Read Mixed User Reviews for Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

6

papeadojhonJul 19, 2018

There are glitters of inventiveness and potential throughout, although it doesn't quite mesh very well in this appealing yet inconsistent start of a franchise.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

6

BelousNov 14, 2018

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. You know what was good about “Harry Potter”? It had “Harry Potter” in the title and it was about Harry Potter. In “Fantastic Beasts and where to find them” there are those “beasts”, but the problem is that the movie is not about them and has a single word about where to find them.
The film begins with a battle of a group of mages and a mysterious dark sorcerer and a bunch of newspapers headlines about someone called Grindelwald. Who is it? That’s a good question. If you want to know than go watch sequel, because he is not in this one. The twist of Grindewald’s exposure is very weak, it simply leads to nothing. Throw it out of the movie and nothing will change. Oh, wait, if you do that than it wouldn’t be so interesting to see the sequel. It’s really sad when the first movie of a cycle tries to sell you the sequel.
What is a real pity is the fact that the beasts are absolutely gorgeous, but there’s too little screen time with them. The story just begins when some of them flee, later they become a secondary storyline, giving the first place to Creedence. He is a very powerful wizard, who turns into an obscurus, a dangerous magical creature, by suppressing his magical powers. And someone might say: “But here is your magical beast and a story about it!”, but it is a very cheap move. The viewer clearly understands that the story of the beasts ends with the capturing of the last escaped creature, long before the end of the movie. Who is this Creedence guy? Why should I care for him? The whole movie feels like the creators just stuffed too much and didn’t bother to make some part really good.
But no everything is bad here. Eddy Redmayne (Newt) and Ezra Miller (Creedence) are superb in portraying their characters. You could watch this movie for their performances alone. It’s difficult to say something good about other aspects of this film. The editing feels raggy and awkward, the stories are skin-deep, and the sequel baiting is frustrating. The movie had potential but it lacks of polishness almost in every aspect.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

6

NihilisticNov 23, 2016

I had mixed feelings about this movie, I did like the characters, parts of the story, and the special effects. Over all however, I found the movie to be dull and boring. It lost most of the dark elements that I liked in Harry Potter, but weI had mixed feelings about this movie, I did like the characters, parts of the story, and the special effects. Over all however, I found the movie to be dull and boring. It lost most of the dark elements that I liked in Harry Potter, but we shouldn't be comparing this with the main series, since the movie feels like a standalone. It was shallow, digging only slightly in topics and themes. This ensured that the movie was entertaining to watch.. or was it? I personally found myself blanking out at moments during the movie and tried to look for a deeper meaning within the movie. I couldn't much apart from clichés and an overall average movie. The abuse was used to make the movie seem more mature, yet I was thinking about why I was watching a movie aimed at children.… Expand

4 of 6 users found this helpful42

All this user's reviews

6

PeterAlexanderDec 13, 2016

Whilst a charming tale, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is a noticeable descent from the magic of the Harry Potter series. The main characters are not likeable and the film lacks a proper villain. Due to a somewhat disengaging plot,Whilst a charming tale, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is a noticeable descent from the magic of the Harry Potter series. The main characters are not likeable and the film lacks a proper villain. Due to a somewhat disengaging plot, the final act is not the epic conclusion it tries to be. Despite this, it is a fun little movie and the array of beasts themselves are amusing.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

6

testuser-4Dec 7, 2016

Set in the magical world of witchcraft, Fantastic Beasts is really worthy of the hype and the stir it's been causing for a almost a year now. The film itself is emotionally charged and action-packed, just like we've come to know everythingSet in the magical world of witchcraft, Fantastic Beasts is really worthy of the hype and the stir it's been causing for a almost a year now. The film itself is emotionally charged and action-packed, just like we've come to know everything Rowling has ever touched. With a great script from JK, great direction from David Yates, outstanding performances from the whole cast (Eddie Redmayne especially), and breath-taking visual effects, it's safe to say that this is the first journey of what looks like a franchise that will be up to the level of the pinnacle that is Harry Potter "testuser-4"… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

6

ScarlettMiNov 23, 2016

This movie was all over the place. Sometimes it was dark and compelling (Samantha Morton, Colin Farrell, Ezra Miller). Sometimes it was fun, energetic, and charming (Dan Fogler, Alison Sudol). And sometimes it was bland and forgettable (EddieThis movie was all over the place. Sometimes it was dark and compelling (Samantha Morton, Colin Farrell, Ezra Miller). Sometimes it was fun, energetic, and charming (Dan Fogler, Alison Sudol). And sometimes it was bland and forgettable (Eddie Redmayne, Katherine Waterston).

I liked parts of it a lot. Even parts with wildly different tones and plots worked for me (even if they didn't necessarily work well together). In the end, however, it felt like a lot of potential and a lot of wasted opportunities. I think there could have been two really good films here, instead of one that was simply okay.

