Fantastic beasts:The crimes of grindelwald - public opinion and box office report
Hi guys , here we are going to see report and opinion of J.K. Rowling's awaited film Fantastic beasts:The crimes of grindelwald.
Cast: Johnny Depp (Grindelwald)
Carmen Ejogo (Seraphina Picquery)
Kevin Guthrie (Abernathy)
Director : David Yates
Screenplay : J. K. Rowling
Music director : James Newton Howard
Producers: J. K. Rowling, David Heyman, Steve Kloves, Lionel Wigram
Box office (Source:Boxofficemojo.com):
Distributor: Warner Bros.
Production Budget: $200 million
Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $62,200,000 24.6%
+ Foreign: $191,000,000 75.4%
= Worldwide: $253,200,000
1.From Ashish bandhu,
Forget what critics say. The 2nd Part is twice Fantastic than the first.
Regardless of the fact that I am the biggest Wizarding World fan in the whole universe I am writing a unbiased review through points:
1. Cinematography: Dark and intense little bit like Harry Potter and Half Blood Prince. Very very good than the previous part.5/5
2. Visual Effects: Brilliant and ofcourse Magical.The beasts are portrayed very beautifully and exotically.Unlike the previous film the beasts really look much real. The good news is the movie is overflooded with spells and magic in almost every scene.The Magic looks real and flows readily from wand unlike the first part.The actors also handle wand efficiently unlike the first parts where there was poor handling of wand. But in Hogwarts scene the camera shakes spoiling the fun.4.5/5
3.Acting:There is not very much to act as there are many new characters on the top of the old ones.But still the Acting of all the cast is good.Depp is looking and acting awesome.It is very surprising and interesting that he fully justified Grindelwald and made him look as if he wants to help magicians as if he is good.This is really very good.Law's performance is also good. Sudol has acted emotional scenes really very well.Her acting was good.Redmayne, Waterston,Turner and Kravitz have also done good acting.5/5
4.Story: Regardless of what the critics say the Story is really very very good.Very much better than part 1.Yes it gets a bit muddled but all becomes clear in the end.There are many plot twists and shocking reveals.5/5
5.Music: There is not much music.I preferred Alexandre Desplat (Deathly Hallows part 1and part2 music composer) to JN Howard.
But still music is good and usage of Hedwig's theme in the Hogwarts scene is particularly good. Sounding is also very very good.4/5
6.Ending:The last 30 minutes are worth your every grievance( if any).While the movie is good the ending is just INCREDIBLE.
Verdict :Forget what the critics say. Although the story is little bit muddled but gets straighten out in the 2nd half.The movie is Entertaining, Stunning Brilliantly Magical and with its Extreme ending and plot twists and shocking reveals the movie is Fantastic and More Fantastic.
2.From Laurette maya,
Plot holes, the Butterfly Effect, changing book canon, future families who won’t exist, imaginary family relations, changed birthdates and deathdates...
If you claim to be a die-hard true HP fan you are NOT a TRUE FAN or you would know the serious problems with this movie.
Sure, the cinematography and all that was beautiful, the creatures were cool but we should have seen Newt do his thing to woo some creatures and talk about how awesome they are. All he did was let the Chinese fire dragon throw him around and it was in love with him. Also, RIP Grindelwald’s pet dragon-lizard.
The Leda LeStrange-family drama turned into a dead end plot AND she’s supposed to have kids/grandkids with Theseus which will end up marrying Bellatrix. So it bothers me that she’s the “last living descendant” that they kill off and somehow still has relatives in 1997?! My only explanation is she’s not dead, or Corvus isn’t dead or Corvus is actually Credence. Why spend half the movie dropping hints he’s related to Leda and then say JUST KIDDING? Throwing in the Kama/Corvus subplot was a weak, thinly-veiled plot device to get Credence to that Nazi rally that EVERYONE should have recognized as a trap.
Albus has a “long lost brother” who mysteriously popped into existence after both parents were dead!?! He is NOT related at all and this is huge plot-twist/ a red herring for movie 3. Clearly Grindelwald is lying otherwise Rowling is gutting her own future plot. Albus did not send Newt after Credence just to kill him, he was trying to save him so Grindelwald is a LIAR. Where he got a phoenix, who knows. Maybe he stole it from the grandfather that Dumbledore says had one. They were closer than brothers, it would make sense that Albus would tell him that as a teen. Or we’re blaming this whole movie on time-turners and Cursed Child-like plot.
