FA+
Shop
Fantastic Beasts 2: The Crimes of Grindelwald
7 years ago
i'm once again ripping off 
Kanada. Blah blah blah, smelly smelly smelly, also movies.
I'm going to say that if you weren't a fan of the first Fantastic Beasts movie, or harry Potter in general, skip this. If you don't know anything about Harry Potter, you're going to be confused as fuck.
Even if you do know a bit, you still might be somewhat confused - since you will have to remember some of the past things.
btw, why're they still calling it Fantastic Beasts? The first movie's plot actually had Fantastic Beasts involved to a minimal extent. This one... well, there's really only one. (Two if you include Nagini, which really isn't fair considering she's still a human being.)
What I liked:
* Well, some nice effects.
* Surprisingly, not a lot of battling here. It's all setting up plot and foreshadowing.
* Some of the humour
* I genuinely like Newt. He's not this badass superhero who is destined to defeat Grindelwald (That's Dumbledore's job anyway) or the typical hero - he's an empathetic hero. He's a caring hero.
* Grindelwald himself is not the typical "Look at me I'm Hitler". I dare say he's better written than Voldemort. He explains his reasons for doing what he does. These are spoilers (1927 though, do the math.)
* One subplot actually does have an explanation for why they couldn't just talk with one another - because the characters were wrong. FINALLY.
* I genuinely didn't see the ending twist coming.
* I do love how Newt on occasion weaponises the fantastic beasts.... but only when he's sure they won't be harmed. See, Newt technically could pull a H'aanit and just sic the fantastic beasts on his enemies, but he cares too much ABOUT the Fantastic Beasts. This is in fact something he SHOWS - not TELLS the audience. He doesn't send a bunch of feral animals to smash the wizards in his way, because they would realistically get hurt.
What I didn't like:
* PICK A PLOTLINE!! The first half of the movie is jumping around to various scenes of characters in different places, sometimes even in the past.
* OH NO DID WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT EYE SCREAM SCENE?! EW! EW EWEWEWEW! NO!
* Once again, a few plotlines can be solved if someone just... spoke. Of course, we all know which one I'm talking about.... and why they're probably reluctant to speak about it. But can't he just give an excuse beyond a non-answer? I'd be pissed too if I were in a certain character's shoes during that one scene.
* Why the dramatic cut to someone we haven't met and try to play it off as drama?
* So... are obscurials like, resistant to magic or something?
* poor Modesty. Fell into a plothole.
* Is it just me, or does Newt sound more.... wooden? Like, did they hear people think Newt might be autistic and tell his actor to not look at peoples' faces and speak somewaht flatly? AtLeAST he-doesn't-sound Like THE guy FROM the GOODDOCTOR.
* Uh, Rowling? This movie is set in 1927. Why's McGonagall there? Is this like, McGonngall Sr? Because according to your site, she wasn't born yet. Oops.
This really is movie for fans of the Wizarding World. Plain and simple. If you're not in that category, you might want to skip this. If you haven't seen the first Fantastic Beasts movie, skip it - you will understand absolutely nothing. This is to be expected from a series with an intertwined myth arc like this, even moreso than the series it spun off from. (The first three or so novels are relatively standalone with only minimal contributions to the main plot.)
Kanada. Blah blah blah, smelly smelly smelly, also movies.I'm going to say that if you weren't a fan of the first Fantastic Beasts movie, or harry Potter in general, skip this. If you don't know anything about Harry Potter, you're going to be confused as fuck.
Even if you do know a bit, you still might be somewhat confused - since you will have to remember some of the past things.
btw, why're they still calling it Fantastic Beasts? The first movie's plot actually had Fantastic Beasts involved to a minimal extent. This one... well, there's really only one. (Two if you include Nagini, which really isn't fair considering she's still a human being.)
What I liked:
* Well, some nice effects.
* Surprisingly, not a lot of battling here. It's all setting up plot and foreshadowing.
* Some of the humour
* I genuinely like Newt. He's not this badass superhero who is destined to defeat Grindelwald (That's Dumbledore's job anyway) or the typical hero - he's an empathetic hero. He's a caring hero.
* Grindelwald himself is not the typical "Look at me I'm Hitler". I dare say he's better written than Voldemort. He explains his reasons for doing what he does. These are spoilers (1927 though, do the math.)
* One subplot actually does have an explanation for why they couldn't just talk with one another - because the characters were wrong. FINALLY.
* I genuinely didn't see the ending twist coming.
* I do love how Newt on occasion weaponises the fantastic beasts.... but only when he's sure they won't be harmed. See, Newt technically could pull a H'aanit and just sic the fantastic beasts on his enemies, but he cares too much ABOUT the Fantastic Beasts. This is in fact something he SHOWS - not TELLS the audience. He doesn't send a bunch of feral animals to smash the wizards in his way, because they would realistically get hurt.
What I didn't like:
* PICK A PLOTLINE!! The first half of the movie is jumping around to various scenes of characters in different places, sometimes even in the past.
* OH NO DID WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT EYE SCREAM SCENE?! EW! EW EWEWEWEW! NO!
* Once again, a few plotlines can be solved if someone just... spoke. Of course, we all know which one I'm talking about.... and why they're probably reluctant to speak about it. But can't he just give an excuse beyond a non-answer? I'd be pissed too if I were in a certain character's shoes during that one scene.
* Why the dramatic cut to someone we haven't met and try to play it off as drama?
* So... are obscurials like, resistant to magic or something?
* poor Modesty. Fell into a plothole.
* Is it just me, or does Newt sound more.... wooden? Like, did they hear people think Newt might be autistic and tell his actor to not look at peoples' faces and speak somewaht flatly? AtLeAST he-doesn't-sound Like THE guy FROM the GOODDOCTOR.
* Uh, Rowling? This movie is set in 1927. Why's McGonagall there? Is this like, McGonngall Sr? Because according to your site, she wasn't born yet. Oops.
This really is movie for fans of the Wizarding World. Plain and simple. If you're not in that category, you might want to skip this. If you haven't seen the first Fantastic Beasts movie, skip it - you will understand absolutely nothing. This is to be expected from a series with an intertwined myth arc like this, even moreso than the series it spun off from. (The first three or so novels are relatively standalone with only minimal contributions to the main plot.)
