.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Will 2,215]

Terrific review @BloodBoal. I don't necessarily agree with everything you say, but I agree with a lot of it, and it's just a great read. Thanks for sharing. 

 

I would agree that Depp's Grindelwald is not nearly as effective as Farrell's Graves. First, Farrell was an awesome villain. He radiated this coolness, and his wand strikes were trailer-eye-candy material. Granted, we've only seen two scenes with the "real" Grindelwald, only one of which shows more than the back of his head, but he comes across as almost comedic, and the change in appearance unfortunately has the effect of disassociating "real" Grindelwald with all the bad things Graves did. In other words, we can't really fear the character. Fortunately, Rowling nearly saves the scene with one line of dialogue, Grindelwald's parting, "Will we die, just a little?" It's deliciously mysterious and poetic, and somewhat ominous. Something to chew on till 2018. 

 

The subject I'll discuss next was hinted at in the film, and a deleted scene from the ending would have completely revealed it, according to the filmmakers in an interview, but the filmmakers evidently decided to wait till the next one so I'll put this as a spoiler:

 

Spoiler

I also wonder if Credence's survival (you may have noticed the one black wisp that escapes the tunnel), confirmed in a deleted scene showing him boarding a ship at the end of the film, according to the filmmakers in an interview, was handled badly. On one hand, it's hinted that he survives, and the filmmakers confirmed it, so it won't exactly be the biggest surprise next time around. On the other, general audiences probably think he died and might be really surprised and feel like this was totally sprung on them with no plot set up. Not sure how they should have handled it but something seems a little weird about how it worked out. 

 

I can also definitely back up your position on Grindelwald not being a well-known character. My sister has read every book many times and seen every movie multiple times, and all she said was, "Didn't he have the Elder Wand at some point?" She was right, of course, but that's all she remembered. 

 

I literally did not remember the character at all until I started reading the pre-film buzz, even though I've read all the books and seen all the movies (granted, it was longer ago though). 

 

I loved the main cast as well, Tina especially. 

 

I know this wasn't mentioned in this review, but I believe @mrbellamy has complained about how we don't seem much of the Blind Pig. I completely agree. Terrible waste of an awesome location. 

 

I don't really care about the more "glaring plot holes" Blood Boal mentioned, I will say. In fact, some of them I didn't even notice (e.g. the rain one). 

[mrbellamy 6,272]

1 hour ago, BloodBoal said:

Add to that a few glaring plot holes (like for example: the obliviate potion (or whatever that was) is supposed to be be contained in the rain, right? It is confirmed by the fact Jacob has to go out of the subway to forget everything, but then all the New-Yorkers who were indoors forget about the event too, as shown by the montage. So what the fuck? 

 

My impression was that it was getting into the water system as well (the people indoors that they show are drinking water, taking a shower etc.) so I guess for the rest of the day anybody who drank from the tap, washed their hands or whatever would be affected by it? Ultimately I think it's just a nice excuse for a magical-musical montage to show off the Thunderbird soaring around NYC, and to set up the rain as a backdrop for the goodbye. Set the mood and I appreciated that it gave Jacob a choice to step outside, as opposed to just watching them cast a spell on him. It allowed him to really own that moment.

[Will 2,215]

Just now, mrbellamy said:

 

My impression was that it was getting into the water system as well (the people indoors that they show are drinking water, taking a shower etc.) so I guess for the rest of the day anybody who drank from the tap, washed their hands or whatever would be affected by it? Ultimately I think it's just a nice excuse for a magical-musical montage to show off the Thunderbird soaring around NYC, and to set up the rain as a backdrop for the goodbye. Set the mood and I appreciated that it gave Jacob a choice to step outside, as opposed to just watching them cast a spell on him. It allowed him to really own that moment.

 

Ah, that water justification makes sense. I didn't even notice it as a plot hole in the first place, though, to be honest.

 

Yes, that was a glorious scene. 

[publicist 4,643]

It's not a movie i followed thoroughly but one thing i really noticed was the almost total lack of dramatic shape: things just happened, happened then for too long and then the next thing came along - worse, they lingered for minutes on insubstantial chase scenes of cuddly beasts whereas important scenes with storytelling potential just died on the spot. It might be the result of studio meddling or just the plain fact that they gave Rowling too much of a free hand (the rain scene was a great example of undeserved pathos that should get her every scribal license revoked she may have). The actors struggled manfully, though.

 

The dementor-like creature (the Creedence character) was another total let-down: a talented filmmaker has the gift of imagining cinematically sound solutions for i. e. monsters, frights, apparitions and so on; just imagine Spielberg offering you 10 climax minutes of a terrifying energetic force out the wizard world by just panning through streets imposing a torn kind-of shapeless black mist digitally left and right that has no gravitas whatsoever. It's unbelievably lame in concept and execution but may very well have cost 10 million $. 

 

All in all i would settle for 4 or 4.5 on this one (out of 10, thank u).

[Arpy 4,145]

34 minutes ago, publicist said:

It's not a movie i followed thoroughly but one thing i really noticed was the almost total lack of dramatic shape: things just happened, happened then for too long and then the next thing came along - worse, they lingered for minutes on insubstantial chase scenes of cuddly beasts whereas important scenes with storytelling potential just died on the spot. It might be the result of studio meddling or just the plain fact that they gave Rowling too much of a free hand (the rain scene was a great example of undeserved pathos that should get her every scribal license revoked she may have). The actors struggled manfully, though.

