Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) User Reviews

I liked it

[hcarljohan · 7/10 · 16 November 2016]

I really want to draw attention to the title of the review above. I'm sure many die-hard potterheads would want every review on this site to score this movie 10/10 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 watch, especially if you're a fan of J.K. Rowling's magical world.

For starters the cast was great. Eddie Redmayne feels perfectly cast in main role as Newt Scamander. A very awkward and introverted person who prefers the company of animals rather than humans. He has the quirkyness down to a tee. I also really liked the muggle (or no-maj as the Americans call him) played by Dan Fogler. How he reacts to the whole wizarding world and the events that happen around him is actually really funny. I also thought Katherine Waterstone and Alison Sodul did great playing two sisters who wind up roped in to the whole adventure.

The creatures are the best part of the entire movie by far. They CGI on them looks kind of fake, but it's more than made up for by the concepts alone. Almost all of them have some clever twerk that keep them from feeling generic and they're all filled with personality. The sequences when they're catching these creatures are all really fun to watch.

However there are some problems with this movie. For one it has way too many side characters. A lot of them feel completely underdeveloped and add basically nothing to the overall story (*cough* Jon Voight *cough*). There's also a magical threat that becomes more central towards the end but it honestly kind of left me scratching my head. I just wasn't that engaged in that part of the story to be honest.

Still these problems are not enough to ruin the movie by any means. It's filled with wonder and creativity and being back 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.K. Rowling huge credit for not just rehashing the Harry Potter story again. This is fresh and new and while it isn't flawless by any means it's certainly entertaining!

SFX pretty good, characters & pacing lacking.

[beany_kelly · 6/10 · 19 December 2016]

It's OK, I suppose.

Good parts: Period costumes & sets were beautiful. Special effects were (mostly) very good, and the Fantastic Beasts were individually great fun.

So-so parts: The acting was only OK. Newt (Eddie Redmayne) in particular left me dissatisfied. Yes he's playing an introverted character, but 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-cold treatment of Tina for her interruptions made no sense to me either.

Poor: The editing seemed off to me, in a way I haven't noticed since The Chamber of Secrets. --- awkward pauses littered the film, robbing it of its momentum. Newt's interaction with some of the larger beasts didn't look realistic (e.g. his stroking the Thunderbird's neck). And I personally dislike FX-heavy movies where the Big Bad is some amorphous cloud (not as bad as Green Lantern, but pretty bad).

Final thought: why do so many large beasts have bird's heads? This seems to be a thing with Rowling ...

Charming and endearing!

[Aris25 · 8/10 · 18 November 2016]

I admit walking into the theater, I was very excited but also a little apprehensive. I should not have worried at all though, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them was incredibly enjoyable! Rowling's magical world is as alluring and fun as ever! For me, the best thing about this movie is exactly that. Exploring this world.

In the Harry Potter saga, with the exception of Deathly Hallows, most of the action was confined in Hogwarts. When we were taken out of the school, the main characters, being underage, were not allowed to do magic. The novelty in this movie is that we get to follow a fully fledged adult wizard in an entirely new environment and observe the dynamics and workings of the magical society.

Said wizard is Newt Scamander, a magical zoologist that traveled the world in order to find and document rare creatures, which he carries in his magical suitcase. When this suitcase gets mixed up with one that belongs to muggle Jacob, some of Newt's creatures escape and cause problems in New York.

Eddie Redmayne shines in this movie. He plays a very clearly British, endearing and slightly awkward Newt, but the character's kindness is obvious by the loving and friendly way that he treats his magical creatures. Dan Fogler does a great job as Jacob Kowalski, the muggle who is suddenly thrown into a world of wonder that existed beside him all along. He is the one the audience can best relate to, since he mirrors our sense of marvel. Katherine Waterstone and Alison Sudol also do a good job as the two vastly different magical sisters, who aid Newt in his adventure. 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 Find Them is a solid and visually stunning movie that manages to achieve three things.

First, although it takes place in the Harry Potter universe, it stands apart and has its very own story, which can be enjoyed separately from that of the famous young wizard. Second, it drops quite a few hints and names, which not only tie in nicely with the stories that we know, but also serve to set up the next installments, which are rumored to document Dumbledore's past and connection with Grindelwald. Finally, the movie features a bustling 1926 New York, which coupled with the intriguing character dynamics, offers a brand new insight into Rowling magical world and leaves us poor muggles asking for more.

After following Harry's adventures, many of us were left wanting to see much more of the story and luckily for us, it seems Rowling has that much more to offer. Personally, I can't wait for the next movie, great job!

It's watchable, I was a little disappointed.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 6/10 · 2 January 2023]

I watched this for the second time, having been a little disappointed first time around, and perhaps didn't have the best of days. My opinion, second time round, hasn't changed a great deal, the visuals and special effects are terrific, I just found the plot and storyline a little thin.

I would say it helps if you're a huge fan of Harry Potter and JK Rowling's works, you may be a bit more forgiving, I found it a little bit frustrating. Definitely some good elements, but I'm not sure the elaborate visuals were enough to keep attention alone. It was a little dull in parts.

