Inside Universal Forums

Welcome to the Inside Universal Forums! Register a free account today to become a member. Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members and unlock our forums features!

  • Signing up for a Premium Membership is a donation to help Inside Universal maintain costs and offers an ad-free experience on the forum. Learn more about it here.

Fantastic Beasts - Crimes of Grindelwald

I don't think it's fair to group every critic. That said, I always check to see what others say, acknowledge it; and then drop any and all expectations and words from people when I enter a movie theater.

It's how Pets & Fantastic Beasts turned out as for me, fantastic films from 2016.
 
Its 2018 and we have people making the case that is is better to spend money blindly on something they like because they think they know better than people who are professional reviewers. This is the entertainment version of anti vaxxers. Grouping all critics as pathetic while cherry picking examples is nonintellectual nonsense.
So I “blindly spend money on something” I “like”, “blindly” you say? Slightly confused that I can be blinded by my own feelings for what I like and don’t like.

What is the better option then? Oh I know to “blindly” spend money on what someone else tells me that they like? “Eureka”, thats what I should like. That’s right now I get it. I don’t know what I like I need to be told by someone else who feels they know better.

As for my example as being cherry picked. No, I can give hundreds but choose to not fill this board with it. I chose the example that I felt would be easily relatable with the audience at hand.

Look I didn't mean to classify all critics unjustly and for that I will apologize. Now with that said I stand by my previous statement but with an asterisk by critics(general) as I should have just said the majority of critics.
 
Last edited:
3unu8hmqh4v11.jpg


The Chinese poster for this film is one of the most pretty things I've seen in a long time.

I want this as my wallpaper.
 
Man, I have a feeling this movie will be trash, like the first one. The first one was all over the place. Now reviews rolling in, it’s looking like it. I’ll still watch it but it’s not looking good imo.
 
Caught an advance screening last night. I'll put my thoughts in a spoiler tag, although what I've written doesn't give away anything huge.
Def all over the place, but I really enjoyed it nonetheless. Have one huge character issue regarding their actions/choices. The cliffhanger was cool and unexpected. Caught myself saying "wtf" after the end haha. Jude Law is a good Dumbledore. As mysterious a character with hidden agendas/motivations as the og film series. A lot darker than first FB. Still some funny moments including one line reading from Dan Fogler that got the entire theater howling. Nagini only really served as emotional support to Credence so not really sure if her character was needed quite yet.

Concerning critics, I understand where some of the criticism is coming from. There are certain points in the movie I couldn't quite follow, as again, a lot of the film was bouncing around to too many threads/characters. I don't automatically label critics "shills" or "haters" as either way they fall often have good points. I leave my preconceptions at the door. I usually take rotten tomatoes scores as percent chance of how much I'll like a movie. I have to see it again to see if I like it more than the first one. Right now it's about same. I think a second watch might clear up some confusion I had while watching it.
 
Last edited:
Criticism is criticism. Critics are sometimes going to agree with you, sometimes they’re not. It’s okay to like something critics don’t. And if that’s the case, it doesn’t make them haters or shills
And in this case, I definitely did like it a lot. I do have questions/issues, but overall it didn't affect my enjoyment of the movie.
 
I dont always trust professional critics and rotten tomatoes.

But i trust some of the most honest guys that do reviews on youtube.

Chris stuckman is a favorite of mine. I trust him in his reviews.
Hes a movie nerd just like me. Hes not jaded or cynical or arrogant like a lot of professional big time critics.
Hes just a normal guy that loves movies like the rest of us.

And he really didnt like this one. Really really didnt like it.
Im saving my money and skipping this movie. I trust chris' review. Hes always on point. Hes a humble reviewer. Hes never nasty about disliking a movie.

Jeremy Jahns also doesnt like it. That to me is an automatic skip. Thats two for two. Hes really nice and down.to earth too
 
6.5/10 and that may be generous. The movie isn't THAT bad, but when it's bad... it's bad.

Grindelwald is the villain because we're told he is, and we know he's the villain based on the original series telling us he was; but in the film, he never really comes across villainous, outside of that one scene of getting a hideout. "Crimes of" also a bad title upon viewing. Maybe "Rise of" would've fit better.

The twist... Oh man, the twist. My wife and I looked at each other with rolling eyes when the line dropped.

Really felt they were going for their Empire moment here. There's no way to win going forward. The most obvious resolution, based on the knowledge we know, is that it will be a Grindelwald manipulation, which will prove the cliffhanger pointless. If they stick with their guns, they ignore established facts just to force a twist.

Also, Queenie's actions were dealt with very ham-handed. She went heel because she wants to be with Jacob without persecution, but still ends up ditching Jacob anyway because it "makes sense"? I don't know.... It makes sense, but also doesn't...