I liked more than I disliked and there's definitely a lot of material left here to build a film franchise on (as they're planning to do). Unfortunately a horrible casting decision sucked out a good deal of my enthusiasm. That character reveal evoked laughter from the audience at my theater and *not* in a good way. It's the worst misstep in a movie that wasn't exactly perfect to begin.

It was an entertaining movie and it was not a bad movie. I'd recommend it to fans of the Harry Potter universe for sure. I was mostly left wishing it had been better but I didn't regret having seen it.… Expand

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

All this user's reviews

6

Movie1997Dec 13, 2016

For someone that is really into the Harry Potter universe, I was actually kind of excited for this movie. However, the movie was simply enjoyable, but nothing special. I'll start off with some positives. First off, I was intrigued with theFor someone that is really into the Harry Potter universe, I was actually kind of excited for this movie. However, the movie was simply enjoyable, but nothing special. I'll start off with some positives. First off, I was intrigued with the concept of having to recapture the beasts. The beasts were very unique and interesting to watch. As much as I personally do not like Eddie Redmayne as an actor, I thought he was fine as Newt Scamander. Nothing special, but serviceable. I really enjoyed Dan Folger as Kowalski, or the no-maj as he's referred to in the movie. I liked seeing him really get caught up in this world and forming this awkward friendship with Newt Scamander. At the same time, I also found his relationship with the character of Queenie to be even more interesting than I could have possibly imagined. Most importantly, despite the movies numerous "Lord of the Rings" like endings, what happens to Kowalski at the end of the movie honestly left me touched. However, the movie has quite a bit of flaws. The movie suffers from pacing issues. Some scenes played out better than others. The whole Ezra Miller storyline didn't really captivate me and felt as if it was from a completely different movie. But the biggest reveal in the movie, while truly surprising, didn't feel needed in any way, shape or form. If you've seen the movie, you will definitely know what I am talking about. And the ending itself went on way too damn long. Like I mentioned before, I like what happened with the no-maj character, but everything else happening at the end simply did not need to happen. There were definitely two movies going on at the same time, which was very distracting. At the same time, I cared about our main protagonists and wanted to learn more about them, which is why I ended up enjoying the movie in the long run. Overall, for a messy movie, it still provides some interesting new additions to this movie universe that fans will not be disappointed with. I give "Fantastic Beasts" a B-!… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

6

hassallJan 8, 2017

I enjoyed this movie but the bad guy wasnt great we dont know anything about him,why he is bad and stuff. Im not saying i hated this movie but dont say this movie is similar to harry potter the only thing that is slightly similar to harryI enjoyed this movie but the bad guy wasnt great we dont know anything about him,why he is bad and stuff. Im not saying i hated this movie but dont say this movie is similar to harry potter the only thing that is slightly similar to harry potter is they say dumbledore and hogwarts. This movie is not bad not good nowhere near as good as harry potter.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

5

Seymour_MoviesNov 27, 2016

Fantastically average movie that is only worth watching as an extension to the Harry Potter films. While there was nothing outrageously bad about his movie, there was nothing great about it either. If not connected to the HP series, thisFantastically average movie that is only worth watching as an extension to the Harry Potter films. While there was nothing outrageously bad about his movie, there was nothing great about it either. If not connected to the HP series, this would have been a made for TV movie or worse.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

6

Dr_Shooter24Nov 28, 2016

It's a quite dissapointing film, taking into account where it comes from. There is not any memorable characters as it used to be in Harry Potter, and it's lack of wit makes it a dull film. At least it is quite entertaining, but there isIt's a quite dissapointing film, taking into account where it comes from. There is not any memorable characters as it used to be in Harry Potter, and it's lack of wit makes it a dull film. At least it is quite entertaining, but there is nothing that really makes it attractive apart from the fact that i's origin. Eddie Redmayne it´s ok, but he is suspiciously becoming a little bit repeatitive in his performances.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

4

SquaredRenAug 19, 2017

This movie serves as an expanded universe to Harry Potter, and it kinda works for the fans I guess. The main character has this weird movement with his face that I didn't liked. The "pet friendly scenes" were stupid for me. Im not a hardcoreThis movie serves as an expanded universe to Harry Potter, and it kinda works for the fans I guess. The main character has this weird movement with his face that I didn't liked. The "pet friendly scenes" were stupid for me. Im not a hardcore Harry Potter fan, but this film was not needed. Overall, not good.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

