Cumpliendo con su amenaza, Grindelwald escapa de su custodia y ha comenzado a reunir seguidores, la mayoría de los cuales no sospechan sus verdaderas intenciones: alzar a los magos purasangre para reinar sobre todas las criaturas no mágicas. En un esfuerzo por frustrar los planes de Grindelwald, Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law) recluta a su antiguo estudiante Newt Scamander, quien accede a prestar su ayuda, sin conocer los peligros que aguardan. Las líneas quedan marcadas mientras el amor y la lealtad son puestos a prueba, incluso entre los amigos más cercanos y la familia, en un mundo mágico cada vez más dividido. (FILMAFFINITY)

This was often very confusing - who was who, what it was all about. I enjoyed the first film a lot but what I liked about it Newt's compassion and kindness was downplayed in this. Disappointed. ( )

A big, satisfying step up from the OK-but-nothing-special first installment. Scamander actually gets to be cool and impressive, Dumbledore is awesome, and Grindelwald is a hundred times more interesting than Voldemort ever was. The movie struggles a bit with its central mysteries and plots all hinging on the same dull and uninteresting character of Credence, and like the first one has moments where you feel it gets lost in its pointless parade of magical creatures in a desperate attempt to live up to the (otherwise completely irrelevant at this point) series title. But other than that, I was quite happy with it, and I didn't expect to be (so note the low expectations -- they obviously played a part. But my expectations were low for the first film as well.) I'm surprised to say it, but I'm now looking forward to volume 3! ( )

Tries too hard and takes itself too seriously. ( )

Did no one have the courage to tell JK Rowling her screenplay stunk? That no amount of talented actors or special effects can make up for the lack of a decent plot? That the rule for writing a screenplay is "show, don't tell"? More than anything, this reminds me of Peter Jackson's bloated, worthless Hobbit trilogy, which appears to have been stretched out to interminable length for no other reason than to make money. Perhaps Jackson is even more to blame, since he has proven that he CAN make good movies if he wants to. I guess the actors in Grindelwald couldn't rebel--I hope they were paid well. Katherine Waterston should be especially POed. She went from costar to basically a minor player in this one, and she has the worst outfit of anyone! I won't fault Johnny Depp too much. His character talks way too much and looks pretty stupid, but I blame Rowling for that. At least he comes up with a nice British accent and has some amount of presence--actually, it's a shame he didn't play Voldemort, who could have used a little more charisma. But again, to reiterate, the absolute worst thing about this film is that despite all the action, all the plot happens with people talking and giving these long explications of things that only the most devout Harry Potter fanatic could care about. All the human interaction and playfulness of the first film is gone. And of course, all it does it set us up for another sequel. I'm afraid, however, that rather than getting the comeuppance she deserves, Rowling's megalomania will only expand. Perhaps she will direct the next picture, also. I won't be watching if she writes OR directs. ( )