TheBigYawn

I agree. Enough with the two parters now. Audiences and especially critics are sick of bridge movies (that's saved for television nowadays). Some critics even complained SoD felt like a bridge movie. I don't agree, they tried to tie up loose ends, but obviously the legendary duel between Dumbledore and Grindelwald remains. And the way this movie ended with

I think the word of mouth will be decent, but nothing so far indicates it will get amazing legs like the newest Spider-Man movie for example. Also it's not really an action heavy movie which could work against it. Sadly, I might add, because personally I liked how this one was more slow burn in building tension compared to the first two FB movies. It was a lot more interesting than seeing some black mass causing destruction in New York or some wizards trying to put out a blue fire dragon.

300M in total is being generous?! Unless I read you wrong and you actually mean 420M, which is a better estimation. Myself I'd say somewhere around 450M.

I hope it's not about saving the world again if they decide to tell more stories after FB because it's nearly impossible to top Voldemort and Grindelwald as big baddies wanting world dominance. Keep the stakes lower, yet personal for the main characters.

There is a sequence in SoD done in that style and tone, and it was just fun and thrilling. It made me realize that the film (as well as Potter in general) truly shines when it's about adventures and mysteries along with some character moments here and there, as opposed to world politics where it falls apart a bit in its simplicity.

I can't bother keeping up with your history with another user. I addressed a few points about the movie which were not entirely correct. That's nothing personal, it's just stating facts.

Have you even seen the movie yourself? I have and it's a lot more than a couple of lines. Are they gonna edit out the implications from the action scenes too? As a digression I heard gasps from a person in my theater when Dumbledore proclaimed he had been in love with Grindelwald. I think that goes to show that we need more queer romance in movies like this to normalize it, so you should encourage more movies to follow lead rather than making fun of this one for "not doing enough". However why should they do more? The point is not to... erm make a point out of someone being gay, but to feature a gay romance and not let that be the only defining trait of a character.

I think casual fans will enjoy it a lot too because it's quite easy to follow and has a good genre mix of adventure, comedy and drama.

Just saw it. It was a charming movie, surprisingly well-balanced tonally and at times quite thrilling. There are certainly some plot elements one can nitpick about, an opportunity many critics surely have taken advantage of, and maybe the film could've been more nuanced with its political plot. However for true Harry Potter fans there are loads of easter eggs to appreciate. And more importantly as a heartfelt family adventure it delivers because it's not really trying to tell something deep about politics, but that's mostly a premise/setting to ground and contrast the classical thematics of good vs evil, greed vs generosity, love vs hate and ultimately right vs easy choices. Me and my siblings (we are all in our 20s) enjoyed it a lot for what it is. It's the best Beast movie so far IMHO and you can tell Yates and co really gave their everything to bring the scenes, creatures, magic and characters to life. Some stiff blocking aside in certain crowd scenes (really a nitpick), Yates can walk away from the Wizarding World with dignity if this is his last Potter movie. Go watch it if you are on the fence, people!

Not to mention Rowling thought it would be so clever to describe how Harry and Voldemort circled one another like in a western showdown. Ironically, even though Yates changed the climax, he also had the clever idea to have Voldemort and Harry crawl for their weapons on the ground like a western showdown. They were both... wrong.

I think we should have had Thor come in and chop off some heads instead. Which also is a good reminder how lucky we were that the later Potter movies were not ruined by comic relief.

I agree it was not as climactic as expected. It was a simple and decent climax, but I felt the exact same thing when I read it in the book; it was just about destroying Voldemort at that point and we knew more or less how it would go down. Nothing in that monologue was of any importance that hadn't been covered earlier. Still the prior events leading up to the climax were so satisfying that both the movie and book are close to classics to me.

I think the point of the discussion was that the FB series should have a conclusive ending much like DH 2 had in contrast to the earlier Potter movies. Whether they screwed up the climax or not in DH is not relevant to that point, but on that matter very few people seem to praise the climax of neither the book nor the movie because it was just a suitably decent climax to a good story.

Really? The epilogue is almost verbatim from the book, isn't it? Meaning decent book chapter = decent film scene. Somewhat cringe, but in a suitably emotional way.

That's the least of the problems in that movie. It's a non-issue in my mind. It was never stated in the books when she was born as far as I remember, but if it indeed was in a small paragraph or on freaking Pottermore, it would be such a minor retcon you'd think people would have better things to do than complain about it.

I will reserve judgement until I've watched it myself, but if we end up with an average series it's really disappointing with all the wasted potential from that world.

It's kind of funny that the original concept Heyman and co pitched to Jo was a faux documentary following Newt on his adventures, but then Rowling said she had a better idea.

This is a better review than many of the professional ones I've read who ended up sounding more "clever" than factual about their criticisms.

She is a mystery (book) writer by heart. She loves plotting. That's why she can't keep it simple(r) for a movie.

Upon reading a few "spoilers" for the movie I do question if JK's extension of the wizarding world brings some plot holes to the original series. On the other hand it's fun to see new places and experience different types of magic, but it also makes you feel like she makes up shit along the way.

That is such a vague objection. It often comes up in reviews, but I have no idea what each reviewer specifically means because every reader brings their own definitions to the word "magical". That being said this is hardly the most common issue in those reviews?

Seems like it will be regarded as completely middle of the ground critically, but end up rotten officially.

I'm sure WB are relieved they haven't greenlit the fourth one yet. Good for Rowling too who hasn't wasted time writing a draft.

Well Yates made that Tarzan movie some years back which was rotten critically, but generally liked well enough by audiences. SoD could have the same adventurous vibe to get decent word of mouth from people.

Such old news. Depp was paid and while some might still claim it was unfair, it's truly baffling if this should impact the box office in any way.