law as Dumbledore
Johnny Depp (2 more)
Johnny Depp
and Johnny Depp
*After reading the screenplay, I'm knocking this rating down.
I am completely torn on this one, I liked some parts, but hated others. I also really can't stand Johnny Depp, and I rolled my eyes to myself every time he was on screen...
In my book, Jude Law was playing Richard Harris' Dumbledore, not... Michael Gambon (Don't even get me started on Gambon: 'Did you put your name in the goblet of fire, Harry?' Dumbledore asked CALMLY). So, it was a good way to go.
I did not like the way they went with some characters, namely one, who was rumored to go to Grindelwald's camp. Making a likeable character slightly deranged was irritating. There was a name drop at Hogwarts that had to have been a relative, unless the original character became an adult professor before she was technically born...
However, the possible recons that occurred didn't mess with canon as badly as that terrible Cursed Child mess.
It was largely predictable, and even the end, it was all foreshadowed, and not in a good way. The best bits were of Newt with the beasts... I liked Eddie Redmayne, as always, but can we please stop calling these movies Fantastic Beasts? 6 for him and the Niffler alone.
I wanted to largely stay away from a comparison, but I feel like Rowling is going the George Lucas route. And, that's not a compliment.
I am completely torn on this one, I liked some parts, but hated others. I also really can't stand Johnny Depp, and I rolled my eyes to myself every time he was on screen...
In my book, Jude Law was playing Richard Harris' Dumbledore, not... Michael Gambon (Don't even get me started on Gambon: 'Did you put your name in the goblet of fire, Harry?' Dumbledore asked CALMLY). So, it was a good way to go.
I did not like the way they went with some characters, namely one, who was rumored to go to Grindelwald's camp. Making a likeable character slightly deranged was irritating. There was a name drop at Hogwarts that had to have been a relative, unless the original character became an adult professor before she was technically born...
However, the possible recons that occurred didn't mess with canon as badly as that terrible Cursed Child mess.
It was largely predictable, and even the end, it was all foreshadowed, and not in a good way. The best bits were of Newt with the beasts... I liked Eddie Redmayne, as always, but can we please stop calling these movies Fantastic Beasts? 6 for him and the Niffler alone.
I wanted to largely stay away from a comparison, but I feel like Rowling is going the George Lucas route. And, that's not a compliment.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Marvelous Cash Cows and How to Milk Them.
As just about everyone in the whole muggle world (or nomaj world if you’re reading this in the States) knows, FBaWtFT is the first of a five film spin-off series from the Potter franchise, still under the careful stewardship of David Yates. (And if the other films in the series were ‘amber-lit’ rather than ‘green-lit’, their production now seems assured after the US opening weekend alone has brought in nearly half its $180 million budget).
Set in New York in the mid-1920’s Eddie Redmayne (“The Danish Girl”; “The Theory of Everything”) plays Newt Scamander, a Brit newly arrived with a case full of trouble. Newt is a bit like an amiable and ditsy David Attenborough, with a strong desire to protect and establish breeding colonies for endangered species. It’s fair to say though that these are creatures that even Sir David hasn’t yet filmed.
Within the battered old case (a forerunner of Hermione Grainger’s bag, which was probably borrowed from Mary Poppins), Newt stores a menagerie of strange and wonderful creatures which – after a bump and a mishap – get released by wannabe baker and muggle Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler, “Fanboys”). Newt has the job of rounding up the strays with the help of Tina (Katherine Waterston, “Steve Jobs”), an out of favour member of the Magical Congress of the USA (MACUSA). Unfortunately this couldn’t be happening at a worse time: something else – nothing to do with Newt – is wreaking havoc across New York and MACUSA is on red alert suspecting the involvement of a dark wizard, Gellert Grindelwald, following attacks in Europe. And keeping the secrets of wizardry from the NoMaj population is getting increasingly difficult, especially with the efforts of the “Second Salemers” movement run by Mary Lou (Samantha Morton, “Minority Report”) and her strange adopted family.
This film will obviously be an enormous success given the love of all things Potter, but is it any good? Well, its different for sure, being set many years before Potter and only having glancing references to Hogwarts and related matters. And that gives the opportunity to start afresh with new characters and new relationships which is refreshing. It’s all perfectly amiable, with Redmayne’s slightly embarrassed lack of eye-contact* in delivering his lines being charming. [* Is this perhaps the second leading character in a month that is high on the autistic spectrum?] . Redmayne does have a tendency to mutter though and (particularly with the sound system for the cinema I saw this in) this made a lot of his dialogue inaudible. Waterston makes for a charming if somewhat insipid heroine, not being given an awful lot to do in the action sequences.