Neat little references throughout, though. Law as Dumbledore is great, and Redmayne as Newt is charming. Tina was handled pretty poorly, all things considered. When the Beasts are involved, it's "fantastic" (Get it!). Otherwise, the movie is pretty slow with a very anti-climatic final "battle". Echoing others, the movie felt like a stepping stone instead of a building block with some convenient story progression - and other than shared characters, it doesn't feel entirely connected to the first film at all. It may be time to switch directors.

Nifflers hella cute doe.
 
6.5/10 and that may be generous. The movie isn't THAT bad, but when it's bad... it's bad.

Grindelwald is the villain because we're told he is, and we know he's the villain based on the original series telling us he was; but in the film, he never really comes across villainous, outside of that one scene of getting a hideout. "Crimes of" also a bad title upon viewing. Maybe "Rise of" would've fit better.

The twist... Oh man, the twist. My wife and I looked at each other with rolling eyes when the line dropped.

Really felt they were going for their Empire moment here. There's no way to win going forward. The most obvious resolution, based on the knowledge we know, is that it will be a Grindelwald manipulation, which will prove the cliffhanger pointless. If they stick with their guns, they ignore established facts just to force a twist.

Also, Queenie's actions were dealt with very ham-handed. She went heel because she wants to be with Jacob without persecution, but still ends up ditching Jacob anyway because it "makes sense"? I don't know.... It makes sense, but also doesn't...

Neat little references throughout, though. Law as Dumbledore is great, and Redmayne as Newt is charming. Tina was handled pretty poorly, all things considered. When the Beasts are involved, it's "fantastic" (Get it!). Otherwise, the movie is pretty slow with a very anti-climatic final "battle". Echoing others, the movie felt like a stepping stone instead of a building block with some convenient story progression - and other than shared characters, it doesn't feel entirely connected to the first film at all. It may be time to switch directors.

Nifflers hella cute doe.

That's pretty much how I scored it. The movie was entertaining and I liked it, but at the same time, it forgot to be fun as well.

I'm wondering if this will actually get the full 5 movies that they committed to or if this movie falls short of financial expectations, will they decide to wrap things up in the next movie and just do a trilogy?

As I was exiting the theater, I realized that the movie is a lot better if you look at as the second film in a trilogy rather than a five-film saga. It feels like "Dead Man's Chest" in that it's mostly set-up for the upcoming clashes. They could (and should) so easily wrap everything up with one more movie.
 
6.5/10 and that may be generous. The movie isn't THAT bad, but when it's bad... it's bad.

Grindelwald is the villain because we're told he is, and we know he's the villain based on the original series telling us he was; but in the film, he never really comes across villainous, outside of that one scene of getting a hideout. "Crimes of" also a bad title upon viewing. Maybe "Rise of" would've fit better.

Not the first person I've seen say this, and I admit he's more Manson than Lechter, but ...

He straight-up murders or orders the murders of a MoM agent, the guard who helped him escape, the family whose house he steals--including their toddler!--and another one of his henchmen. Tried to murder a bunch of aurors and annihilate the city of Paris (which, if anything, was too on the nose for me). And an iguana. Also, his "Make Purebloods great again" rhetoric is obviously meant to echo the fascist politics of the era.
 
Def all over the place, but I really enjoyed it nonetheless. Have one huge character issue regarding their actions/choices. The cliffhanger was cool and unexpected. Caught myself saying "wtf" after the end haha. Jude Law is a good Dumbledore. As mysterious a character with hidden agendas/motivations as the og film series. A lot darker than first FB. Still some funny moments including one line reading from Jared Fogle that got the entire theater howling. Nagini only really served as emotional support to Credence so not really sure if her character was needed quite yet.

Now THAT would have been an interesting casting choice! :lol:
 
I dont always trust professional critics and rotten tomatoes.

But i trust some of the most honest guys that do reviews on youtube.

Chris stuckman is a favorite of mine. I trust him in his reviews.
Hes a movie nerd just like me. Hes not jaded or cynical or arrogant like a lot of professional big time critics.
Hes just a normal guy that loves movies like the rest of us.

And he really didnt like this one. Really really didnt like it.
Im saving my money and skipping this movie. I trust chris' review. Hes always on point. Hes a humble reviewer. Hes never nasty about disliking a movie.

Jeremy Jahns also doesnt like it. That to me is an automatic skip. Thats two for two. Hes really nice and down.to earth too

I'm a big fan of Chris as well. Definitely one of the more positive critics. YMS is easily the toughest YouTube critic to please, though I like him too.
 
I'm a big fan of Chris as well. Definitely one of the more positive critics. YMS is easily the toughest YouTube critic to please, though I like him too.

YMS cringed me out too much from his personal life drama and some of the edgy and disturbing lifestyle stuff he has said on reddit. his videos were hard in the critiques but he was funny, i liked his walking dead analysis . but the more i learned about him from the comments and the more i saw his opinions outside of youtube it make me cringe too much and swear him off forever. i cant watch him anymore lol , im too disturbed
 
Top