Fantastic Beasts 2

[RandomHajile]

worth a watch but not a patch on the first one

this one looks extremely monotone, really wish they jazzed up the special effects (esp the blue fire)

6/10

[stuartboy]

I found this disappointingly dull. I was really looking forward to the sequel. The same creatures falling out of Newt Redmayne's coat. The same stupid lopsided expression perpetually on his face. Agree it's virtually black and white. Barely recognised the boy Credence from first movie - he seems to have aged about 10 years - then again I spent the whole movie looking at Grindelwald trying to place him before near the end realising that he's Johnathon Depp Esq - a peroxide Cap'n Jack Sparrow! I'm useless!
Somewhat confusing storyline too. Lost track of all the LeStrange familial exposition.

I doubt this is a blockbuster and couldn't really care less if there's a Fantastic Beasts 3.

[tonethestone]

Really disappointed. Not a huge fan of the first one but liked the trailer for this one but the final film is so forced, so OTT & Depp again has sold out playing same character time again.

1.5/5

[mattsmith251100]

Definitely wasn't much of a fan of this one. Has some fun moments at times with the beasts and the 3D was pretty good but other than that it seemed heavily forced, confusing and really not a lot happened

[ladams888]

The 3D was excellent, as was the CGI. Loved all of the creatures. However the film was a confusing mish-mash – the trailer was better than the film. A case of style over substance. Harry Potter fans will love it - however I didn't.

As usual, Kingston Odeon was very disorganised. The queue stretched right out of the cinema and as far as the escalators. We had to show ID to get in, however this could have been checked when we were in the queue, in order to facilitate entering the auditorium, as it was, it was very slow getting in as they were checking ID at the front of the queue and people were scrabbling round their pockets/handbags searching for suitable IDs. Then they forgot the 3D glasses and had to pass them around whilst we were in the auditorium, whereas normally we would expect to pick them up just before entering - on par for Kingston, who never seem to get it right.

[D-Fens]

It's a really strange franchise, both movies don't reveal the plot until the end.

Haven't seen a 3D movie for a while, the technology just doesn't work in a standard screen.



So for most of the runtime the biggest wonder is what the movie is actually about, there are no stakes because we're not told what motivated anybody until they tell us during the sudden finale and epilogue.

The 3D adds depth but so what? When it's trying to do anything else the frame rate can't keep up so it's a blurry, dark mess.

Why is there a baby monkey up there?

It's a pity because three of the main characters are excellent and a lot of whimsy from the first movie has been replaced by weird. It's a very unique setting for a major franchise and the target audience must be those that have grown with the books and no younger than that.

The particle effects are excellent but I'd trade everything else for the 2D version.

Maybe a situation will arise that can only be solved by a rocking baby monkey.

I wonder if there's a much longer cut because there's no logical flow between scenes. At times seemingly important characters just appear out of nowhere. Others seem to get very little time in the spotlight despite having a good story arc.

Had I known it was in 3D I might have even skipped the preview and seen it on a good quality screen at the weekend.

If you haven't seen it I'd listen to tips about the above PG rating, expect weirdness, enjoy the creatures, maintain childlike wonder and expect a rocky story. Pity there's not a smiley than encapsulates that.

[RandomHajile]

I wonder if there's a much longer cut because there's no logical flow between scenes.

the rough cut i saw in summer was about 15/20min longer

the 100 or so people i saw it with am safe to say didnt really feel it then, and am not surprised the reviews are mixed now

i thought the first fantastic beasts movie was better than any of the potter movies bytheway

[stuartboy]

Several new characters but many redundant "guest appearances" - I mean what was the purpose of Jacob Kowolski in this, for example?
This really felt like the second or third episode of a TV series spin-off. J. Krowling should stick to writing novels - then let someone else make a film of it.

[valda]

Went to the Premiere thanks to a great friend. No 3D which was a shame as it probably would have been good in Vue WEst End
Did n't think much of the film either, FX were great but couldn't be arses with the Fantastic Beasts aspects. Eddie Redmayne truly got on my nerves with his strange voice and demeanour.

When you are wondering who designed the ladies hats, you know you are bored LOL

HIghlight of the evening was Alex Zane forgetting to introduce JK, then forgot her name and called her 'That Woman'

Low light was Johnny Depps uninteligble interview

5/10

[raj101]

predictably rubbish with good special effects, same old potter.jeez just give these budgets to a le Guin, Gaiman or phil pullman work already.