Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them Review
What a letdown
Alert: Spoilers
It's a letdown. The fun and charming $.25 of Harry Potter were left out of this film. I like J.K. Rowling's work immensely, then that's hard to say.
Plot-wise, things are a mess. Newt and his luggage total of magical creatures are a side plot to the of import things going on. The real story is that an auror in New York is searching for a powerful and unsafe magical force that manifests inside a teenager. His plan: turn the subversive energy the teenager carries into a weapon, I presume. Enter Newt Scamander, who is trying to transport a thunderbird(?) to Arizona for release dorsum into the wild. Some of Newt'due south other creatures escape in New York, and he has to circular them upwards, all while becoming entangled with the auror and his teenage target.
The plot sounds sort of okay, but it's not well integrated. The characters don't add together up to much of anything, either. The sidekick baker is fairly likable, though, along with his brewing romance with Queenie. Newt's a bit sparse as a grapheme. Eddie Redmayne'due south dialog likewise tended to come out mumbled, which made him hard to empathize at times. Throw in a few acronyms and oddball words similar MACUSA, and that makes for more than confusion.
Altogether, the motion picture needed more work to tighten the story lines and make Fantastic Beasts a story focused on Newt and his menagerie, instead of what we ended up with.
436 out of 662 constitute this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I liked information technology
I really want to draw attending to the title of the review to a higher place. I'm sure many dice-hard potterheads would desire every review on this site to score this picture x/10 and say it is a masterpiece. Well I can't do that, since that isn't my honest opinion. What I can say though is that Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is a thoroughly entertaining affair that is well worth a lookout, especially if you lot're a fan of J.Thousand. Rowling's magical world.
For starters the cast was peachy. Eddie Redmayne feels perfectly cast in master role as Newt Scamander. A very awkward and introverted person who prefers the company of animals rather than humans. He has the quirkyness downward to a tee. I also really liked the muggle (or no-maj as the Americans telephone call him) played by Dan Fogler. How he reacts to the whole wizarding world and the events that happen around him is really actually funny. I also thought Katherine Waterstone and Alison Sodul did great playing 2 sisters who current of air up roped in to the whole adventure.
The creatures are the all-time part of the unabridged movie by far. They CGI on them looks kind of false, simply it'due south more than made upwards for by the concepts lonely. Almost all of them take some clever twerk that go on them from feeling generic and they're all filled with personality. The sequences when they're catching these creatures are all really fun to lookout.
Even so there are some problems with this movie. For 1 it has style too many side characters. A lot of them feel completely underdeveloped and add basically nothing to the overall story (*cough* Jon Voight *cough*). There'due south besides a magical threat that becomes more central towards the end merely it honestly kind of left me scratching my caput. I merely wasn't that engaged in that office of the story to be honest.
Nevertheless these problems are not enough to ruin the movie past any means. It'south filled with wonder and creativity and beingness dorsum in the world of witchcraft and wizardry is worth the price of admission alone. I enjoyed the characters, the humour and the creatures a whole lot. I also want to give J.One thousand. Rowling huge credit for not only rehashing the Harry Potter story again. This is fresh and new and while it isn't flawless past any ways it's certainly entertaining!
327 out of 476 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
No story & too much CGI
I have to say that I am actually disappointed of the movie as a whole. The Harry Potter movies are easily one of the all-time and most rewatchable movie franchises then far. And this movie is sadly nothing like the original HP movies. The only thing that is has in common are the special furnishings (for the apparitions). There was no real dialogue betwixt the characters. Just lightheaded i-liners and the occasional humorous remark. I am as well very angered by the fact that they just introduced a new concept (obscurials) to the HP franchise that would literally change everything (if obscurials exist why hasn't Harry Potter get ane? Subsequently all he fits the criteria).
At that place was also way too much CGI in the movie. It became a real nuisance after a while. Especially because information technology wasn't even "up to today's standards".
My terminal critique concerns the overall flair of the moving picture. Information technology just didn't experience like it belongs to the magnum opus that is the HP movie franchise. And righteously so; why did they movie information technology in NYC? The HP franchise is the most British thing since James Bond and Doc Who. I never really realized it before merely at present that I watched this movie it became very clear to me. You tin can't just change the location like this and expect the audience to embrace information technology. Sorry. What'south side by side? Fantastic Beasts in Japan? No thanks. Nosotros already have that, it's called Kaiju.
109 out of 175 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Fantastic CGI, but not so fantastic story...
Non being a fan of the universe that Rowling created and not much of a fan of "Harry Potter" every bit such, and then I had very piddling interest in watching "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" actually, but I had the chance and went to sentry it with my wife.
And while she institute it to be a good movie and enjoyed it, then I was in the opposite side. I didn't enjoy "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Discover Them" one chip.
Sure this movie was amazingly great and astounding to look at visually. And believe you me that there was not spared on the special furnishings and the visuals in this movie. The CGI effects in "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Notice Them" was off the charts. And that lone is almost enough to make it worthwhile to lookout the movie, most...
What deterred me was how the was the amazingly wearisome storyline. Information technology took forever for goose egg to happen, and that was a massive anchor around the movie, dragging information technology downwardly to the signal where it became unbearable to witness.
It seemed similar the entire movie was but a stream of random scenes put together, in no particular order, for making a consummate movie. There was a disturbing lack of a crimson thread throughout the class of this motion picture.