Albus was the professor of Transfiguration. NOT DADA.
You can’t Apparate in or out of the grounds of Hogwarts. Hogwarts, A History.
McGonagall as a professor is PREPOSTEROUS. Unless that ‘professor’ was an aunt or mother, that would make McGonagall’s birthdate well before 1927, and she was BORN around that time! She was a student of Dumbledore’s!
And yeah, there were too many characters and subplots to follow. Why introduce cute Bunty who’s clearly in love and then never see her again? Who cares about the Kama family? What the heck was that damn prophecy about? How on earth did Abernathy end up a turncoat and then never speak the rest of the movie? Who was that Auror that Newt had a serious problem with?
Grindelwald is GAY, sis. That pouty-lipped woman who was in in a "committed" relationship with him? She's DELUSIONAL.
And most disturbing of all, why are people getting raped, impregnated and/or forced against their will to do stuff? This was a damn kids movie. Queenie went from being this sweet, empowering character to a hysterical (in the negative woman-on-her-period stereotype) mind-raping turncoat.
3.From jhon L ,
I am also a huge Harry Potter fan, we'll get that out of the way right now. However, I am also a FB fan and that would make me a JR Rowling fan. As such, I realize that this is NOT a movie series about 3 young kids growing up together at Hogwarts. I am sure it is also being written for matured fans of the Potterverse, and as such you will need to pay attention and understand that Rowling is trying to tell one story, while trying to give backstories at the same time. Some of this is info that is not necessarily related to this story, but consider it bonus material lol.
As another reviewer aptly noted, this franchise does not have the same luxury as Potter having novels published in advance so people know what to expect. Novels can also provide a lot of the small extras and detail that could otherwise easily be left out of a film adaptation. However, this is straight to film. We're lucky that she is including some of these details along the way. The best way to approach the series is that it is more or less a mini series but not one you can watch in 5 consecutive weeks on TV and hit a slow episode along the way. This film is basically following the same formula of the first. Lots of character alliances and setups are being laid out in setting up for the inevitable big conclusion in 2024. This has to be done, and as the series progresses I am sure it will all start to come together as the groundwork is further laid out and there is less left to 'reveal'.
The acting is spot on. I'm not a big Depp fan but he's ok. The visuals and score are out of this world. I had my heart broken 3 times in this movie and Niffler made my day, as always! Also there is a 'battle' at the end (someone said there wasnt) but also considering this is not Potter I would not expect that there has to be some sort of major battle in every FB movie going forward until the end of course.
Go see the movie, expect stunning visuals and lots of important character and story set up (it moves quickly so drink coffee lol), and don't expect it to be FB1 because its part 2-the story is
continuing to forward.
4.From Vivek Ragunath ,
Don't base your opinions of this movie on what critics have said. The storyline is perfectly intelligible, the magic is powerful and the characters are well-developed. Granted there is not as much niffler-adventures in this one (the bugger plays an important role though) but the tone of this movie does not warrant much comedy.
I did however feel that the movie was mostly centered on Credence Barebone (if that's his real name) and his story, making the title 'Crimes of Grindelwald' misleading. Rowling could have chosen a better title to suit the storyline.
I would not be too wrong to compare the writing of this movie to an Agatha Christie mystery novel (there's no Poirot here, of course). There are a lot of characters, a central mystery of interest to all of them, a misleading answer and most importantly, the plot twist at the end which raises more questions than it answers and makes you excited for the next movie.
In some places though, you do feel that Rowling has tried to squeeze in more than is necessary for the story to develop. Nicolas Flamel, for example, was totally unnecessary (unless he plays some role with the philosopher's stone in some later movie). Leta Lestrange's back story, while a very grim one, is unnecessarily convoluted. It could have been simpler and thus given more space in the story for a greater emotional development of the characters' relationships (such as Jacob and Queenie) which would have made the climax of the movie more impactful.
I feel that the whole Jacob and Queenie relationship got sidelined as there was no more space in the story to accommodate it. If Rowling had developed it more, it could have been used to show how malicious was the division caused by Grindelwald. The theme of the series which is the divisive influence of Grindelwald on the wizarding world, would have popped out more. She had a potent plot device in her hands which was left unused for the sake of a virtually useless branch of Leta's backstory (involving the Cama family).