5

Thejudge21Jan 27, 2017

If you are going into this expecting the same magic that was in all the harry Potter films you will be disappointed. It's not a terrible film, it has its moments, but you never get close to the characters, you quickly forget them when theIf you are going into this expecting the same magic that was in all the harry Potter films you will be disappointed. It's not a terrible film, it has its moments, but you never get close to the characters, you quickly forget them when the film is over, and if they make a sequel, it won't be first on your films to see list. Eddie Redmayne was miscast, too ponderous, too layed back, and mumbling right through the film. If you had that many fantastic beasts you would at least smile now and then or be the slightest bit exited. He was like watching paint dry. Poor script, trying to be many things but being none, especially a romantic film with such a dour main actor. The ending summed it all up. Not enough character storytelling and character's you care about. Which is what made the harry Potter films so enjoyable.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

4

The3AcademySinsNov 24, 2017

I'm a die hard Harry Potter fan and let me tell you, Fantastic Beasts did NOTHING for me. I felt there was a lot of untapped potential about the American magical world, and what we did see was very lacking or bland. The characters were kindI'm a die hard Harry Potter fan and let me tell you, Fantastic Beasts did NOTHING for me. I felt there was a lot of untapped potential about the American magical world, and what we did see was very lacking or bland. The characters were kind of brushed over, and I felt like I didn't really get to know Newt or his companions or even the villain, so I didn't really care about ANY of the characters. The magical duels and dangerous high stakes moments were lifeless to me because I felt the script made all of the characters safe, they all had way too much plot armor. The CGI for the beasts was pretty fantastic, they were easily the best done part of the film. Mostly though, I was bored out of my mind.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

5

benskylerhillMay 27, 2018

Far from being a terrible movie, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is nonetheless woefully unnecessary and not nearly as fun as it could have been. It does carry on the Harry Potter universe in a sufficiently charming way, but it reallyFar from being a terrible movie, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is nonetheless woefully unnecessary and not nearly as fun as it could have been. It does carry on the Harry Potter universe in a sufficiently charming way, but it really comes across as riding the coattails of a successful franchise while not doing enough to build its own compelling story.

What made the Harry Potter series so endearing was its characters. Each character both main and minor had their own compelling arc that was visible in each film and carried on throughout the saga. Fantastic Beasts does have very quirky characters that are incredibly fun to watch and also have enough charm and emotion to make them worth caring about. The performances are suitably strong--with the exception of a few minor characters--and the banter between them makes the film watchable.

But beyond this, the movie has some serious problems that really make the experience entirely forgettable. Though this is certainly surface level, the CGI is just bad at many parts of the movie. They're not all bad. About half of them work just fine, but there are parts in which entire rooms are constructed using computers when it's not even an action sequence and therefore completely unnecessary. Many scenes don't even look finished, and it certainly makes the beasts not-so-fantastic.

Another problem is the story. The plot weaves through a tangled mess of main quests and subplots to the point where I didn't even know what the movie was about when the credits rolled. It gets off to a very slow, boring start and doesn't get much better from there. Not only that, but many crucial details that are essential to the story feel very forced, unbelievable, and shoehorned into the script for the sole purpose of advancing--and therefore creating--a plot.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is sure to entertain long-time fans of Harry Potter, but it's unlikely to have converted any new followers to the franchise and it certainly doesn't have a leg to stand on its own.

Story: 1
Acting: 7.5
Script: 7
Visuals/Sound: 5
Entertainment Value: 5

OVERALL SCORE: 5.1/10… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

4

JUSTINT123Nov 18, 2016

Lacks originality and soul, at least 20 minutes too long, and the special effects team seems to think that we want to watch bricks fly around- a lot. If it wasn't for the baker, his girlfriend, and the platypus, it would be almost unwatchable.

9 of 19 users found this helpful910

All this user's reviews

4

rimpybharotNov 22, 2016

this comes as a blow to an ardent fan of Harry Potter series and Rowling's work. The average story is made even worse by David Yates by his sloppy excuse of a direction. Eddie Redmayne as an eccentric magizoologist is fine and so is Colinthis comes as a blow to an ardent fan of Harry Potter series and Rowling's work. The average story is made even worse by David Yates by his sloppy excuse of a direction. Eddie Redmayne as an eccentric magizoologist is fine and so is Colin Farrel, but the major disappointment is Katherine Waerston. She dilutes the whole energy of the movie. The movie depends heavily on the special effects but evryone who know Rowling knows the power of her story telling which blends perfectly with the magic surrounding the wizard world. Sadly, the movie has all show and no soul.… Expand

3 of 7 users found this helpful34

All this user's reviews

5

Megajohn85Nov 18, 2016

Just because Rowling wrote the initial Harry Potter books doesn't mean her first foray into screenwriting with "Fantastic Beasts" screams masterpiece...it actually screams "Jump The Shark"

