Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016)

[James]

Also, did anyone see that Grindelwald reveal at the end coming?

 

It was amazing. I was in awe. I didn't suspect anything until Graves was to be relieved of his wand and he started dueling with an entire department of Aurors and was actually winning. I was just stunned watching that, since I remember not even Voldemort in the books could do that. This series will be amazing! OMFG. And now another 2 years of waiting!

[JohnnyGossamer]

Was Newt in NYC find, capture and nurture the Obscurus, a.k.a. Ezra Miller?

[James]

4 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:

Was Newt in NYC find, capture and nurture the Obscurus, a.k.a. Ezra Miller?

No. Newt says he is in America in order to release the Thunderbird in Arizona, because it was illegally smuggled from the country.

[JohnnyGossamer]

44 minutes ago, James said:

No. Newt says he is in America in order to release the Thunderbird in Arizona, because it was illegally smuggled from the country.

Ah, that's right. I'd have liked it better, given he was concealing an Obscurus, if he actually there because he wanted to tame the most vicious, misunderstood beast of all. The repressed gift of a troubled young wizard. That... Would've made the plot come together more cleanly.

[Goffe]

Ah, that's right. I'd have liked it better, given he was concealing an Obscurus, if he actually there because he wanted to tame the most vicious, misunderstood beast of all. The repressed gift of a troubled young wizard. That... Would've made the plot come together more cleanly.

that would have made Newt AND the movie sooo much more interesting.

Enviado do meu iPhone usando Tapatalk

[Blankments]

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is delightful when it begins. Rowling's world oozes with charm even for those not already initiated with it, and the fantasy 20s setting does a lot to help the film feel unique. For the first two acts, the film is full of creative setpieces for a blockbuster, although none are particularly memorable. The cast is all around good, but Farrell, Miller, and Fogler easily outshine the rest of the actors. The film jumps between tone excellently thanks to Yates's understated direction. Rowling's script is good too for the most part, combining wonderful wit with fascinating world-building.

 

It's just a shame the third act completely ruins the film. There are three distinct scenes in the third act that follow each other that make you lose faith in this being a viable franchise, or at least one you'll want to come back to. One of these scenes made this viewer audibly groan in the theater, something I can't remember ever doing before. It's frustrating in the sense that it should be obvious these scenes don't work. For the interest of making this a series, Rowling and Yates blow it entirely by removing interesting elements or intriguing themes for the sake of generic evil vs. quirky good.

 

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them could've been a great film. By the end of the second act, I was ready to give the movie my complete recommendation. However, after the disastrous third act, the disappointment is too strong. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them might be a welcome respite from the constant "cinematic universe" blockbuster events, but it's a true shame it doesn't stick the landing; rather, it crashes in a horrific manner. Still, it's worth watching, as long as you prepare yourself for a completely unsatisfying and generally terrible ending. C+

[DAJK]

I'm gonna watch this again first chance I get (well, maybe I need to check out edge of 17 so I guess this'll wait till next week) but I absolutely LOVED the opening scene. Felt very OOTP for me (which is high praise) and I felt that HP magic.

 

But the movie felt kind of choppy in some scenes, at that may be due to my expectations and my tiredness rather than the film itself. Idk, that's why I need to watch it again. Probably shouldn't have gone tonight bc of my state but oh well. 

 

Only thing i can can say that I doubt will change no matter how many times I see it was the Johnny Depo reveal felt very Scooby-Doo to me (take off his mask, is some character we heard about earlier who is carried away and mutters some comment at our heroes). Seriously, Grindelwald should have terrified me, and considering Johnny Depp's performance in Black Mass, there should have been something other than a cartoon there.

[filmlover]

It works more as a standalone movie instead of as the first installment in a planned multiple film series, but this a solid and distinctive return to the Wizarding World from David Yates and J.K. Rowling that proves captivating enough that we don't miss Harry Potter & Co. too much. Aside from some tonal issues, this is a very entertaining and certainly visually stunning film overall that doesn't feel like the creators only took advantage of returning to the well for proprietary reasons. Eddie Redmayne (giving his first decent post-Oscar performance) and Katherine Waterston make for appealing leads despite their supposed romance feeling forced, though they are often overshadowed by sidekicks Dan Fogler (who steals every scene) and Alison Sudol (a delightful discovery). The usually charismatic Ezra Miller is wasted as a character that sulks about with a tragic haircut though, while Colin Farrell is mostly on hand to just appear sinister (and his character's big reveal is groan-inducing). I'm interested to see where the sequel goes. B

[Webslinger]

I was initially skeptical of the decision to build a franchise out of a supplemental book from the Potterverse, but Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them proves to be a highly enjoyable film. Admittedly, it is weakened by some of its bigger attempts at world-building, but for most of its running time, it works as a charming, whimsical romp through another corner of what is quickly becoming a bigger universe. Rowling's depiction of an American wizard in community in the Jazz Age is a great deal of fun to watch (even if it feels like one of the most squarely British interpretations of America ever committed to film), and the characters are drawn well enough that I felt invested in them as the proceedings came to a head. Eddie Redmayne is perfectly cast as Newt Scamander; his affably quirky performance feels like a perfect fit for the role of an animal-loving researcher. Katherine Waterston, Dan Fogler, and Alison Sudol are also plenty charming in their respective roles. Unfortunately, the villainous presences don't fare as well, as Colin Farrell and Ezra Miller both look lost and Samantha Morton is curiously restrained in a role that would be better served by fanatical, fire-and-brimstone intensity. The film works best when it's at its most playful, and that's the quality that ultimately makes it a promising beginning to a new franchise that will hopefully continue to expand upon the myths of the Potter universe without being encumbered with the need to adhere rigidly to the formula of its predecessors.