Most people expect the wizarding world to be a children's world because of the Harry Potter series and Rowling wanted to project it as an adult one (with a darker, more matured tone). But I feel that she got caught up somewhere between public expectation and her inner muse. This does not make the movie bad, by any chance, but it does make it a little bland.
In all it has a great storyline, awesome magic and fantastic beasts but would have benefitted from a different title and more emotional development. It's definitely worth a watch.
5.From Anonymous,
I went into this movie having browsed all the negative reviews and tidings.
Came out: really really moved. And all the gasps and audience members sitting at the edge of their seat, focused at the end showed I wasn't the only one enthralled.
I'm still not convinced by Tina and Newt's relationship and wondered at some of the times when magic could have been used more. They're wizards (even though they dont dress like one)! Even the return to Hogwarts seemed kind of flat (I never took Mcgonagall to be the blithering and annoying type) and strangely bare. They went too fast with Leta's prophecy, I wanted it in writing so I could read the words of it. Newt's golden spell seemed kind of impossible and the introduction for Nagini (she's Indonesian and desirable) very cringey.
But I didn't leave feeling underwhelmed unlike the critics. It comes down to feelings-strong, haunting emotions from various characters, most notably Leta, Credence, and Queenie that make this movie come alive. I'm glad J.K.Rowling made these characters who are shades of grey be a huge part of this movie. And the theme of not belonging is poignant here, more than the original series. Here, the characters have to grapple with who they are and what 'side' theyre on. Only Snape (maybe the Malfoys) were allowed this ambivalence in HP.
I appreciate Newt's impartiality to politics earlier on. He says, "I dont pick sides"...his vision isn't narrow enough to not include the magical beasts that often aid him. That was one of my favorite lines from him where he alludes to simple motivations being obscured from Grindewald's view...reminded me of Voldemort.
Leta's line "You've never loved a monster you couldn't love" was heartbreaking. Just as moving was Nagini's reluctance to transform in the circus (and later despair at losing Credence), Credence and Leta's angst as outcasts, Queenie's quest for 'freedom', and Grindewald's "initiation" scene.
This is a dark, mature series and the stakes in this installment were truth and hell fire.
The revelations at the end were amazing! The audience went wild upon seeing something they didnt expect to see!
6.From Maranwe Adanaliell,
Overall enjoyable, beautiful visuals, several funny scenes, cute magical creatures.
+most of the cast were doing an amazing job at portraying their characters (once more I especially liked Eddie Redmayne as Newt)
+Hogwarts!
-Johnny Depp as Grindelwald... there were scenes that made me think he was a good casting choice after all, but he ultimately failed at portraying Grindelwald as convincing as enough. Or convincing at all, really.
-Plot holes and general problems with the plot
!!!!!!!!!!!!SPOILER WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!
While I enjoyed the movie overall, there are several plot holes and problems in it.
1) why is Dumbledore teaching DADA when it is clearly said later on that he was the Transfiguration teacher? I know he was told he wasn’t allowed to teach DADA anymore, but why did they feel the need to include that mini plot? I really liked the boggart scene apart from that though.
2) Queenie felt out of character. There is character development, but this isn’t it. What happened in between the films to make her change that much?
3) the cat like creatures in the ministry were just confusing, especially combined with the woman, who looked vaguely threatening and dangerous but then never appeared again.
4) why would the Aurors not just apparate Grindelwald to Paris? Or at least take him there via floo? I see the need for an escape, but surely there would have been another way. This is not a huge problem, but it annoyed me a bit.
5) Professor McGonagall?! I hope that wasn’t meant to be Minerva McGonagall, the same teacher as in the HP series? She was born in 1935, so eight years after Crimes of Grindelwald. If it was just a mother in law or something similar, I just don’t see the point in including her at all.
6) Credence is a Dumbledore? I certainly hope Grindelwald was just lying about that and I will withhold a final judgement until this is revealed in the next film (hopefully).
7) How did Dumbledore and Grindelwald do a blood pact to not fight each other, when they fought in their youth (the fight that killed Ariana Dumbledore) and Grindelwald fled after that? Did they meet up after the duel in which Grindelwald tortured Aberforth Dumbledore, which made Albus Dumbledore turn on his friend? That seems unlikely to me...
From analysing the people's opinions , 3 out of 5 say good/better and 1 out of 5 say OK/good and 1 out of 5 sy poor But i am sure if you're a Harry Potter fan , you will definitely like the film.