12 of 29 users found this helpful1217

All this user's reviews

6

Rebecca31Nov 20, 2016

Are you a fan of Harry Potter? Do you miss Harry Potter? Has nothing filled the void since Harry Potter finished? Well then why not go see a movie that's not Harry Potter but is about wizards. Not starring any of your favourite characters butAre you a fan of Harry Potter? Do you miss Harry Potter? Has nothing filled the void since Harry Potter finished? Well then why not go see a movie that's not Harry Potter but is about wizards. Not starring any of your favourite characters but does star an awkward Eddie Redmayne stumbling around 1920s New York with a suitcase full of magical creatures. Joined by a no-maj (yeah they don't even use the term muggle) but you will hear the words Hogwarts and Dumbledore so there’s always that. The effects for the fantastic beasts really are quite magical and I can't fault the acting from anyone but I will fault the direction. Yes David Yates I'm talking to you. How you've managed to direct the last 4 Harry Potter movies and now the next 4 Fantastic Beasts movies I'll never know, you uncreative waste of space. The biggest problem is this movie has absolutely no heart and no real story, more like two badly paced stories shoved together in the last twenty minutes. Recommended but if you're expecting this to feel like a Harry Potter movie then you'd be better off watching any of those movies instead.… Expand

4 of 10 users found this helpful46

All this user's reviews

5

BadAidsNov 24, 2016

It's been nearly half a decade since Pottheads got their last fix from the silver screen and for many a JK-Junkie out there, Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them was the most eagerly anticipated film of 2016. Fantastic Beasts offers anIt's been nearly half a decade since Pottheads got their last fix from the silver screen and for many a JK-Junkie out there, Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them was the most eagerly anticipated film of 2016. Fantastic Beasts offers an interesting mix of familiarity and new beginnings as the Potterverse welcomes back David Yeats, director of the previous 4 Harry Potter installments, and sees J.K Rowling's maiden voyage as a screenwriter.
I've always been a fan of the Potter films, save for my hatred of Deathly Hallows:Part 1, and I was certainly looking forward to seeing what else Rowling had to offer but this films serves as more of an appetiser rather than a main course. Full of great effects and solid performances from Redmayne and Fogler, the film offers very little in terms of story, which, when considering this was penned by one of the most successful authors of all time, is largely dissappointing.
Set in a beautifully designed 1920's New York, clearly no expense was spared for the effects budget as Fantastic Beasts does exactly what it says on the tin by offering the audience a sample of some beautifully imaginative creatures. Unfortunately this is a case of style over substance as by the end of the film the beasts are playing second fiddle to a dim-witted auror (Katherine Waterston)and the American Ministry of Magic subplot. An interesting point to note is some of the darker tones that Rowling is attempting to examine this time round. Child abuse, albeit a theme in previous Potter films, and capital punishment spring to mind but there is certain, uncomfortable and perhaps perverted atmosphere between Graves (Farrell) and Credence Barebone (Miller) that I found odd. This darker tone, not too disimilar from the later Potter films, was an intriguing element in the film and I'm interested in whether or not these will be explored in the forecoming sequels. On a broader scale, Fantastic Beasts is similar to Warcraft(2016), by way of an underwhelming film that will no doubt produce several offspring. The film markets itself on the idea of a new story set in a familiar universe but, under it's thin layer of narrative, lies the all too familiar shell of a money-hungry franchise... But hey! thats Hollywood folks, so buy your overpriced popcorn, sit back, relax and let this wave of mediocrity wash over you.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

4

dr_heartlessNov 22, 2016

Painfully bland and full of wasted potential. The movie's "dark" tone is totally unearned. Sure it looks dark, cribbing HARD from the last two Potter movies for music and tone. It really just comes down to the movie marketing itself as darkPainfully bland and full of wasted potential. The movie's "dark" tone is totally unearned. Sure it looks dark, cribbing HARD from the last two Potter movies for music and tone. It really just comes down to the movie marketing itself as dark when in reality this is a pretty lighthearted film. None of the dread and desperation that made the "Deathly Hallows" so memorable are present. The characters are flat. You get to know almost nothing about them and that do not grow or change at all. The story is constantly trying to throw twists at the audience but none of it matters anyway due to there never really being clear stakes. It all feels hallow. In fact the big twist at the end is so utterly ridiculous that I actually exclaimed "Oh come on" out loud in the theater. If you're okay with a brainless popcorn movie for the holidays this is perfect. There's some fun to be had for long time Potter fans but that's about it.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

5

TrevorsViewDec 9, 2016

I’m not quite sure what to make of this newest cinematic expansion of the Wizarding World. In one part, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them feels like a kid’s movie with its majestic use of magic. In another part, its marketing and ratingI’m not quite sure what to make of this newest cinematic expansion of the Wizarding World. In one part, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them feels like a kid’s movie with its majestic use of magic. In another part, its marketing and rating suggests a teen movie. Yet at the same time, its 1920s setting and cast of adult characters suggests something that would appeal best to those who grew up with the original Harry Potter adventures. Well one thing is for sure, this new adaptation by the immortal J.K. Rowling is not going to appeal to anybody in the long-run.