 

B+

 

Stray observations:

 

1.) So... American muggles can't elect a woman to the highest office in 2016, but the American wizards had a woman of color running the show in 1926. Rowling claimed to have been inspired in part by the trend toward populism while writing the film, so the presence of a woman in color in such a powerful role is no accident, and it feels even more stinging in light of the events of the last two weeks.

 

2.) I'm honestly surprised that so many people here are remarking on how "dark" the film was. I thought it wasn't too far removed from the PG Potters in terms of tone and intensity. And that's not a problem; this film works best when it's light.

 

3.) The Johnny Depp cameo was a misfire. He sticks out like a sore thumb, and the "twist" elicits more of a "so what?" than anything else.

 

4.) I was really pleasantly surprised by how well the four human leads clicked. I worried that their performances would be lost amid the barrage of CGI creatures, but they're all lots of fun to watch and bring their A-game to the material.

[ddddeeee]

Three disparate (but good!) movies very awkwardly stiched together.

 

B-

[Chewy]

Saw this and Dr Strange yesterday. Had a perfectly okay time watching two perfectly okay movies. Not even really sure what to say about either.

 

This one's weirder!

[Noctis]

45 minutes ago, Chewy said:

Saw this and Dr Strange yesterday. Had a perfectly okay time watching two perfectly okay movies. Not even really sure what to say about either.

 

This one's weirder!

 

I love you.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Noctis

[Fullbuster]

For me it was an A

 

I finally watched Fantastic Beasts!

 

I must say it clearly : I LOVED IT! To be honest I'm shocked to see it's around 75% on RT because the movie I watched is more deserving of a 90%+, no less!

 

Kowalski and Queenie are really funny and adorable, Newt could seem detached and asocial but he's really sweet in the end.

 

Apart from the characters the strength of this film is this beautiful world out there, mixing the classy New York from the 20s to the Wizarding World to give us something unique : we know it but we don't know it that much. I liked the animals, particularly the thief

 

I liked Doctor Strange but I loved Fantastic Beasts even more, more than I thought I would, I'm completely charmed. If you still hesitate : don't! And watch this, you're likely to be convinced

Edited November 19, 2016 by Fullbuster

[BK007]

Loved it.

 

No surprise to see critics wanking over Marvel and Star Wars instead though. 

 

I didn't like Johnny Depp though. Completely out of place casting. Sick of his schtick even for seconds.

 

Down goes Pirates of the Caribbean. 

[Napoleon]

This was excellent. The characters were great. I didn't miss any more backstory as what was showed was enough to make them incredibly likable. The story felt like a Harry Potter book, with the heroes getting into a fun adventure while also facing a dangerous threat that is related to a much bigger story that will be told in the 5-film series. I'm not a big HP fan that knows everything about Rowling's world, but I've read the books when I was younger and FB reminded me of that experience. There's something unique about Rowling's writing that can be felt here and that prevents it from becoming another disposable entertainment that is so common in these franchises these days. 

Edited November 20, 2016 by Napoleon

[jb007]

Mediocre. Not good, not bad. Ironically feels rushed at moments and drags in others. The movie is dark throughout and I mean the cinematography, not tone. Acting wise, Don Fogler is alright, the rest are meh.

 

Rating: C+/B-

 

 

[theultimatebiu]

I have always been a big Potter fan. I've seen every movie on opening day and read every single book at least three times.

 

I was never too excited about the idea of a spin off but I went in quite optimistic.

 

The film is a mixed bag. I believe it ends better than it starts. The four leads are decent with Dan Fogler being the most endearing of the bunch.

The themes of the movie are interesting but there isn't enough time to explore all of them and it feels jammed in.

I feel there is a huge misfire with the reveal of Grindewald as Graves was really turning into a interesting and imposing villain.

 

The main problem with this film is that it feels like a prologue, plot points and character motivations are teased but never explored because they are clearly waiting to use them for the sequel.

Therefore it becomes hard to be invested in the movie.

 

I am intrigued by the idea of the Fantastic Beasts franchise.....but I am not sold on the execution nor its addition to the potter universe.

 

3/5

B-

 

 

 

[Impact]

Much better then I was expecting-better then the first 2 Potter films. The visuals were quite nice and it had a nice backstory for Potter. Quite funny at times also.

A-

[Rsyu]

For me, and I’m sure for like-minded Potter fans too, Fantastic Beasts felt like a warm welcome back into the wizarding universe. The criticisms that are being drawn against the film (too many diverging plot-lines, bland characters etc) are all valid I think, but for me, they didn't register all that much against the joy at hearing the familiar tune of the opening sequence and all the spells that we've all become accustomed to. I unabashedly admit I was almost gleeful throughout most of the film but I did have moments where I felt the movie dragged, bogged down by one too many sub-plots. Despite this, the frequent humor and charm of the film was enough to win me over and I’m eager to see what direction the next installment of the series will take.

 

Rating: A

[The Panda]

I enjoyed it quite a bit, it's about on par with some of the lesser Potter movies (like Chamber of Secrets).  It was great world building, and a nice chance to see the functioning Potterworld outside of Hogwarts.  It isn't quite as eye-popping or visually memorable as the Potter movies though, the sense of magic is there, but not quite as prevelant as the other 8.

 

It's a very entertaining film, despite being unfocused and not wanting to end.  I'd like to see more from the American Potterworld, but maybe with a bit more urgency to the story.  The lore is interesting and probably the best part about the movie.

 

B