Every bit for the acting, well they surely had managed to get some great names and talents along for the ride, but the pick for the lead role was a chip beyond my comprehension, because Eddie Redmayne seemed to be as lost in the story as the rest of the audience. He stuck out similar a sore pollex among the likes of Colin Farrell and Dan Fogler.
I walked out on the moving-picture show shortly subsequently 50 minutes into the motion-picture show, when the main character started to practice a mating trip the light fantastic. That was merely the pinnacle of ridiculousness and I tossed the towel in the ring at that signal. It was just too much.
I am sure that there definitely is a massive fan flock for this movie, given the success of the "Harry Potter" movies (and books), however information technology was just a swing and a miss for my part.
11 out of fifteen found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
As enchanting as the best 'Harry Potter' films, this outset of a new chapter in J.K. Rowling's wizarding world is fun, edgy and ceaselessly fascinating
Alarm: Spoilers
How exercise you brand a 'Harry Potter' motion-picture show without Harry Potter? Before the last of the eight films of J.One thousand. Rowling's staggeringly pop universe five years ago, that must accept been the puzzler facing Warner Brothers executives every bit they stared at the end of the line of their nearly lucrative franchise. And yet thanks to Rowling herself as well as serial stalwart David Yates, there is once once more new life to be found in the world of witchcraft and wizardry that she had dreamt upwards in the seven books of the boy wonder. The inspiration is one of Harry'southward textbooks at Hogwarts, an essential text which served as a guide to magical animals written past one Newt Scamander. Rowling had written information technology into a companion slice in 2001, simply every bit those who had read the 128- folio book volition tell you, there is a lot more than that Rowling must take had to add to her first motion picture script even as an adaptation of that before book.
That explains why the picture show's narrative feels similar 2 parallel story lines, both of which are fix in the 1920s in New York City. The offset (and the one more than obviously drawn from her text) concerns the magizoologist and former Hogwarts student'due south (Eddie Redmayne) arrival with a suitcase of magical creatures in tow. He'southward hither to practice field work for the titular book that he'due south writing, but no cheers to a mix- up involving a klutzy working-class 'no-maj' (meaning 'muggle' or ordinary, non-magical man) named Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler), some of the beasts Newt keeps hidden in his suitcase – which is really a magical device enclosing a massive nature preserve – have escaped. Together with two comely female person wizards, the struggling investigator Porpentina Goldstein (Katherine Waterson) and her heed-reading sis Queenie (Alison Sudol), Newt and Jacob set out to chase downward these creatures before they wreak more than havoc on the city.
And yet their animated adventure could non take taken place in a more than complicated time – not only has the Magical Congress of the United States (or MACUSA in curt) ready out strict rules against the revelation of the existence of wizards and/or the wizarding globe, its meticulously cautious Madam President (Carmen Ejojo) has outlawed the possession of all beasts. At that place is mayhap good reason though – the city is torn by a mysterious force purportedly to be that of an Obscurus, a dark and uncontrollable power manifested past wizards who have repressed (rather than being taught to control) their innate powers. Rounding out the 2d, and much darker, story is a missing night wizard called Gellert Grindelward (Johnny Depp), which the opening prologue via numerous newspaper reels informs us has gone underground since his night doings in Europe. It's no secret that Grindelward and past extension, Depp, whom nosotros see only briefly at the end of the moving picture, will take up much of the acreage of the 4 other 'Fantastic Beasts' films that Yates and Rowling accept planned.
Given how this needs to set the stage for the beginning of a new franchise, in that location is understandably yards of exposition and a lot of introductions to do within the but-over ii hours information technology has. It likewise means that, aside from its urban center-shaking cataclysm of a climax, this is pretty much like an origin story, such that like the start 'Harry Potter' motion-picture show, one gets the singled-out sense that it is holding back for bigger and hopefully even more intriguing things down the road.
Not to say that this commencement of a quintet isn't charming in and of itself; oh no, in fact, we are confident that Potter fans and newcomers alike will find much to beloved and beguile of the rich and fascinating fictional world that Rowling has created. Indeed, there is sheer delight in discovering the menagerie of creatures that Newt has hidden in his briefcase – among them a scene-stealing platypus with a penchant for stealing shiny things, a majestic avian which changes shape and size to fill up any available space, and a tiny stick-like greenish insect that can pick locks. Before things get serious, the early on scenes with Newt and his unlikely companions pop with escapist fun, not least when he and Jacob get caught in incriminating situations past police force enforcement while pursuing their small, furry and oh-so-beautiful kleptomaniac effectually depository financial institution vaults and jewelry stores. It is also hither that we get to savor more fully the effortlessly endearing Redmayne and Fogler, one quirkily adorable as the shy and slightly awkward boy-man and the other an unassuming bumbler whose wide-eyed wonder upon the world previously hidden from his eyes channels our very own.
Similar how she did with Harry, Ron and Hermoine, Rowling gets a strong character dynamic going around the four cohorts, including a budding attraction betwixt Newt and his Auror-turned-ally Tina every bit well as a gentle romance between Jacob and Queenie. Information technology is these characters that anchor the busy plotting in the second hour with heartfelt emotion.