If anything, Fantastic Beasts seems mostly most like an adventure for the teenage girl, as the very casting of Eddie Redmayne (The Danish Girl, The Theory of Everything) will satisfy their fantasies with his boyish charm, along with a half-baked romance between a down-on-his-luck baker and a zesty accountant. But even so, I doubt any high school cheerleaders would be screaming their heads off over a film focused on combining the roaring twenties with a children’s imagination.

Yet true to what the world of Harry Potter has always done, this historical setting is rich with culture. It turns out that unlike the United Kingdom, America has a different word for muggles; “No-Mags,” and their relationships align much closer to the Salem witch trials than simple racism. The two worlds between the wizards and No-Mags’ each look as captivating as they do true to the historical era, complete with a scandalous goblin singing at a bar.

Then in comes skimpy old Newt Scamander, played by the same British actor I previously mentioned. He arrives in New York City on the Fort Elizabeth, with a secret mission involving his magical briefcase. Just step inside his case, and you will see an immense world inside: room upon room housing some of the most fascinating beasts you will find. These include leafy little bowtruckles, a money-mad niffler, a mischievous demiguise, and a size-shifting occamy. Kids will love seeing these imaginative designs, but what they’re doing in a PG-13 movie I cannot say.

Teens would certainly not care about seeing these beasts anyway, as the special effects used to bring them to life is distractingly awful. Remember in the Harry Potter movies when computer generated imagery was only used when necessary? Now here, it is use in practically every frame for every scenario, even in places where makeup prosthetics would have gotten the job done easy. Think the entire Hobbit trilogy, except without any effort by the visual effects team.

These beasts have ended up under the hands of a No-Mag named Mr. Kowalski who has dreams of starting his own bakery. Yet he mistakenly lets the case open, and several of the beasts loose into the city. Now Newt has to bring him as a witness to protect his innocence from the National Astute of Secrecy, or else face serious criminal penalty for exposing the wizarding community to the No-Mags.

There are points here and there that reveal how a great movie could have been made, but for the greater portion, the blank performances by the majority of the cast send a preposterous message that says the law and government should not control us. If you ask me, these negative, limiting depictions of political authorities is way too common in our movie theaters, and our leaders deserve better treatment. Even worse, this predictable story is ruined all the more by a plot twist that adds nothing; literally nothing to the story.

Yet it doesn’t stop there. After a snore-inducing climax, the final moments try to emotionally manipulate you as if the filmmakers felt that they earned it somehow—they didn’t. Then they of course have to leave the final frame open for a sequel which I obviously will not be looking forward to.

If you think that Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is a dream come true for your inner witch or wizard, I hate to break it to you: look elsewhere. This attempt at keeping the franchise alive and fresh is only making it age all the more, and its attempted relational bonds between America and England does not feel any stronger either. I could really use a great motion picture that makes us people feel united in spite of differences in a world that wants us to feel otherwise, and this does not accomplish that.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

4

RollingStonerNov 19, 2016

This movie is definitely made for die hard Harry Potter fans. If you absolutely love the Harry Potter movies, you would probably already say this is amazing without even having to watch it. But for someone who was not a die hard fan, thisThis movie is definitely made for die hard Harry Potter fans. If you absolutely love the Harry Potter movies, you would probably already say this is amazing without even having to watch it. But for someone who was not a die hard fan, this movie is quite "meh". The pacing in the film is way off, the story line of the main characters and the villain have absolutely nothing to do with each other and never really has anything at stake, some of the CGI is actually terrible (which stands out compared to the really good CGI it has), and just an overall weak story that just screams sequel. Not a terrible movie, but really quite forgettable.… Expand

10 of 26 users found this helpful1016

All this user's reviews

6

foxgroveNov 18, 2016

'Don't do anything that's predictable' states Eddie Redmayne's bizarrely named Newt Scamader, a piece of advice that the movie itself was never going to follow. And therein lies the problem with this formulaic, but not unlikeable Potter spin'Don't do anything that's predictable' states Eddie Redmayne's bizarrely named Newt Scamader, a piece of advice that the movie itself was never going to follow. And therein lies the problem with this formulaic, but not unlikeable Potter spin off. The trouble with these franchises or big blockbuster films is that they are all just constantly rehashing old story lines or ideas to the extent that one often knows before viewing exactly what will be on offer. This lack of originality began to pall ages ago for the casual viewer, but as freshness and surprises are no longer considerations maybe even the faithful fan will become bored with all the repetition.
Still, I'm sure the plentiful supply of Potter stalwarts will lap it up and, in fairness, it is actually a better film than some of those were. Eddie Redmayne follows up on his Oscar nominated roles in 'The Theory of Everything' and 'The Danish Girl' with a somewhat limp and inattentive performance, or maybe that's just the character he plays. Whichever, he doesn't impress. Far better is the supporting turn of Dan Fogler as prospective Baker Jacob Kowalski who gets unwittingly caught up in the world of magic and fantastic creatures. One scene involving him is actually very moving. The film cannot be faulted at all on its visual effects and Art-Direction. They often take one's breath away and are constantly eye catching. Both crafts go a long way in sustaining interest in a so-so story. Also prominently drawing attention, although not for the same reason, is the rather dark cinematography. Whilst the script's tone is intentionally sombre, dealing with wizards and magic as it does, the 3D visuals of the print under review are frequently so colourless that I had to remove my glasses on more than a few occasions in order to check that this effect was intentional. This aside, however, as franchises go you could do a lot worse than to commit to this initial instalment. As for the promised four sequels, I suppose we'll have to wait and see.… Expand