I must pay huge credit to Eddie Redmayne, I thought he was great as the lead character, I'm so used to seeing him in serious dramas, it was nice to see him doing something different, he was great.

They certainly put together an awesome cast for this one, Gemma Chan, Colin Farrell, John Voight, and of course the excellent Samantha Morton.

6/10.

A Harry Potter based film without Harry Potter? No problem.

[Filvies144 · 9/10 · 25 November 2016]

Originality is nearly non-existent in the movie industry now a days since sequels, spin-offs, prequels, and Remakes dominate. But I do usually see them because the originals are good. Checking this out in theaters for me didn't require any trailers, because its based on the Harry Potter universe. What's not to like about that?

This film is set in the same universe as Harry Potter, except in 1926, in New York. It is centered on the wizard Newt Scamander, who brings magical a suitcase containing Magical Creatures to New York, but when the creatures come loose, its up to him and his friends to get them back to avoid getting exposed to non magical people. The movie mostly has a good pace, and is fun. It also introduces interesting ideas to the universe, which really got me intrigued. However, it can be confusing, and hard to get into at first. When I watched it, it took me 10-15 minutes to understand it. But those little nitpicks don't take away the good writing this film has.

For the characters of this film, they are a pretty enjoyable cast. The main character Newt (I'm just going to be honest) is a moron. Seriously why would anyone think that bringing a suitcase of magical creatures that isn't 100% secure to a city of non magical people is a wonderful idea? However, he is a fun character with a goofy personality and if great to follow. Also joining the adventure, is the auror Tina and her sister Queenie, who are likable and contribute to the adventure. But my favorite character is Jacob, who is a no-maj(non magical person) who gets involved in the adventure and helps Newt. I liked how he has a goofy personality and is very funny. The fantastic beasts in the movie are also really funny, and cute as well. I only mentioned those because the rest of the cast involves spoilers, but the characters are overall pleasant additions to the Harry Potter universe.

The visual effects in this movie are better than shown in the other 8 Harry Potter movies. The budget is 180 million and it shows. The design of the animals are brilliant, (just to avoid the "fantastic" pun)with unique abilities, and they all stand out rather than simply having dragons. Other magic in the film is unique (like the suitcase). I like how this film used many more of these ideas to bring to life and doesn't make it stand out as much in the action scenes or use gimmicks (unlike the other Harry Potter films). So overall, brilliant visual effects to add to this film.

After the Harry Potter films, I didn't expect this spin-off to be this good, but I was wrong. The movie is overall a holiday treat with a Fun story and characters, interesting ideas, and awesome effects. It is a recommendation from me indeed, and after this, we'll see if the next spin-off coming to theaters near us, Rouge One: A Star Wars Story, can top this.

It was better the second time around...

[paul_haakonsen · 6/10 · 24 April 2017]

I watched the movie back in 2016, when it was just released, and believe you me I wasn't impressed. But then again, I never were heavily into the "Harry Potter" universe that Rowling has created.

But I sat down in 2022 to watch "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" again, deciding to start over and actually catch up on the two sequel movies that I hadn't seen either. So of course I started from the beginning to get up to speed.

Now, I didn't particularly enjoy the 2016 movie "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" from writer J. K. Rowling and director David Yates. But I guess 6 years softened me up a bit, as I found a bit more enjoyment in the movie the second time around. Hold your horses, because I am not won-over, nor would I consider myself a fan.

The storyline in "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" is adequate. I mean, it is not a movie that requires the audience to invest their heart and soul, so you can essentially just lean back and munch on your snacks while you watch the movie. I found the storyline to be boring the first time around, and now in 2022 I found it a bit more interesting. It still wasn't a riveting storyline that had me on the edge of my seat though.

Visually then "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" is great. It was so back in 2016, and it is still in 2022. So if for nothing else, then you certainly are in for quite a visual CGI treat if you sit down to watch "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them".

Something that is impressive in "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them", is the cast list. They certainly had managed to put together rather extensive cast ensemble with lots of talented actors and actresses. While I didn't really care much for the character Newt, then actor Eddie Redmayne actually put on a convincing and good performance as Newt. The movie also have the likes of Dan Fogler, Colin Farrell, Samantha Morton, Jon Voight, Gemma Chan, Ron Perlman, and Johnny Depp on the cast list.

"Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" certainly is a movie that would have an appeal to the fans of the "Harry Potter" franchise, of that I am quite certain.

My rating of "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" lands on a six out of ten stars.

Fantastic but with deductions.