Even then, the beautifully ornate production design shines through every frame, whether a seedy secret jazz club with all fashion of peculiar (if slightly grotesque) creatures to Manhattan'south old City Hall subway station where the climax unfolds. The special effects are every bit stellar, particularly the transition from our world to that within the suitcase and a breathtaking scene where the Obscurus wrecks devastation beyond several of New York's skyscrapers before plunging into the City Hall station. And of class, the close-ups of the various beasts are just every bit visually stunning, some scary, some cuddly, some ethereal and some just downright goofy. Even without the appeal of adorable immature children, 'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them' is pure enchantment, perfectly setting the stage for a whole new affiliate of the wizarding globe we've come up to embrace through the 'Harry Potter' films. To call it fantastic may be slightly hyperbolic, merely you'll be glad to know it doesn't fall too far short.
155 out of 293 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
No amuse, no character, no story...simply CGI
Warning: Spoilers
FANTASTIC BEASTS AND WHERE TO Observe THEM is the latest instalment in the greenbacks cow HARRY POTTER franchise and a full thwarting equally a movie. I didn't expect much when I saw that artificial director David Yates, responsible for the shallowest movies in the Harry Potter film series also as the atrocious LEGEND OF TARZAN, was at the helm, merely Rowling'due south outset-always script promised something; it turns out she'south a far worse scriptwriter than she is a novelist.
This plays out as a prequel to Potter, with Eddie Redmayne - adopting a unmarried gormless expression of wonder from beginning to terminate - on the chase for various escaping magical creatures in 1920s New York. There's no plot at all, just endless hunt scenes involving poorly animated CGI beasties, so the supporting bandage have nada to do look add perfunctory romance/comedy/drama, none of which works. The CGI is blatant and used to drive the narrative, which information technology tin can't practise, and so by the fourth dimension of the umpteenth magical battle you just don't care. And they're making another four of these? Requite me strength!
31 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Huge, pathetic waste matter of time (I even fell asleep from time to time)
When they have nothing to say and no message to evangelize, but they yet want to make a movie, they are resorting to special furnishings. Special furnishings over special effects. Nil matters anymore, the story, the actors, the management, nothing at all. The music in this kind of films is always the same, it seems to exist a carbon copy. Poor Jon Voight, what a huge altitude from "Midnight Cowboy", "Coming Domicile", and "Delinquent Train" (all three accented masterpieces), and his next films (culminating with this s..t). Poor Colin Farrell, likewise a very good actor himself (but not here, here everything is bad). Poor cinematographer Philippe Rousselot, what he came to exercise... (he's the 1 who signed in the by the cinematography to masterpieces like "Diva", "The Moon in the Gutter", "The Emerald Forest", "The Conduct", "Dangerous Liaisons", "Henry & June"). Mr. Director David Yates is an expert in stupidity, he's making simply poop-movies. Simply 1 thing I liked in this huge mess: the pastries in the shape of fantastic beasts offered past Kowalski (Dan Fogler) in his shop at the terminate of the picture.
65 out of 123 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Magical, Mischievous and Wicked
Warning: Spoilers
Maybe the biggest dilemma y'all will accept before going into this, is whether or not it will live up to the legend of Harry Potter. As someone who loved the series and was skeptical about Yates undertaking this endeavor, I am pleased to say that I'm relieved, As Yates delivers a refreshing and whimsical film. Sure, it doesn't have the characters nosotros've come up to love, but with the creatures y'all encounter and with the added sense of humor of J.Thousand Rowling, you volition come to grip with the fact that this movie volition leave an impression.
Newt is a scientist who has an uncanny resemblance to Doctor Who, as his strange and cunning outlook bares the trademarks of the epic character. Newt is searching for unorthodox creatures. Equally he stuffs them into his suitcase which is an accident waiting to happen. The suitcase seems to be unhinged and dire need of a proper lock. As he arrives in New York he mixes his bag with Jacob Kowalski, who lets loose beasts that start to run rampant in the streets. J.G. Rowling'south first outing equally a screenwriter is a wild success, with her keen eye for detail and whimsical taste. "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Discover Them" becomes a fine add-on to her epic saga. I'm glad that there are four more pending us because if Rowling proved anything, information technology's that she has a lot more to offer.
174 out of 315 constitute this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Newt's Ark
Warning: Spoilers
David Yates has done information technology over again - what a terrible movie. Wearisome from outset to end. J.K. Rowling only wasn't able to write a script that could live up to the Harry Potter books and universe. Fantastic? Non so much. Beasts? Sure, lots of them, but uninteresting. Where to find them? All within a magical bag. At that place'south admittedly no grapheme development: we get to know very piddling about Newt Scamander, his personal quest, his thoughts or what drives him; Tina is just bland; and Kowalski is a comic relief that just wasn't necessary. Throughout the flick, you never empathise why Newt has a "Noah complex" or why he was driven to build his own Ark of magical creatures; at that place's no tension, no drama involved - muggles don't know almost those creatures, so they can't hate them or understand how dangerous they might be, and wizards just don't seem to intendance plenty almost them. Why exactly was Newt expelled from Hogwarts? What exactly was his relation to Leta Lestrange? We just don't know. Graves was an interesting character, but very poorly developed. Sure, he is revealed to be something more and we couldn't know as well much, just we never get to understand the context in which he professes his ideology. For a movie that revolves around magic, in that location's really non that much magic existence used during the movie. Maybe next time they should try a movie with less special furnishings and a trivial bit more acting. The Harry Potter books were always about the narrative - well written, enticing, thrilling, focused on big existential issues, such every bit death, the quest for immortality, friendship. This motion-picture show was well-nigh the visual power of cinema, and that just isn't enough. Besides, a whole generation grew upwardly with Harry Potter, a generation that actually "grew up", so a PG movie won't work.