7 of 20 users found this helpful713

All this user's reviews

4

Brent_MarchantNov 20, 2016

The only thing fantastic about this one is the special effects. The story, writing and acting are all flat, meandering along with little direction, personality or qualities that make the picture even remotely interesting. I frankly couldn'tThe only thing fantastic about this one is the special effects. The story, writing and acting are all flat, meandering along with little direction, personality or qualities that make the picture even remotely interesting. I frankly couldn't wait for this one to end. Zzzzzzzz....… Expand

4 of 12 users found this helpful48

All this user's reviews

6

Whatever12345Nov 18, 2016

This movie doesn't live up to the expectations of the first Harry Potter movies but it's fun. Visuals are great and interesting however movie suffers from the lack of the self identity. It wants to be a movie for kids at the beginning butThis movie doesn't live up to the expectations of the first Harry Potter movies but it's fun. Visuals are great and interesting however movie suffers from the lack of the self identity. It wants to be a movie for kids at the beginning but then it turns in a dark story which was quite unsettelling. As if you wanted to see a lighthearted fantasy movie about sorcery but the tone shifts to the last two HP movies in the end and leaves you with a strange feeling of "well you could avoid that and this and it would be still a great movie". I also had a hard time finding likable characters except Colin Farrell - the only guy who really did a great job here. Other characters were pretty weak and didn't deserve much attention. Overall it is a good but overhyped movie that worth watching.… Expand

5 of 17 users found this helpful512

All this user's reviews

6

romanontherunNov 18, 2016

The first part of the movie is kinda fun, lighthearted and enjoyable
Second part movie turn into some dark and uncanny territory. This felt odd and unnecessary - I wish movie was only about beast and how to find them (ironic, isn't it?) notThe first part of the movie is kinda fun, lighthearted and enjoyable
Second part movie turn into some dark and uncanny territory. This felt odd and unnecessary - I wish movie was only about beast and how to find them (ironic, isn't it?) not late-potter dark magic themes.… Expand

5 of 17 users found this helpful512

All this user's reviews

5

royledesma90Nov 18, 2016

Realmente es muy grato volver al mundo mágico después de tantos años y comprobar que Rowling puede escribir bien un guion es placentero, existe fe de que las próximas entregas serán mejores. Por el lado técnico, la iluminación me parecióRealmente es muy grato volver al mundo mágico después de tantos años y comprobar que Rowling puede escribir bien un guion es placentero, existe fe de que las próximas entregas serán mejores. Por el lado técnico, la iluminación me pareció desmedidamente oscura. yates hace mas de lo mismo, la música esta bastante bien. Por su parte, los actores estuvieron muy bien.… Expand

4 of 15 users found this helpful411

All this user's reviews

4

Praetorian333Nov 20, 2016

This film unfortunately contains none of the "heart" or emotion of the Harry Potter series. It simply feels like the empty husk of a film. There's nothing substantial about the characters without ham-handed exposition. I'm a massive fan ofThis film unfortunately contains none of the "heart" or emotion of the Harry Potter series. It simply feels like the empty husk of a film. There's nothing substantial about the characters without ham-handed exposition. I'm a massive fan of the HP universe, but this one just felt very flavorless to me. The actors fell flat, not due to their ability, but due to either poor writing or direction. Colin Farrell is completely wasted in this film, as are some other characters who could have been so much deeper. Overall, it's a letdown of a film that simply moseys from plot point to plot point, with little actual substance.… Expand

2 of 8 users found this helpful26

All this user's reviews

6

dtlNov 19, 2016

A generally enjoyable film, it looks good (but not great) and the cast works well together. The story on the other hand seemed often aimless and overly bogged down. Honestly, I don't understand why this is the story they decided to go withA generally enjoyable film, it looks good (but not great) and the cast works well together. The story on the other hand seemed often aimless and overly bogged down. Honestly, I don't understand why this is the story they decided to go with when expanding the Harry Potter world. That said, the story was neither overly confusing nor overly simple, and I expect that Rowling could do a good job in future scripts. The world itself seemed well put together, if a bit off-putting. Rowling doesn't seem to find much to like in her vision of American Wizardry, though I imagine in future movies we would find more nuance in that area. Additionally, I am not a fan of period pieces, and those who do may find it slightly more enjoyable.… Expand