Cast: Johnny Depp (Grindelwald)
Carmen Ejogo (Seraphina Picquery)
Kevin Guthrie (Abernathy)
Director : David Yates
Screenplay : J. K. Rowling
Music director : James Newton Howard
Producers: J. K. Rowling, David Heyman, Steve Kloves, Lionel Wigram
Box office (Source:Boxofficemojo.com):
Distributor: Warner Bros.
Production Budget: $200 million
Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $62,200,000 24.6%
+ Foreign: $191,000,000 75.4%
= Worldwide: $253,200,000
1.From Ashish bandhu,
Forget what critics say. The 2nd Part is twice Fantastic than the first.
Regardless of the fact that I am the biggest Wizarding World fan in the whole universe I am writing a unbiased review through points:
1. Cinematography: Dark and intense little bit like Harry Potter and Half Blood Prince. Very very good than the previous part.5/5
2. Visual Effects: Brilliant and ofcourse Magical.The beasts are portrayed very beautifully and exotically.Unlike the previous film the beasts really look much real. The good news is the movie is overflooded with spells and magic in almost every scene.The Magic looks real and flows readily from wand unlike the first part.The actors also handle wand efficiently unlike the first parts where there was poor handling of wand. But in Hogwarts scene the camera shakes spoiling the fun.4.5/5
3.Acting:There is not very much to act as there are many new characters on the top of the old ones.But still the Acting of all the cast is good.Depp is looking and acting awesome.It is very surprising and interesting that he fully justified Grindelwald and made him look as if he wants to help magicians as if he is good.This is really very good.Law's performance is also good. Sudol has acted emotional scenes really very well.Her acting was good.Redmayne, Waterston,Turner and Kravitz have also done good acting.5/5
4.Story: Regardless of what the critics say the Story is really very very good.Very much better than part 1.Yes it gets a bit muddled but all becomes clear in the end.There are many plot twists and shocking reveals.5/5
5.Music: There is not much music.I preferred Alexandre Desplat (Deathly Hallows part 1and part2 music composer) to JN Howard.
But still music is good and usage of Hedwig's theme in the Hogwarts scene is particularly good. Sounding is also very very good.4/5
6.Ending:The last 30 minutes are worth your every grievance( if any).While the movie is good the ending is just INCREDIBLE.
Verdict :Forget what the critics say. Although the story is little bit muddled but gets straighten out in the 2nd half.The movie is Entertaining, Stunning Brilliantly Magical and with its Extreme ending and plot twists and shocking reveals the movie is Fantastic and More Fantastic.
2.From Laurette maya,
Plot holes, the Butterfly Effect, changing book canon, future families who won’t exist, imaginary family relations, changed birthdates and deathdates...
If you claim to be a die-hard true HP fan you are NOT a TRUE FAN or you would know the serious problems with this movie.
Sure, the cinematography and all that was beautiful, the creatures were cool but we should have seen Newt do his thing to woo some creatures and talk about how awesome they are. All he did was let the Chinese fire dragon throw him around and it was in love with him. Also, RIP Grindelwald’s pet dragon-lizard.
The Leda LeStrange-family drama turned into a dead end plot AND she’s supposed to have kids/grandkids with Theseus which will end up marrying Bellatrix. So it bothers me that she’s the “last living descendant” that they kill off and somehow still has relatives in 1997?! My only explanation is she’s not dead, or Corvus isn’t dead or Corvus is actually Credence. Why spend half the movie dropping hints he’s related to Leda and then say JUST KIDDING? Throwing in the Kama/Corvus subplot was a weak, thinly-veiled plot device to get Credence to that Nazi rally that EVERYONE should have recognized as a trap.
Albus has a “long lost brother” who mysteriously popped into existence after both parents were dead!?! He is NOT related at all and this is huge plot-twist/ a red herring for movie 3. Clearly Grindelwald is lying otherwise Rowling is gutting her own future plot. Albus did not send Newt after Credence just to kill him, he was trying to save him so Grindelwald is a LIAR. Where he got a phoenix, who knows. Maybe he stole it from the grandfather that Dumbledore says had one. They were closer than brothers, it would make sense that Albus would tell him that as a teen. Or we’re blaming this whole movie on time-turners and Cursed Child-like plot.