265 out of 437 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sometimes a Bit Difficult to Know The Foundation of Skilful and Evil
I actually enjoyed watching this film. It is visually astounding with some amazing creatures which inhabit a world that is familiar to us, New York of the 1920's. Eddie Redmain comes to the big city from London to find a weird creature. It is quite destructive and his job is difficult because laws take been passed confronting magic. There are several factions in the metropolis, the strength of whom is difficult to pinpoint. We have no trouble realizing who the heroes are, but the infighting within the administration is not totally clear (although I'one thousand probably too inept to get information technology the commencement fourth dimension). There is a fragile balance betwixt the edgy, dire blackness of Harry Potter and its humor. Some of the creatures are hilarious, just when button comes to shove, in that location is nothing funny most what is happening. Lives are being lost and religious fanatics are seizing power. Life in the city is bedridden by poverty and despair. I sympathize there are several films yet to exist fabricated that banking concern on the unanswered questions in this ane. I am hoping to spotter this over again to become more of an understanding of information technology. Oh! The special effects are beyond belief.
13 out of 21 constitute this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Magical introduction to the new era wizarding world
Having grown up with the Harry Potter books, and every bit someone who constitute a lot to like with all the films (though admittedly some were improve than others), expectations were high for 'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Notice Them'. Peculiarly also with such practiced word of mouth.
Those high expectations were met, and more. 'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them' serves every bit an introduction to the new era of the wizarding globe, and not succeeds brilliantly doing that but also works every bit a magical slice of entertainment in its own. A long film it is, but a vast majority of the fourth dimension it doesn't feel like it, so engrossing is the globe that the film creates.
Not all'due south perfect. 'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them' takes a bit of time to get going, with a irksome and overlong introduction that tended to also be confusingly written. Jon Voight is wasted as a graphic symbol with not much personality or development and with a subplot that practically is forgotten about, both by the viewer and past the film. Information technology is too early on to tell how well Grindelwald will fare as a villain, simply first impressions weren't that promising with Johnny Depp's performance non really igniting my burn down, for somebody who specialises in oddball roles he simply seemed too lightweight for such an evil graphic symbol. This said, the future films I'm sure volition turn this around if they keep going frontward rather than astern.
'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them' lives up to its name visually. The look of the pic is spellbinding, from the wonderful use of colour, with perfectly contrasting shades of light and nighttime, to cinematography that is never garish and too elementary or murky and convoluted, a standout of the latter being that long shot of Credence and Graves in the alley. The standout is easily for the interiors of the suitcase, our looks of awe matching the characters'. Even amend are the special furnishings for the creatures, all of which are technical marvels. This said they are more than that, they are also creatures with their ain distinct identity and purpose, every bit smashing every bit Demiguise, Occamy and Thunderbird the standout is the ambrosial Niffler who too provides some of the biggest and best laughs.
James Newton Howard'due south music score has the right amount of the haunting, the whimsical, the ethereal and the rousing, e'er dynamic with the action and what's going on in the motion-picture show. The script has some grim social-commentary and suspense, which gives the film its darkness, while also bringing some perfectly pitched humor (generally from Jacob and the Niffler), poignant emotion and sense of wonder, while balancing these unlike tones in a manner that never makes one think "it's trying to be too many things" or "it doesn't know what it wants to be". The references to details from Harry Potter will make die-hard fans squeal with please, they certainly gave me a sense of nostalgia. In that location is a lot going on in the story, but all in a manner that is told with charm, exuberant and offbeat wit, enchanting imagination and nail-biting suspense. Loved the lilliputian details as well, such every bit the wand-shining house elfs, the bake-offs, the function-cleaning and the magically translucent umbrellas.
David Yates was more than platonic as director, having the firm ground from having directed the terminal 4 Harry Potter films. At that place are no complaints to exist had visually and technically, and, other than the slow outset, could find trivial to mistake with the fashion the story was told. The characters are well drawn and their personalities well established, with the only real glaring exception being with Voight's graphic symbol. Constitute myself really caring for the heroes and the creatures, and got a existent sense of threat from the villains (excepting Grindelwald).
Acting was top notch, apart from Depp (and Voight doesn't actually have much to work with to make any distinction), with Eddie Redmayne on superbly eccentric and endearingly quirky form. He is ideally matched by an affecting Alison Sudol, a charming Katherine Waterson and a highly agreeable and affable Dan Folger. On villain duty is Colin Farrell playing his dastardly function with smarmy relish and a chilling and middle-breakingly repressed Ezra Miller, though the latter is more than ambiguous as a graphic symbol whereas the sometime is full-on villainous. Samantha Morton also impresses.
On the whole, a magical introduction to the new era wizarding world, and mostly information technology is fantastic. 8/x Bethany Cox
17 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
SFX pretty good, characters & pacing defective.
