Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016)

[RyneOh1040]

Really loved the film.  The best praise I can give it is that it gave me the same feeling I would get whenever I finished a Potter book for the first time.  It's a kind of warmth that's quite hard to find in life.  The only real critique I have of the film is that the last three to five minutes felt like several different endings.  It didn't bother me too much, but it was a bit distracting.

 

A-.  Cannot WAIT for the sequel.

 

Also, I have a theory on a major plotline for the sequels: The less surprising of it is that I think Ariana Dumbledore was an obscurus.  She died very similarly to how those are created.  But I also think obscurials eventually become dementors.  I think it's the only real explanation of why we never heard of them in the 7 Potter books (wizards don't need to supress their powers anymore, so they either don't exist or are VERY rare).  It would make sense as to why Dumbledore hated dementors so much...his sister (who's death he had fault in) eventually became one.  

[23IsEverywhere]

This was one of my favorite movies of the year.  It felt almost more book lile in certain aspects, which imo gave it a different flow then many movies.  This could seem offputting but as someone who loved the Potter books much more than the movies I enjoyed this film more than all but 2 of the Potter films.  A+

[Arlborn]

It belongs right up there with the best of the Potter movies, I watched it twice and I loved everything about it, everything*. I left the movie theater incredibly happy both times, I really can't ask for more from a movie.

 

Straight 10 out of 10 from me, it was fantastic, best blockbuster in years.

 

 

 

*OK OK, I want Farrell back, I hope they bring him back somehow. I'm fine with Depp, but I just want Farrell back as well, he was as good in it as he was in True Detective In Bruges.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Arlborn

[eXtacy]

Definitely not as good as the Harry Potter films, except DH1. The pacing was really off as there were LONG stretches of down time. I don't mind slower movies but the story-line did not have the same gravitas as HP so paying attention during these moments was a bit tedious. Also its all a bit muddled as they obviously were setting up future plots of the next installments making it feel very much incomplete film. So now the major complaints are out of the way the monsters and CGI were all quite nice and the core characters seem to be a good bunch. The world of wizards is as interesting a ever. I will probably see the second one to see if it fixes up the problems as there is potential here.

 

C+

[4815162342]

A-

 

Would put it a bit below the best two HPs (PoA and DH1). Could have used some fat-trimming with the subplot with the Senator, Jon Voight, etc. Unless there's payoff in a sequel it feels like a waste of space.

 

The Grindlewald twist was not good in concept or execution.

 

Core 4 + Farrell were very good.

[Ethan Hunt]

Its at it's best when its let's itself relish in the fun adventure. Its at its worst when it's trying to hard to set up a franchise

[AniNate]

Very fun in spurts, but dragged down by Redmayne's lack of energy in the lead role and a blandly written villain making its convoluted exposition a chore to sit through. When it does embrace the high fantasy trappings that have made the franchise so popular though it's as enjoyable as any Potter movie 

[JohnnyGossamer]

Yeah... I just really wish the beasts appeared much less. I'll give it the twig, the invisible one and the thief, of course, the obscurus as well. Nix the rest. Focus on the obscurus. Newt is looking for it. Graves/Grindewald is pursuing it as well. Add some flesh to Miller, Morton and Waterston angle. Remove Voight and that Senator subplot altogether. Just a complete non starter waste of time. The No Maj was great. Keep that dude around and make the romance with him and Queenie a bit more than it was. Nix any romance between Newt and Waterston. Also a total waste. Friendship is all that's necessary there.

 

It's incredibly disjointed. As if Rowling had a three or four stories and didn't know which two threads to choose to make an organic narrative and ends up not really telling much of story. Newt just happening upon it all by accident is shit. Just makes it feel more labored in tying it together. If you flesh out what's mentioned earlier, there's a stronger bond with the audience and Newt, Ezra Miller, Graves, Waterston and Morton. And, aside from bittersweet ending for the No Maj, that's the real dramatic beat to this one.

 

Really hoping it's focused more going forward. I think Rowling knocked off the rust here.

[4815162342]

I disagree about Newt stumbling into the Obscurus plot being conceptually bad. A lot of good stories have the same fundamental narrative of the hero being in the wrong place at the right time.