Albus was the professor of Transfiguration. NOT DADA.
You can’t Apparate in or out of the grounds of Hogwarts. Hogwarts, A History.
McGonagall as a professor is PREPOSTEROUS. Unless that ‘professor’ was an aunt or mother, that would make McGonagall’s birthdate well before 1927, and she was BORN around that time! She was a student of Dumbledore’s!
And yeah, there were too many characters and subplots to follow. Why introduce cute Bunty who’s clearly in love and then never see her again? Who cares about the Kama family? What the heck was that damn prophecy about? How on earth did Abernathy end up a turncoat and then never speak the rest of the movie? Who was that Auror that Newt had a serious problem with?
Grindelwald is GAY, sis. That pouty-lipped woman who was in in a "committed" relationship with him? She's DELUSIONAL.
And most disturbing of all, why are people getting raped, impregnated and/or forced against their will to do stuff? This was a damn kids movie. Queenie went from being this sweet, empowering character to a hysterical (in the negative woman-on-her-period stereotype) mind-raping turncoat.
3.From jhon L ,
I am also a huge Harry Potter fan, we'll get that out of the way right now. However, I am also a FB fan and that would make me a JR Rowling fan. As such, I realize that this is NOT a movie series about 3 young kids growing up together at Hogwarts. I am sure it is also being written for matured fans of the Potterverse, and as such you will need to pay attention and understand that Rowling is trying to tell one story, while trying to give backstories at the same time. Some of this is info that is not necessarily related to this story, but consider it bonus material lol.
As another reviewer aptly noted, this franchise does not have the same luxury as Potter having novels published in advance so people know what to expect. Novels can also provide a lot of the small extras and detail that could otherwise easily be left out of a film adaptation. However, this is straight to film. We're lucky that she is including some of these details along the way. The best way to approach the series is that it is more or less a mini series but not one you can watch in 5 consecutive weeks on TV and hit a slow episode along the way. This film is basically following the same formula of the first. Lots of character alliances and setups are being laid out in setting up for the inevitable big conclusion in 2024. This has to be done, and as the series progresses I am sure it will all start to come together as the groundwork is further laid out and there is less left to 'reveal'.
The acting is spot on. I'm not a big Depp fan but he's ok. The visuals and score are out of this world. I had my heart broken 3 times in this movie and Niffler made my day, as always! Also there is a 'battle' at the end (someone said there wasnt) but also considering this is not Potter I would not expect that there has to be some sort of major battle in every FB movie going forward until the end of course.
Go see the movie, expect stunning visuals and lots of important character and story set up (it moves quickly so drink coffee lol), and don't expect it to be FB1 because its part 2-the story is
continuing to forward.
4.From Vivek Ragunath ,
Don't base your opinions of this movie on what critics have said. The storyline is perfectly intelligible, the magic is powerful and the characters are well-developed. Granted there is not as much niffler-adventures in this one (the bugger plays an important role though) but the tone of this movie does not warrant much comedy.
I did however feel that the movie was mostly centered on Credence Barebone (if that's his real name) and his story, making the title 'Crimes of Grindelwald' misleading. Rowling could have chosen a better title to suit the storyline.
I would not be too wrong to compare the writing of this movie to an Agatha Christie mystery novel (there's no Poirot here, of course). There are a lot of characters, a central mystery of interest to all of them, a misleading answer and most importantly, the plot twist at the end which raises more questions than it answers and makes you excited for the next movie.
In some places though, you do feel that Rowling has tried to squeeze in more than is necessary for the story to develop. Nicolas Flamel, for example, was totally unnecessary (unless he plays some role with the philosopher's stone in some later movie). Leta Lestrange's back story, while a very grim one, is unnecessarily convoluted. It could have been simpler and thus given more space in the story for a greater emotional development of the characters' relationships (such as Jacob and Queenie) which would have made the climax of the movie more impactful.
I feel that the whole Jacob and Queenie relationship got sidelined as there was no more space in the story to accommodate it. If Rowling had developed it more, it could have been used to show how malicious was the division caused by Grindelwald. The theme of the series which is the divisive influence of Grindelwald on the wizarding world, would have popped out more. She had a potent plot device in her hands which was left unused for the sake of a virtually useless branch of Leta's backstory (involving the Cama family).