Kowalski adds a humorous balance to the mixture, but the star comic turns are some of the creatures, especially the Niffler… a light fingered magpie-like creature with a voluminous pouch and expensive tastes!
In the ‘I-almost-know-who-that-is-behind-the-make-up-but-can’t-quite-place-him’ role is Ron “Hellboy” Perlman as the untrustworthy gangster Gnarlack. And in another cameo – and probably paid an enormous fee for his 30 seconds of screen time – is Johnny Depp, which was money well-wasted since, like most of his roles, he was completely unrecognisable (I only knew it was him from checking imdb afterwards).
At the pen is J.K.Rowling herself, and there are a few corking lines in the script. However, in common with many of her novels, there is also a tendency for extrapolation and padding. Some judicial editing could have knocked at least twenty minutes off its child-unfriendly 133 minute running time and made a better film. Undoubtedly the first half of the film is better than the second, with the finale slouching into – as my other half put it – “superhero” territory with much CGI destruction and smashing of glass. What is perhaps most surprising about the story is that there are few obvious set-ups for the next film.
Quirky and original, its a film that will no-doubt please Potter fans and it stands as a decent fantasy film in its own right. It’s difficult though to get the smell of big business and exploitation out of your nostrils: no doubt stockings throughout the world will be full of plush toy nifflers this Christmas.
Set in New York in the mid-1920’s Eddie Redmayne (“The Danish Girl”; “The Theory of Everything”) plays Newt Scamander, a Brit newly arrived with a case full of trouble. Newt is a bit like an amiable and ditsy David Attenborough, with a strong desire to protect and establish breeding colonies for endangered species. It’s fair to say though that these are creatures that even Sir David hasn’t yet filmed.
Within the battered old case (a forerunner of Hermione Grainger’s bag, which was probably borrowed from Mary Poppins), Newt stores a menagerie of strange and wonderful creatures which – after a bump and a mishap – get released by wannabe baker and muggle Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler, “Fanboys”). Newt has the job of rounding up the strays with the help of Tina (Katherine Waterston, “Steve Jobs”), an out of favour member of the Magical Congress of the USA (MACUSA). Unfortunately this couldn’t be happening at a worse time: something else – nothing to do with Newt – is wreaking havoc across New York and MACUSA is on red alert suspecting the involvement of a dark wizard, Gellert Grindelwald, following attacks in Europe. And keeping the secrets of wizardry from the NoMaj population is getting increasingly difficult, especially with the efforts of the “Second Salemers” movement run by Mary Lou (Samantha Morton, “Minority Report”) and her strange adopted family.
This film will obviously be an enormous success given the love of all things Potter, but is it any good? Well, its different for sure, being set many years before Potter and only having glancing references to Hogwarts and related matters. And that gives the opportunity to start afresh with new characters and new relationships which is refreshing. It’s all perfectly amiable, with Redmayne’s slightly embarrassed lack of eye-contact* in delivering his lines being charming. [* Is this perhaps the second leading character in a month that is high on the autistic spectrum?] . Redmayne does have a tendency to mutter though and (particularly with the sound system for the cinema I saw this in) this made a lot of his dialogue inaudible. Waterston makes for a charming if somewhat insipid heroine, not being given an awful lot to do in the action sequences.
Kowalski adds a humorous balance to the mixture, but the star comic turns are some of the creatures, especially the Niffler… a light fingered magpie-like creature with a voluminous pouch and expensive tastes!
In the ‘I-almost-know-who-that-is-behind-the-make-up-but-can’t-quite-place-him’ role is Ron “Hellboy” Perlman as the untrustworthy gangster Gnarlack. And in another cameo – and probably paid an enormous fee for his 30 seconds of screen time – is Johnny Depp, which was money well-wasted since, like most of his roles, he was completely unrecognisable (I only knew it was him from checking imdb afterwards).
At the pen is J.K.Rowling herself, and there are a few corking lines in the script. However, in common with many of her novels, there is also a tendency for extrapolation and padding. Some judicial editing could have knocked at least twenty minutes off its child-unfriendly 133 minute running time and made a better film. Undoubtedly the first half of the film is better than the second, with the finale slouching into – as my other half put it – “superhero” territory with much CGI destruction and smashing of glass. What is perhaps most surprising about the story is that there are few obvious set-ups for the next film.
Quirky and original, its a film that will no-doubt please Potter fans and it stands as a decent fantasy film in its own right. It’s difficult though to get the smell of big business and exploitation out of your nostrils: no doubt stockings throughout the world will be full of plush toy nifflers this Christmas.