It's OK, I suppose.
Good parts: Menses costumes & sets were beautiful. Special furnishings were (mostly) very expert, and the Fantastic Beasts were individually great fun.
And so-so parts: The interim was but OK. Newt (Eddie Redmayne) in particular left me dissatisfied. Yes he'southward playing an introverted graphic symbol, simply I saw no reason for the bond he seemed to build with Tina. The MACUSA wizards & witches were extremely underdeveloped, including the President. Their hot-and-common cold treatment of Tina for her interruptions fabricated no sense to me either.
Poor: The editing seemed off to me, in a way I oasis't noticed since The Sleeping accommodation of Secrets. --- awkward pauses littered the picture show, robbing information technology of its momentum. Newt'south interaction with some of the larger beasts didn't wait realistic (e.chiliad. his stroking the Thunderbird's neck). And I personally dislike FX-heavy movies where the Big Bad is some baggy deject (not as bad as Dark-green Lantern, but pretty bad).
Concluding thought: why do and so many large beasts accept bird'south heads? This seems to be a thing with Rowling ...
65 out of 90 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mannerly and endearing!
I admit walking into the theater, I was very excited simply as well a trivial apprehensive. I should not have worried at all though, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Discover Them was incredibly enjoyable! Rowling's magical globe is every bit alluring and fun as always! For me, the best thing about this film is exactly that. Exploring this world.
In the Harry Potter saga, with the exception of Deathly Hallows, nearly of the action was confined in Hogwarts. When nosotros were taken out of the school, the main characters, being underage, were non allowed to do magic. The novelty in this motion picture is that we get to follow a fully fledged developed magician in an entirely new environment and find the dynamics and workings of the magical society.
Said wizard is Newt Scamander, a magical zoologist that traveled the earth in lodge to observe and document rare creatures, which he carries in his magical suitcase. When this suitcase gets mixed upwards with i that belongs to muggle Jacob, some of Newt's creatures escape and crusade problems in New York.
Eddie Redmayne shines in this moving picture. He plays a very clearly British, endearing and slightly awkward Newt, but the grapheme's kindness is obvious by the loving and friendly mode that he treats his magical creatures. Dan Fogler does a bang-up job as Jacob Kowalski, the muggle who is of a sudden thrown into a globe of wonder that existed beside him all along. He is the i the audience tin can best chronicle to, since he mirrors our sense of marvel. Katherine Waterstone and Alison Sudol also do a good task as the 2 vastly unlike magical sisters, who aid Newt in his take a chance. If I had a small gripe, it would be that the excellent Colin Farell was in my opinion under used.
All in all, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Observe Them is a solid and visually stunning movie that manages to achieve iii things.
First, although it takes place in the Harry Potter universe, it stands apart and has its very ain story, which can be enjoyed separately from that of the famous immature wizard. Second, information technology drops quite a few hints and names, which not only tie in nicely with the stories that nosotros know, but also serve to set up the adjacent installments, which are rumored to document Dumbledore'south past and connection with Grindelwald. Finally, the film features a bustling 1926 New York, which coupled with the intriguing graphic symbol dynamics, offers a brand new insight into Rowling magical world and leaves us poor muggles asking for more.
Later following Harry's adventures, many of us were left wanting to see much more of the story and luckily for united states, it seems Rowling has that much more to offer. Personally, I can't wait for the next flick, peachy task!
187 out of 309 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Drab & Charmless with a Mumbling Protagonist & Lifeless Product
Deadline Charmless with a Pb Character (Eddie Redmayne) that Mumbles, Withdraws, and is Most Lifeless. The Female Pb (Katherine Waterston) is a Good Pairing because Her Grapheme is Lifeless too.
So there's Jon Voight, who is Absent Anything to do with a Sub-Plot that goes Nowhere. Colin Farrell (equally a principal antagonist) seems Depressed to be in that location.
Information technology doesn't Bode Well when the most Engaging Characters are Secondary, Dan Fogler and Samantha Morton and Their Flirtatious Frolicking Occasionally Lifts the Movie from its Doldrums, equally do a few of the Titular Beasts.
Merely the Look of the Movie is Drab Brown and the Film is Drab in other ways. In that location is Very Lilliputian Energy when a Beast isn't On Screen and the Production seems Static and Strong.
The CGI is Generic and the "Ten-Men Mutant vs Homo" Story is a Lazy Recycling. In the End the Principal Adversary is a Reveal that is Not-Surprising and is Rendered equally a Whirling Screw of a Dark Liquid Mist (talk about a allow-downwards).
It's an OK Time-Waster but Overall it'due south such a Waste of Upkeep, Writing Talent, and when Imagination is Lacking in a Film that IS Imagination, information technology becomes a Missed Opportunity at Best and at Worst, a Disappointing Development in a Franchise that Deserves Better.
vi out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
No Heart or Imagination
Alert: Spoilers
It's ever tough for a reboot or a reimagining of a franchise to win over the hearts of all viewers. The Harry Potter films were this generation'southward Star Wars. It was always going to exist an uphill battle for Fantastic Beasts and in my opinion, the movie never even got off the basis. With no heart, weak visual furnishings, and surprisingly footling imagination, Fantastic Beasts and How to Get Bored turns out the most disappointing picture show going experience of this year.