Most people expect the wizarding world to be a children's world because of the Harry Potter series and Rowling wanted to project it as an adult one (with a darker, more matured tone). But I feel that she got caught up somewhere between public expectation and her inner muse. This does not make the movie bad, by any chance, but it does make it a little bland.
In all it has a great storyline, awesome magic and fantastic beasts but would have benefitted from a different title and more emotional development. It's definitely worth a watch.
5.From Anonymous,
I went into this movie having browsed all the negative reviews and tidings.
Came out: really really moved. And all the gasps and audience members sitting at the edge of their seat, focused at the end showed I wasn't the only one enthralled.
I'm still not convinced by Tina and Newt's relationship and wondered at some of the times when magic could have been used more. They're wizards (even though they dont dress like one)! Even the return to Hogwarts seemed kind of flat (I never took Mcgonagall to be the blithering and annoying type) and strangely bare. They went too fast with Leta's prophecy, I wanted it in writing so I could read the words of it. Newt's golden spell seemed kind of impossible and the introduction for Nagini (she's Indonesian and desirable) very cringey.
But I didn't leave feeling underwhelmed unlike the critics. It comes down to feelings-strong, haunting emotions from various characters, most notably Leta, Credence, and Queenie that make this movie come alive. I'm glad J.K.Rowling made these characters who are shades of grey be a huge part of this movie. And the theme of not belonging is poignant here, more than the original series. Here, the characters have to grapple with who they are and what 'side' theyre on. Only Snape (maybe the Malfoys) were allowed this ambivalence in HP.
I appreciate Newt's impartiality to politics earlier on. He says, "I dont pick sides"...his vision isn't narrow enough to not include the magical beasts that often aid him. That was one of my favorite lines from him where he alludes to simple motivations being obscured from Grindewald's view...reminded me of Voldemort.
Leta's line "You've never loved a monster you couldn't love" was heartbreaking. Just as moving was Nagini's reluctance to transform in the circus (and later despair at losing Credence), Credence and Leta's angst as outcasts, Queenie's quest for 'freedom', and Grindewald's "initiation" scene.
This is a dark, mature series and the stakes in this installment were truth and hell fire.
The revelations at the end were amazing! The audience went wild upon seeing something they didnt expect to see!
6.From Maranwe Adanaliell,
Overall enjoyable, beautiful visuals, several funny scenes, cute magical creatures.
+most of the cast were doing an amazing job at portraying their characters (once more I especially liked Eddie Redmayne as Newt)
+Hogwarts!
-Johnny Depp as Grindelwald... there were scenes that made me think he was a good casting choice after all, but he ultimately failed at portraying Grindelwald as convincing as enough. Or convincing at all, really.
-Plot holes and general problems with the plot
!!!!!!!!!!!!SPOILER WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!
While I enjoyed the movie overall, there are several plot holes and problems in it.
1) why is Dumbledore teaching DADA when it is clearly said later on that he was the Transfiguration teacher? I know he was told he wasn’t allowed to teach DADA anymore, but why did they feel the need to include that mini plot? I really liked the boggart scene apart from that though.
2) Queenie felt out of character. There is character development, but this isn’t it. What happened in between the films to make her change that much?
3) the cat like creatures in the ministry were just confusing, especially combined with the woman, who looked vaguely threatening and dangerous but then never appeared again.
4) why would the Aurors not just apparate Grindelwald to Paris? Or at least take him there via floo? I see the need for an escape, but surely there would have been another way. This is not a huge problem, but it annoyed me a bit.
5) Professor McGonagall?! I hope that wasn’t meant to be Minerva McGonagall, the same teacher as in the HP series? She was born in 1935, so eight years after Crimes of Grindelwald. If it was just a mother in law or something similar, I just don’t see the point in including her at all.
6) Credence is a Dumbledore? I certainly hope Grindelwald was just lying about that and I will withhold a final judgement until this is revealed in the next film (hopefully).
7) How did Dumbledore and Grindelwald do a blood pact to not fight each other, when they fought in their youth (the fight that killed Ariana Dumbledore) and Grindelwald fled after that? Did they meet up after the duel in which Grindelwald tortured Aberforth Dumbledore, which made Albus Dumbledore turn on his friend? That seems unlikely to me...
From analysing the people's opinions , 3 out of 5 say good/better and 1 out of 5 say OK/good and 1 out of 5 sy poor But i am sure if you're a Harry Potter fan , you will definitely like the film.
Comments
Post a Comment