1 of 6 users found this helpful15

All this user's reviews

4

familyguyNov 19, 2016

What the hell with Eddie Redmayne? Entire a film he only have 1 boring expression. Is that how 2 times oscar nominated and 1 win acting. His performance like this film is the pain in the ass and he just want to go home soon after work hour.What the hell with Eddie Redmayne? Entire a film he only have 1 boring expression. Is that how 2 times oscar nominated and 1 win acting. His performance like this film is the pain in the ass and he just want to go home soon after work hour. Seriously they should more screen time on Colin farrel… Expand

1 of 6 users found this helpful15

All this user's reviews

6

TheMetacritiqerNov 19, 2016

It's nothing compared to the best Harry Potters. What about the not so good ones? I forget, I saw them years ago. Theirs no sense of mystery or punch to the confrontations. And it could be a little shorter. It takes way too long to end. A lotIt's nothing compared to the best Harry Potters. What about the not so good ones? I forget, I saw them years ago. Theirs no sense of mystery or punch to the confrontations. And it could be a little shorter. It takes way too long to end. A lot of it is a comedy that's not funny. Except for the platypus creature in the beginning when he's shaked and all the gold comes out his pouch. But I did actually like Katherine Waterston's character. Four more of these? Ridiculous.… Expand

1 of 6 users found this helpful15

All this user's reviews

4

lancekozNov 25, 2016

Strange world now... such over the top incredible seamless effects, incredible hi-price cast, and people-who-really-know-stuff Art Direction... in service to such a silly, cliche-laden story that only children could love, but at the sameStrange world now... such over the top incredible seamless effects, incredible hi-price cast, and people-who-really-know-stuff Art Direction... in service to such a silly, cliche-laden story that only children could love, but at the same time, too complex and dark for children. Starts out with some light and fantastic moments, ends up about as pleasant (and loud) as a weekend in Aleppo, Syria. Oddly touches on Fascism, waterboarding, Trump... with dragons. The pre-modern visualization of New York city was wonderful. But brief.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

MattBrady99Nov 25, 2016

"Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" is a cute, funny, and enchanting film that I had a lot of fun with.

It doesn't cheat itself by using nostalgic or references to win you over. It manages stands on it's own feet and give us a fresh"Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" is a cute, funny, and enchanting film that I had a lot of fun with.

It doesn't cheat itself by using nostalgic or references to win you over. It manages stands on it's own feet and give us a fresh look of the wizarding world. That's the biggest praise I can give to this movie, as you can watch this without any acknowledgment of the Harry Potter films and you still know what's going on. I know fans will embrace this spin-off and rightly so.

Eddie Redmayne was excellent as Newt Scamander. He's likable, engaging, and has a very distinct personality. The same goes to Dan Fogler as Jacob Kowalski who isn't the annoying sidekick that I thought he was going to be. He added a lot to this film, which is the laughter and heart to the story. Come to my surprise, his character towards the end was the most emotional part of the film.

The rest of the cast were pretty solid and I can easily see fans falling in love with the characters.

Katherine Waterston was good as Tina, who's investigating the strange things that's going on in New York City.

When I said that Fogler brought the laughter and emotion to the story - well Colin Farrell (Percival Graves) and Ezra Miller (Credence) brought the dramatic elements. Both of their scenes I found pretty intense and was more interested in that story-line.

David Yates can be a hit or miss for me. (*COUGH COUGH* "The Legend of Tarzan" *COUGH COUGH*). I did like "Order of the Phoenix" and "Deathly Hallows: Part 2". The other's on the another hand, not so much. But I can say this about Yates, he understands the universe very well and him returning to direct must feel like home to him. While the action scenes are basic and duels aren't that special, but the best part & the main focus are the characters.

My issues with the film are mostly with the effect's, editing mistakes, and the heavy exposition scenes.

I kinda wish there was more practical work with none-effect characters. Like the Goblins or Elves didn't have to be cgi and could've easily had make-up on. Because the effect's for them looked fake and pretty bad which is unfortunate to say. It really did stick out and not in a good way.

Overall rating: There's plenty of room for improvement for "Fantastic Beasts", but the flaws didn't stop me from enjoying the film. And I don't mind that there's gonna be five of these. Seriously, I don't mind at all.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

Xan_RyilDec 2, 2016

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Here’s what’s wrong with Fantastic Beasts…!!!!