 

I felt the same thing; there wasn't a dramatic ebb and flow, or development in the form of a story arc, it felt episodic within itself and not as a story where urgency and immediacy are driving things. 

 

Sadly, the film had a focus at times on the beasts, but the film strayed so far away from the film's namesake that it almost reminded me what poor Bilbo was subjected to in The Hobbit.

[KK 3,307]

36 minutes ago, publicist said:

The dementor-like creature (the Creedence character) was another total let-down: a talented filmmaker has the gift of imagining cinematically sound solutions for i. e. monsters, frights, apparitions and so on; just imagine Spielberg offering you 10 climax minutes of a terrifying energetic force out the wizard world by just panning through streets imposing a torn kind-of shapeless black mist digitally left and right that has no gravitas whatsoever. It's unbelievably lame in concept and execution but may very well have cost 10 million $. 

 

All in all i would settle for 4 or 4.5 on this one (out of 10, thank u).

 

Indeed. You know you have a narrative problem when your main villain/antagonist is basically a mysterious dark gaseous form that kills people... It seems to be Hollywood's "go-to" solution these days (Suicide Squad, Sauron in Hobbit films).

 

Also, for a wizard who's supposed to have been more powerful than Voldemort himself, Grindlewald sure seems to have gotten caught easily, with what might be one of the most half-baked plans I've seen in a while.

 

The film's visuals were largely uninspired, and the narrative events happen with little dramatic flair arc, jumping from one storyline to the next with no focus on any one in particular. Basically the four central protagonists are just about the only appealing/entertaining aspect of it all. 

 

Really, there's very little setting this apart from your typical, mind-numbing, modern Hollywood fare. The only reason it's getting as much love, attention and "reviews" is because of the franchise it's attached to.

[A24 4,327]

9 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

 

Rating: normally, this should be a 6/10 or 6.5/10, but since I'm in a good mood, I'll give it a 7/10

 

 

 

You're too critical. Modern audiences rate it a 7.9/10

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[publicist 4,643]

I'm 100% happy that JNH came out of this smelling like roses and that's enough for me (and for potential sequels). Also, it isn't a requirement to create something 'new' but in reverse, to better adhere to traditional storytelling qualities. These blockbuster movies are (almost) uniformly overlong and feel badly plotted. 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

But it's the complexity man, the mindblowing way Rowling builds her plot and foreshadows events to happen in subsequent films! You can't judge the story of this film until after you have seen all 5 that are planned!

 

It's completely useless to have any opinion on it whatsoever for the next 5 to seven years!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[KK 3,307]

9 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

You could say that about most big movies coming out these days, including stuff like The Force Awakens, The Hobbit... Basically all the sequels from beloved franchises that don't really offer anything new or substantial. But in this case, I think you're being a bit harsh with this film. It's not a mindblowing film and it doesn't deserve all the praise it got from Potter fans and others, but it's also not as awful as you make it sound. There is some worth to it. For example, I do like the fact they're trying to offer something quite different than what we got in the Potter films: a new setting, new rules, adult characters (instead of teens), a story that doesn't follow the same structure, etc... Unlike most sequels, the movie does try to do something different with the universe instead of relying on what was established in the previous films. It may not work flawlessly, but it should be commended nonetheless.

 

I'm not quite sure about the sequels, though. Don't know where this could go...

 

You're right. It's not total shit. It's just more of your modern fantasy fare, a la Percy Jackson, Pan ,etc. But whereas those movies get forgotten shortly after they're seen, this will be held on a pedestal of sorts and hailed as some kind of "event" because of the franchise it's attached to. And you're right about TFA being of the same breed, but at least that boasted handsome production values in its favour. Fantastic Beasts may be different from the Potter films, and it's fun to see some new world-building, but it's not so different from everything else out there in Hollywood. 

 

And 4 more films of this, with Johnny Depp running around doing his thing...doesn't sound so promising!

 

[Bilbo 3,709]

5 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

You know, I just thought of a small script change that could have made the story feel more straightforward instead of being three-four plots loosely connected together: instead of having Newt come to America to bring back the Thunderbird to Arizona and the Obscurus incident happening at the same moment by sheer coincidence, have Newt come to New-York because he's heard of strange events happening in the city, and thinking an Obscurus might be behind all that, thus making him want to capture him. The rest of the story could unfold in the same way, but at least the last act of the film wouldn't feel like coming a bit out of nowhere with the characters suddenly finding themselves involved in the Obscurus case by accident. Instead, it would feel like a logical continuation of everything that came prior to that. You could also add just a few lines of dialogue with characters wondering if Grindelwald could be responsible for these strange events, and you're good to go.

 

I agree that this would improve this film. 

 

 

But I'm pretty sure it's going to be revealed in the next film that Newt was sent to New York but Dumbledore for a reason.  I don't think that's something that has to be explained in this movie for it to work though. 

 

It's a bit like during the Hobbit it was all "all will be revealed in the next films!" But Rowling is better than PJ at this sort of thing. 

 

Of course if I'm wrong and it turns out Newt was there by coincidence then yeah, fair enough.

 

 

Overall though, I agree with your review and 7/10 is probably a fair assessment. 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Bilbo 3,709]

Well you didn't actually think I thought it was a 10 out of 10 film? 

 

Nope, it was a flawed but very fun film. It had heart which I think is missing from modern blockbusters, had a relatable lead, and it's part of a franchise that I adore so thatbwas always going to inflate my love for it. 

 

 

Plus Nifflers. 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[KK 3,307]

Still not entirely convinced on the matter of "heart". But it's protagonists are more appealing than the usual slim pickings.