Due to a high volume of active users and service overload, we had to decrease the quality of video streaming. Premium users remains with the highest video quality available. Sorry for the inconvinience it may cause. Donate to keep project running.
Do you have a video playback issues?
Please disable AdBlocker in your browser for our website.
Gellert Grindelwald is a dangerous man, he has bad plans to rule the whole world of magic. While he is in the Magical Congress of the USA, he escaped, the thing that may put the magic world in a real danger. He starts to make a gather with his followers and supporters. Newt Scamander, the intelligent student of Dumbledore, enters an exciting adventure trying to do his best to catch this criminal.
Dash it all, even the devoted will likely struggle with the reams of expository talk and gobs of unearned feeling and scads of largely pointless beasties, plus some just plain lazy visuals (looking at you, magic cats).
There's a mystery at the heart of this film, but it's not the identity of Ezra Miller's non-descript wizard, of the sparing use of Depp's Hitlerlarian sorcerer, rather why did Rowling think there was enough material to hang an entire second movie on?
It suffers a bit from being in the middle of a series and having to set up so many questions that don't get answered yet, but for every complaint I hear about this flick, I can think of something in it worth watching.
[Rowling's] script here is the worst thing she's ever written -- incomprehensible if you haven't seen Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, saddling the actors with endless pages of indigestible exposition, an inert, lifeless set-up for the next movie.
More workmanlike than magical, "Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald" nevertheless feels like an upgrade from its predecessor, one that adds star power, introduces key characters and lays the foundation for a genuine "Wizarding World" franchise.