I'yard going to endeavour and not compare the film too much to its predecessors, because that'south ultimately unfair. This was a new affair. There are just a few little references hither and there to characters we knew. After all, this film takes place lxx years before Harry entered Hogwarts. With that said, I'k not sure what the appeal here is without an attachment to the series. Sure, J.K. Rowling comes back and makes her screen writing debut, just the script felt so basic and unimaginative. Aside from some nicely fourth dimension physical humor, this was a sloppily paced missed opportunity.
Our new wizard team comprised of talented actors Eddie Redmayne, Katherine Waterson, Dan Fogler, and Alison Sudol. I'k not sure if it was because the youth and innocence is no longer in that location (like with the original team at Hogwarts), but I didn't care at all for the team. Fogler, who plays Kowalski, has some peachy (and I hateful corking) comedic moments, just I didn't discover anything compelling or charismatic about this particular grouping. Unfortunately, Redmayne gets lost in his obscure quirkiness (equally does Ezra Miller for that matter), and Colin Farrell'due south Graves' character was criminally underused.
Speaking of Farrell, I have no thought why he would want to have on such a function. The 3rd act reveals that Farrell is actually the dangerous wizard, Grindelwald clandestine. Of form, none other than Johnny Depp himself was officially cast every bit Grindelwald a few weeks agone for the upcoming films. Why in the earth go such a talented role player in Farrell if you're simply going to switch him to another famous role player the side by side 2nd? It just seemed like a waste to me.
I hope other people found enjoyment in this film, because I certainly did not. Just hey, I still have faith that a sequel could be good. 5 movies? I'k not so sure about, but I wouldn't mind seeing another ane of these films. Coming from a big Potter pic fan, this was a massive disappointment.
+Kowalski provided some entertainment
-Farrell wasted
-No existent centre
-The new team is uninteresting and lacks charisma
-Surprisingly mediocre CGI
4.0/x
eleven out of 17 constitute this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Harry Potter's Universe Without Potter is Just as Good
Warning: Spoilers
The magical community in Britain has been fleshed out rather well through the seven Harry Potter books and the eight films that followed, but America's magic users have been pretty much disregarded.
Until at present.
The year is 1926. In the midst of the dark wizard Grindelwald wreaking havoc in Europe, an unassuming man travels to New York City with a example full of, well, fantastic beasts ( a case which goes total TARDIS, besides).
In that location'south also an unknown magical threat fierce upward streets and striking fright in the hearts of the nomaj (not-magical, U.s. term for muggle) community. The Magical Congress of the United states is searching for the culprit, and who exercise they blame? The unassuming man, Newt Scamander, a function that Eddie Redmayne fits into perfectly.
With the assist of Tina Goldstein, a disgraced Auror, and Jacob Kowalski, a nomaj who gets defenseless up in Scamander's animate being exploits, they must clear Scamander's name and find out who is behind the attacks in New York and stop them.
This picture show has a lot going for it, but it actually holds up as an installment of the Harry Potter franchise in the fashion that it showcases the allure of the universe without the old story of The Boy Who Lived. It is also buoyed by great visual furnishings and witty barrack throughout.
This will prove to be just the first of possibly many films in the Harry Potter universe (and yeah, Johnny Depp does show upward equally Grindelwald), and if this moving-picture show is any indicator of the wonder this universe instills, I can't wait for more.
164 out of 299 plant this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
But average. Not fantastic
Warning: Spoilers
J.Thousand Rowling, not content with having milked 'Harry Potter' for all it was worth (quite a lot as it turned out) has now decided to expand her 'wizarding world' with this sort of spin-off series.
Sadly this start instalment isn't that fantastic, in fact it's lots of special effects holding together a paper thin plot that seems largely to involve poor Eddie Redmayne running here, there and everywhere trying to catch whichever creature has escaped from his suitcase next.
There are moments, yep, when this flick actually lives upward to its billing, and I'll be interested to see where the franchise goes, but this was a load of one-time nothing really.
vii out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Fantastic meh and where to yawn and meh
Alert: Spoilers
Meh. Just meh. This film looks like a 50 dollar steak but tastes like a turkey sandwich you forgot about in the refrigerator for a day. Information technology isn't bad but doesn't make you desire anymore. And I think that is why they had to shoehorn Johnny Depp in at the end of this, because otherwise no one would care enough to watch a sequel. The dude playing the magician looking for his pets is meh. The story felt like filler. I honestly take no thought why people consider this motion picture anything other than mediocre. I guess die-difficult Harry Potter fans are so desperate for more than Harry Potter stuff on the big screen that they are willing to pretend this film is something special when information technology really isn't.
18 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Are you kidding me?
Alert: Spoilers
Since when movies like this one took over? No plot, no characters evolution, no substance, cheap jokes hither and there and CGI filling upward space. Only another flick that tries to squeeze bucks out of franchise without genuine effort.
Zip happens throughout the whole movie, literally. For the most of it, Eddie Redmayne searches for his beasts and tries to imprison them in his suitcase. We are supposed to exist amazed past them, merely we have seen alike a long fourth dimension ago in previous HP, Avatar or fifty-fifty LOTR movies, so they alone just don't cut information technology. Then at that place is a cursory fight with "the bad slash confused guys" and that's it.
