You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
majaingrid 's review for:
This is sort of a review of both the screenplay book and the movie.
Actual rating 3,5 stars but bumping it up because a Niffler (the true hero) managed to steal Grindelwald's most important possession from Grindelwald himself.
While I loved the movie, and in extention, the screenplay, it’s still flawed with inconsistencies, bad pacing, very little vital plot happening, Nagini, Mcgonagall, the representation of Dumbledore and Grindelwald’s relationship, etc. The movies could be better if two things: Rowling wrote them as actual books and not screenplays, and she respected the lore of her own universe. Not that she actually done it for a long time, but still.
But I’m in it for the movies for two things and two things only: Magical creatures (I just love all the magical creatures in these movies and I NEED a Niffler) and Newt (he is the most precious little bean and Eddie Redmayne is FANTASTIC in the role as him). And for this movie I was also in it for Jude Law as Dumbledore.
Imagine Jude Law in old Dumbledore’s robes. It’s amazing, right?
Also, I love all the magical creatures, have I said that yet?
I’m not going to dwell too much on Dumbledore’s and Grindelwald’s relationship. Most we got was “closer than brothers” and the blood oath that keeps them from attacking each other. We’ve had one movie about it. there’s three more coming. Three more where Rowling listens to us and make good representation.
Also, I’m not that mad at Queenie for doing what she did, as many others are. But it could have been better handled for sure. Her casting a spell on Jacob was very wrong and very cringe-y and rape-y. I’m not going to defend her for that. But all her actions are coming from a good place in her heart. She wants a world where she can be accepted for what she is, and having her love for Jacob accepted. She didn’t see good in the current world for herself and Jacob but in Grindelwald’s speech she heard about a world she wanted. She was manipulated into joining him. Also, not being able to hear his or some of his followers’ thoughts must alone feel like freedom to her, what with being constantly assaulted by people’s thoughts.
And I’ve seen a few complaints about Nicholas Flamel? Honestly, he was a joy in the movie and super precious.
I felt like having Nagini in the movie and giving her a backstory as a human woman felt so so so unnecessary. It also makes Nagini and Voldemort later on in HP biiiiiiiit problematic, even though she was his most precious. Still problematic. They could just have a role for a Korean woman be anything but Voldemort’s snake. Let her be cursed, fine. Let her be an animagus, also fine. Anything. But Nagini was the last thing the HP-fandom wanted backstory for.
Also, McGonagall? Why was she there? She wasn’t even born at the time these movies take place. I first thought it was a relative, even though this McGonagall acted very much like our McGonagall. But the screenplay says it is Minerva McGonagall. If it was just for nostalgia, it was a bad move. If it was a mistake, it was a bad one and should have been spotted. Maybe there's a solid reason, maybe a stupid one.
It's also glaringly obvious that Grindelwald is lying to Credence about him being Dumbledore's brother. First, Credence if of some kind of important birth, and he wants somebody to kill Dumbledore, since Grindelwald can't do it himself. Second, this is very important. BOTH of Dumbledore's parents, both his wizard father, and muggle mother had DIED before Credence was born. I couldn't find it on the Pottermore site but the the fandom WIKIA page states that the father, Percival, died in Azkaban somewhere after 1890 and the mother died in 1899 and that Credence was born 1901.
Actual rating 3,5 stars but bumping it up because a Niffler (the true hero) managed to steal Grindelwald's most important possession from Grindelwald himself.
While I loved the movie, and in extention, the screenplay, it’s still flawed with inconsistencies, bad pacing, very little vital plot happening, Nagini, Mcgonagall, the representation of Dumbledore and Grindelwald’s relationship, etc. The movies could be better if two things: Rowling wrote them as actual books and not screenplays, and she respected the lore of her own universe. Not that she actually done it for a long time, but still.
But I’m in it for the movies for two things and two things only: Magical creatures (I just love all the magical creatures in these movies and I NEED a Niffler) and Newt (he is the most precious little bean and Eddie Redmayne is FANTASTIC in the role as him). And for this movie I was also in it for Jude Law as Dumbledore.
Imagine Jude Law in old Dumbledore’s robes. It’s amazing, right?
Also, I love all the magical creatures, have I said that yet?
I’m not going to dwell too much on Dumbledore’s and Grindelwald’s relationship. Most we got was “closer than brothers” and the blood oath that keeps them from attacking each other. We’ve had one movie about it. there’s three more coming. Three more where Rowling listens to us and make good representation.
Also, I’m not that mad at Queenie for doing what she did, as many others are. But it could have been better handled for sure. Her casting a spell on Jacob was very wrong and very cringe-y and rape-y. I’m not going to defend her for that. But all her actions are coming from a good place in her heart. She wants a world where she can be accepted for what she is, and having her love for Jacob accepted. She didn’t see good in the current world for herself and Jacob but in Grindelwald’s speech she heard about a world she wanted. She was manipulated into joining him. Also, not being able to hear his or some of his followers’ thoughts must alone feel like freedom to her, what with being constantly assaulted by people’s thoughts.
And I’ve seen a few complaints about Nicholas Flamel? Honestly, he was a joy in the movie and super precious.
I felt like having Nagini in the movie and giving her a backstory as a human woman felt so so so unnecessary. It also makes Nagini and Voldemort later on in HP biiiiiiiit problematic, even though she was his most precious. Still problematic. They could just have a role for a Korean woman be anything but Voldemort’s snake. Let her be cursed, fine. Let her be an animagus, also fine. Anything. But Nagini was the last thing the HP-fandom wanted backstory for.
Also, McGonagall? Why was she there? She wasn’t even born at the time these movies take place. I first thought it was a relative, even though this McGonagall acted very much like our McGonagall. But the screenplay says it is Minerva McGonagall. If it was just for nostalgia, it was a bad move. If it was a mistake, it was a bad one and should have been spotted. Maybe there's a solid reason, maybe a stupid one.
It's also glaringly obvious that Grindelwald is lying to Credence about him being Dumbledore's brother. First, Credence if of some kind of important birth, and he wants somebody to kill Dumbledore, since Grindelwald can't do it himself. Second, this is very important. BOTH of Dumbledore's parents, both his wizard father, and muggle mother had DIED before Credence was born. I couldn't find it on the Pottermore site but the the fandom WIKIA page states that the father, Percival, died in Azkaban somewhere after 1890 and the mother died in 1899 and that Credence was born 1901.