[Ethan Hunt]

I mean I think the movie is better if you cut the Obscrial shit all together and just make a fun adventure with Redmayne and Fogler traveling the city catching beasts.

[grim22]

On 11/24/2016 at 8:08 AM, 4815162342 said:

A-

 

Would put it a bit below the best two HPs (PoA and DH1). Could have used some fat-trimming with the subplot with the Senator, Jon Voight, etc. Unless there's payoff in a sequel it feels like a waste of space.

 

The Grindlewald twist was not good in concept or execution.

 

Core 4 + Farrell were very good.

 

 

I actually really liked Ezra Miller as well. The twist, and the misdirection, really worked.

[The Futurist]

It seemed to me the movie was trying to tell three different stories that had nothing to do with each other.

 

Loved the design of the beasts a lot.

 

Great production values, Rowling is incredilbe at world building, that is her most precious gift.

 

Not a fan of the main cast, only Fogler & Sudol were cute & great.

 

A mixed bag but still enjoyable.

 

 

Edited November 26, 2016 by The Futurist

[IronJimbo]

Good film, something fresh and new to the harry potter world. It did everything The Force Awakens couldn't, after all TFA was just a glib facsimile.

 

The sisters were FIT

[baumer]

There was a twist and misdirection in this film?  You guys didn't know that Miller was the "bad guy" from the first time they showed him?

 

A tiny bit better than The Hunger Games 2.  I liked Kowalski, the mind reader was hot and I stayed till the end to see if he got his bakery.

 

The rest was boring, silly, uninteresting and I had not idea why I was supposed to care about anyone on the film.  Just not quite my tempo.

 

2/10

[eXtacy]

14 hours ago, Christmas Baumer said:

There was a twist and misdirection in this film?  You guys didn't know that Miller was the "bad guy" from the first time they showed him?

 

A tiny bit better than The Hunger Games 2.  I liked Kowalski, the mind reader was hot and I stayed till the end to see if he got his bakery.

 

The rest was boring, silly, uninteresting and I had not idea why I was supposed to care about anyone on the film.  Just not quite my tempo.

 

2/10

 

Is it wrong i pictured you saying it this way

 

Spoiler

 

 

[4815162342]

17 hours ago, Christmas Baumer said:

There was a twist and misdirection in this film?  You guys didn't know that Miller was the "bad guy" from the first time they showed him?

 

 

The twist was that Graves wasn't Graves

[The Panda]

5 hours ago, 4815162342 said:

 

The twist was that Graves wasn't Graves

 

Tbh, the twist was lame.  Unless you're a massive Potterbuff you have no reason to care that he was actually Grindewald (as he's only a name that's mentioned a few times in the movies and books really).  

 

I felt like Graves was compelling enough on his own and didn't need to be a Scooby Doo "Who is it really" kind of villain.

[4815162342]

24 minutes ago, ThePanda A Star Wars Story said:

 

Tbh, the twist was lame.  Unless you're a massive Potterbuff you have no reason to care that he was actually Grindewald (as he's only a name that's mentioned a few times in the movies and books really).  

 

I felt like Graves was compelling enough on his own and didn't need to be a Scooby Doo "Who is it really" kind of villain.

 

Which is exactly what I have said pretty much.

[Noctis]

On 11/27/2016 at 0:15 AM, Christmas Baumer said:

There was a twist and misdirection in this film?  You guys didn't know that Miller was the "bad guy" from the first time they showed him?

 

A tiny bit better than The Hunger Games 2.  I liked Kowalski, the mind reader was hot and I stayed till the end to see if he got his bakery.

 

The rest was boring, silly, uninteresting and I had not idea why I was supposed to care about anyone on the film.  Just not quite my tempo.

 

2/10

 

Yea, Miller wasn't the bad guy. lol

[4815162342]

2 hours ago, Noctis said:

 

Yea, Miller wasn't the bad guy. lol

 

I think Baumer did mean the twist where Miller was the Obscurus instead of Modesty, even though we had been told that Obscuri die around the age of 10.

 

Of course that twist was telegraphed from the get-go with Ezra looking constipated the entire time.