I had a hard time to find out who is the main villain nearly the unabridged movie, and I definitely didn't discover his motives. The revelation of the villain was stupid and embarrassing and everybody except for hardcore HP fans doesn't take a take chances to know what the hell is going on with him. Showing this night matter damaging streets similar each 15 minutes didn't help and got rapidly boring, considering information technology didn't pose any actual threat to our heroes, and its only purpose was to fill the holes with CGI and banging sound anyway (I guess).
I felt no connection to any of the characters whatsoever. Redmayne acts like a crazy nerdo who has feelings merely for his monsters, Katherine Waterston is uninteresting bureaucratic mouse and her sis behaves like a slut. The bakery was OK, just each one of them was acting unnaturally. This is completely different from HP, where I could feel for Harry (or others for that affair) struggling with his substitute family, adaptation to a foreign environs, honey, detest and at concluding burden of groovy responsibility, and even though Daniel Radcliffe hasn't shown that great performance at least in the first movies, I could chronicle to him and understand him.
Fantastic Beasts has non brought anything new, we take seen all the wizard stuff before - all the "automated" tools working by themselves, habitable suitcase instead of a tent, creation of this defensive chimera etc. New York didn't assist either, gone is the magical temper from UK and Hogwarts. The magic every bit such is treated but too casually here.
I hadn't expected much, but still was disappointed. The thing is, that this motion picture isn't nowadays an exception whatever more, and information technology strongly reminds me of the concluding Star Wars movies, whose sole purpose is to grab your coin and let yous expect for next one in a trilogy to at least get an explanation and some satisfaction. Can't we produce solid standalone movies anymore? What a letdown !
83 out of 139 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Boring One
Watched the movie just can't detect involvement at any betoken, story line must exist better.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ignore the positive reviews....this picture show sucks....hard
Warning: Spoilers
I volition keep this brief....
No meaning story to speak of...the motion-picture show just drones on and on with the "gotta catch the creatures that escaped from the suitcase" crap. That is basically it.
Poor/inadequate grapheme development. There are simply "characters" in the movie....we know little to nothing about them or their motivations....and care lilliputian to nada virtually what happens to any of them.
The essence of the film is "look at the weird and charming CGI creatures we created". I cannot believe that afterward all the years of CGI...the producers of this movie all the same believed that effects alone tin make a motion-picture show....just apparently they exercise. The CGI is not new or refreshing in whatsoever way that I could see...just CGI.
I am sure this movie will become some audience in the offset few days, simply by tapping into the "Harry Potter" world. But it won't concluding. Word will go out, and the (currently ridiculously inflated) IMDb ratings volition drop like a stone.
Take my word on this. This is a boring and bland failure of a movie. I slept through almost a 3rd of it, and those moments of unconsciousness were the best part.
116 out of 215 constitute this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mediocre Movies and How to Avert Them
Alert: Spoilers
"Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" is an American/British co-production from last year (2016) that runs for slightly over 2 hours plus roughly 10 minutes of credits. If you read the names of writer J.K. Rowling and director David Yates, you accept mayhap guessed correctly already that this motion-picture show takes place in the Harry Potter universe, namely roughly lxx years before, during the days between the two great wars of the 20th century. Fittingly, the visual style of the film reminded me of Boardwalk Empire on more than one occasion. So I judge they did a practiced task with making things look the way they were back then. But of course, in the centre of it all is no gritty criminal offence drama, but it is all about the fantasy. The world of magic is a taboo at that point and a secret society tries their best to keep it that way and to keep people away from finding out about the infinite supernatural possibilities that are out in that location waiting to be explored.
This is where title grapheme Newt Scamander comes into play. He is a young wizard traveling from Britain to the Us and we follow his journeying involving new friends and creatures during these 120 minutes. He is played by Eddie Redmayne, the role player who won an Oscar for playing Stephen Hawking not too long ago, and I must say I like him quite a bit. This is also why I am fairly disappointed how things turned out here. Despite playing the fundamental graphic symbol, Redmayne never really was given the opportunity by the script to show the states his range. Some supporting players had ameliorate fabric than he did. Speaking near supporting characters, I was surprised how the biggest supporting characters were played past relatively unknown actors here, only hey, Rowling made Radcliffe and Watson famous, so maybe she wanted to practise something like here, fifty-fifty if the actors I am talking about are of course grown-ups already. I am not sure. Perhaps it would have been the better opportunity to choose established and famous actors for these roles similar they did with Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman back then to mention just a few. Still I believe that these relatively unknown actors did a decent task for the near part. The core bug here are elsewhere. The one main problem is that the movie keeps losing itself in visual effects on many occasions. And no matter how good they may be, they tin can never make up for lengths in the story and insufficient character development. This is also the attribute which eventually got me giving this picture a thumbs-downwardly and a negative recommendation.