1. Eddie Redmayne
Eddie could hold first 10 position on this list because of his worst ever portrayal of any character written by J. K Rowling. It’s a new low by an Oscar winner. Even with all the efforts by writer and director, Eddie not only failed to make audience feel infatuated with him but one can’t even relate to his character. It has something to do with his hate towards camera’s lenses or his love for his side profile that he would rather should his left cheek most of the time instead of facing the camera. His acting is pretty much unidimensional. Character shows no development or attachment to anyone besides harnessing some weird animals. 2. Rest of the cast
As much as we praised the casting director of Harry Potter for bringing such brilliant mix to our lives, audience will curse the casting director of Fantastic for the job to bring worst performers on the screen…altogether. None of the actors could really fit in the character (much thanks to J. K. Rowling’s very weak characterization). Every actor seems to be the miss fit. And wearing weird costumes and hair. Lead characters seems to miss the cohesiveness among them even they witch sisters are distant. Some characters hardly acknowledge another’s screen presence.

3. The adventure
Unlike Harry Potter and as the movie is sold, there is less or no adventure involved. Eventually the biggest threat is the exposure (which does not sound that much of a threat). There is nothing left in the action sequence when it’s known to be harmless to living being whether it’s animal or dark force which despite of revolving around the person who betrayed him does not hard him a bit ( not even his hair were messed up while Eddie’s were all messed up throughout )

4. Plotline and Characterization
Story is pretty much vague, we never know, how did the beasts escaped at the first? Here much is left to imagination or presumption that only die hard readers of the books are watching the movie. Also the intentions of characters are not clear, why Newt is taking Jacob to everywhere, only likeness is not enough, beside the movie would have still be the same without Jacob as he plays no role in whole movie at all. Same is the character of Queenie and her affection for Jacob. Some sub plots used, were only waste of budget especially Shaw’s death and his father & brother’s rage. Signing John Voight for a role which has no significance was mismanagement by studio. I personally struggled to have fun during most of the part. Story was plain straight and offered no excitement.

5. Finale
Ending is very much like any other super hero movie. Someone trying to take over and destroying building during its movement however it does not do much harm we’ll give it that ( and they can’t come up with sequel where heroes will be held responsible or be divided among themselves to take responsibility of the destruction and mass murder). Even though Tine was closer to credence (a character which should won award for the worst hair cut in history of mankind), she sends Newt to save and talk to him. Another failed effort by W Bros to create beloved hero (but with Eddie’s stupid acting or in words of Sia “Cheap Thrills” it’s impossible). Graves’ intentions about obscurus and newt are so unclear. It’s not revealed what he wanted to do with obscurus and it was annoying what he was doing with Newt in the subway. As is the fact that they have planned 4 more movies after this adventure less movie. What’s good with Fantastic Beasts?

1. Collin Farrell
Mr. Farrell is the best thing in the movie. Although his character lacks the depth and background but Collin gave persona and intensity to it. He literally owned every frame he was in. He could have been one of those series antagonists who are both evil and memorable. 2. Cameo
I was not going to write it as it would have caused “Spoiler Alert” but I cannot, not write about it. Johnny Depp’s cameo is the best cameo ever in film or television. Even that I had read about it, still I completely forgot and almost jumped out of my seat to see him. He gave us hope.

3. Future prospects
Now that Eddie is signed and played Newt, they can’t replace him but J. K. Rowling can bring Albus Dumbledore in the story and make him the lead instead. It would make the story much mature, dark and fan favorite.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

6

smijatovDec 11, 2016

As a Harry Potter fan since the pre-film Harry Potter times, I was clearly extremely excited about the expansion of the magical world that I had come accustomed to explore in the film theatre. The awe-inspiring creativity and ability toAs a Harry Potter fan since the pre-film Harry Potter times, I was clearly extremely excited about the expansion of the magical world that I had come accustomed to explore in the film theatre. The awe-inspiring creativity and ability to project a completely new world onto the screen was what kept on bringing me and millions others back year after year to watch the next installment of the Harry Potter saga.
However, this is a new saga, and, unfortunately, as the reviewer from Entertainment Weekly aptly described, this one seems "numbingly inconsequential." Do not get me wrong, this is not a bad film. But it is not a *good* film either. It is just fine. And that is disappointing. I found it hard to get into the story for the first hour or so. It just did not grab my attention, despite of all the action going on. Later on, I did find myself engrossed in the film, but that was not quite enough. The darkness that the HP films went to by the end is well maintained here. The visuals are beautiful. The CGI is amazing and even a notch better than the last couple of Harry Potter films. There is nothing wrong per se. It is just lacking an emotional connection. And that may be because it is compared to Harry Potter and if we are holding the film to that standard, it never will live up to it. It just cannot. The most redeeming factor for me was the feeling that it was very appropriate to have such a bleak view of the U.S. in the wake of Donald Trump's election. While this was overall not quite as exciting nor engaging as I had hoped it would be, it did set a stage with enough unknowns about this new wizarding world of the U.S. that it will probably easily give itself to the other 4 sequels. Maybe they will develop this emotional connection that this first installment failed to achieve.… Expand