I do believe that this movie is worse than all the Harry Potter films. Good actors are wasted for characters that are really non well-written at all and also do non make a lot of sense. Yep this peculiarly refers to Colin Farrell here. By the way, after Gilliam'south Parnassus picture show (because of Heath Ledger'southward death), this is already the second fourth dimension he plays the same character similar Johnny Depp in a film. And here we have also already the possibly biggest surprise of this film we have here. They managed to keep Depp'southward inclusion (even if he is gone seconds after over again) a secret. Depp, however, will take to do something really bully in the upcoming movies if he wants to get this franchise on course. Yep franchise. Of course they are cashing in further with the Potter universe and there will be upwardly to 5 films about Newt Scamander and his companions in the next years. Judging from the quality of this one here, I think one could have been plenty. Oh well, there is certainly some irony to the fact that this one here won an Oscar, an achievement that none of the Potter movies have in their uncountable number of awards. Then again, I don't want to be any more disrespectful. The costumes were proficient I guess and it can exist noted that a motion-picture show tin can have great costumes and still come curt overall with regards to everything else. Or lets say well-nigh other aspects. Of course the effects are strong, in quantity and quality, but similar I said: To me it looks like they were used very much to brand people forget about the lack of sufficient character developments and convincing story-telling. The introduction to the globe and new metropolis in the first 60 minutes was decent (so was the botched execution scene) and had the film kept that level, I'd certainly have reacted more positively to it all. But it did not. "Style over substance" is a fitting description and I suggest you picket something else instead. I must likewise say that this hardly felt similar a Potter flick to me. Autonomously from occasional references like Dobby, the movie felt like a standalone pic, but maybe that'southward too considering the story will go on for a long time still. Non a practiced standalone movie though. I truly truly hope the 2d picture show will exist better.
Correction: I liked it more on rewatch, then I will give this one an additional ii stars and raise information technology from previously iv to vi.
14 out of 25 constitute this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
the expanding world of Harry Potter
J. Yard. Rowling added a new dimension to the Harry Potter universe with a story about the writer of one of Harry'south textbooks. "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" depicts eccentric wizard Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) in New York City in 1926. A mishap gives Newt a few unplanned adventures among the supernatural occurrences plaguing the city. And there are a few references that should grab people's attention. Overall, from what I could tell, the movie makes a betoken about discrimination and witch-hunting (and the laws against wizards marrying non-wizards is probably an allusion to the infamous anti-miscegenation laws).
But most importantly, information technology's a fun movie. As in the original series, each of the characters has something to contribute. David Yates, who directed a couple of the Harry Potter movies, does a good job here.
xviii out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Entertaining Hazard
In the showtime of the Twentieth Century, the magician Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) comes to New York City. While listening to the oral communication of the non-maj Mary Lou Barebone (Samantha Morton) telling that witches and wizards are dangerous, he lets a Niffler escape from his magical suitcase. Newt tries to capture the fauna in a bank, but he stumbles upon the non-maj Jacob Kowalski (Dan Folger), who is a cannery worker unsuccessfully trying to raise a loan to buy a bakery. Newt captures the Niffler simply he accidentally swaps his suitcase with Jacob. The old Auror Tina Golstein (Katherine Waterson) arrests Newt since he has non registered as a sorcerer in New York and brings him to the MACUSA. Nonetheless, when she opens his suitcase, she finds only donuts and baked goods. Newt is released but his creatures flee from his suitcase at Jacob's apartment. When Newt and Tina find Jacob, Newt wants to obliviate his memory merely Tina decides to bring him to her flat since he is wounded and dislocated. She introduces her sister Queenie (Alison Sudof) to Newt and Jacob, and Queenie and Jacob feel immediately attracted past each other. During the night, Newt brings Jacob with him through the magical suitcase to assistance him to search for the creatures that are missing. However Tina takes the suitcase to the MACUSA and they are arrested since she believes one of Newt's creature is the responsible for killing a senator. However the magician Percival Graves (Colin Farrell) accuses Newt of conspiracy with the notorious magician Gellert Grindelwald and Newt and Tina are sentenced to death. What volition happen to them?
"Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" is an entertaining take a chance with a flawed story. For example, why Newt needs to travel past transport if he may motion using his magic? The cast is excellent, highlighting the cameo of Johnny Depp. The CGI is meridian-notch and despite the running time, the viewer does not experience bored. My vote is seven.
Championship (Brazil): "Animais Fantásticos east Onde Habitam" ("Fantastic Beasts and Where They Live")
11 out of xix found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Oops! What can I say?
I kept waiting to engage with either the characters or with one of the beasts. Such an engagement was not forthcoming. I like Eddie Redmayne, so it is nothing to do with him. And so much emphasis on creating this alternate world that the basics of filmmaking appear to have been sacrificed. Never does anyone look into you, the screen, and speak. There is never any middle contact. You do not feel attached to Eddie's graphic symbol. Even my children were squirming in the seats and looking around bored. They wanted food and said they were hungry. The picture show therefore appears to fail both children and adults similar me. My 12yo son who is a mega Harry Potter fan could not appoint with the flick. "I like reading J Thou Rowling's books simply I am not certain about this one" is what he said. What he means is that, after having watched the movie, it has put him off the book as well.
I got upwardly to get food for the kids, they followed me and were more keen on ice creams and sweets rather than getting back to the screen to what happened next. Then much for fantastic pointless beasts. If yous liked Harry Potter then that is not a guarantee that yous will like this one. That is for certain. If you liked The Lord of Rings and sat through the trilogy, then you may take what information technology takes to sit down through this i. Perhaps looking at this as a movie cipher to practise with Harry Potter might help. If your children practice not get attached to the movie then don't be surprised.
29 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3183660/reviews
0 Response to "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them Review"
Post a Comment