[Finn_Rllm · 6/10 · 16 November 2016]

Today I left the cinema with mixed feelings. When I saw the first trailer of this movie I was excited, because I like the urban fantasy setting of the Harry Potter universe. Unfortunately Fantastic Beasts couldn't convince me completely. One big positive factor of the movie is the cast. Eddie Redmayne acts great and incarnate perfectly Newt as a sympathetic protagonist. Also the rest of the cast is suitable and sympathetic. I want to emphasize Dan Fogler who plays his role glorious. The charm of the magic was again very well captured. The self-stirring spoon in the cocoa and the many other small details are very coherent and convey this typical Harry Potter Flair. Also very good is the sound (no I don't mean the music) of this movie. I think this is a big reason to watch this movie in theaters, because the sound mixing is great for the big screen (more for the big Hi Fi equipment). So watch this movie in theaters if you have the possibility, because technically it is solid. Some of the audience I watch with didn't like the CGI effects, but in my opinion it was good. Not great, just good and fitting. The narration in the whole movie was the big con for me. The movie has this inconsequent narration. The main problem is that the film tells the two action strings too parallel, so they won 't fix well. Through this, the film becomes too predictable and loses some of its strength. The beginning scene was misleadingly and out of the context, for people who won't read the book. Here, too much was done according to the typical Hollywood formula. The story is pushed too strongly in one direction and the narrative speed is a bit too leisurely for my taste. The whole film would have done 15 to 20 minutes less well. So I promised myself more and I missed something that makes this movie special. With this strong template in the back and the big cast I would have just expected a more rounded movie which sticks out of the mass. I give Fantastic Beasts 7/10, because it is an entertaining movie, with a strong cast, but the narration issues made it a typical Hollywood movie. Not great, not bad, just good. Watch it but don't expect something mind blowing.

A classic in its own right

[mom-29-22843 · 10/10 · 20 November 2016]

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them... It's not Harry Potter, however it is a classic in its own right. I loved the creature creations for this movie including of course those greedy goblins which I was so very happy to see in this film as well. Eddie Redmayne did such a wonderful job as Newt Scamander and his cast of creatures was breathtaking. They were all created differently and beautifully in their own right. His deep connection and understanding of the creatures was so well done by Redmayne who seemed to be a little Autistic with his lack of eye contact most of the time while talking, which if it was done on purpose, I love it. It gives the character even more depth and beauty. The other wizards were amazing, I think my favorite was Queenie Goldstein she was so endearing and such a wonderfully played character. She had a lot of heart and that endeared her to the audience even more. It was cool to see the differences between the American and British Ministries of Magic and the difference in terminologies between the two countries. All in all this movie gets 5 enthusiastic stars from me. The continuity was incredible and I highly recommend it.

Marvelous Cash Cows and How to Milk Them

[bob-the-movie-man · 7/10 · 21 November 2016]

As just about everyone in the whole muggle world (or nomaj world if you're reading this in the States) knows, FBaWtFT is the first of a five film spin-off series from the Potter franchise, still under the careful stewardship of David Yates. (And if the other films in the series were 'amber-lit' rather than 'green-lit', their production now seems assured after the US opening weekend alone has brought in nearly half its $180 million budget).

Set in New York in the mid-1920's Eddie Redmayne ("The Danish Girl"; "The Theory of Everything") plays Newt Scamander, a Brit newly arrived with a case full of trouble. Newt is a bit like an amiable and ditsy David Attenborough, with a strong desire to protect and establish breeding colonies for endangered species. It's fair to say though that these are creatures that even Sir David hasn't yet filmed.

Within the battered old case (a forerunner of Hermione Grainger's bag, which was probably borrowed from Mary Poppins), Newt stores a menagerie of strange and wonderful creatures which – after a bump and a mishap – get released by wannabe baker and muggle Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler, "Fanboys"). Newt has the job of rounding up the strays with the help of Tina (Katherine Waterston, "Steve Jobs"), an out of favour member of the Magical Congress of the USA (MACUSA). Unfortunately this couldn't be happening at a worse time: something else – nothing to do with Newt – is wreaking havoc across New York and MACUSA is on red alert suspecting the involvement of a dark wizard, Gellert Grindelwald, following attacks in Europe. And keeping the secrets of wizardry from the NoMaj population is getting increasingly difficult, especially with the efforts of the "Second Salemers" movement run by Mary Lou (Samantha Morton, "Minority Report") and her strange adopted family.

This film will obviously be an enormous success given the love of all things Potter, but is it any good? Well, its different for sure, being set many years before Potter and only having glancing references to Hogwarts and related matters. And that gives the opportunity to start afresh with new characters and new relationships which is refreshing. It's all perfectly amiable, with Redmayne's slightly embarrassed lack of eye-contact* in delivering his lines being charming. [* Is this perhaps the second leading character in a month that is high on the autistic spectrum?] . Redmayne does have a tendency to mutter though and (particularly with the sound system for the cinema I saw this in) this made a lot of his dialogue inaudible. Waterston makes for a charming if somewhat insipid heroine, not being given an awful lot to do in the action sequences.

Kowalski adds a humorous balance to the mixture, but the star comic turns are some of the creatures, especially the Niffler… a light fingered magpie-like creature with a voluminous pouch and expensive tastes!

In the 'I-almost-know-who-that-is-behind-the-make-up-but-can't-quite- place-him' role is Ron "Hellboy" Perlman as the untrustworthy gangster Gnarlack. And in another cameo – and probably paid an enormous fee for his 30 seconds of screen time – is Johnny Depp, which was money well- wasted since, like most of his roles, he was completely unrecognisable (I only knew it was him from checking IMDb afterwards).

At the pen is J.K.Rowling herself, and there are a few corking lines in the script. However, in common with many of her novels, there is also a tendency for extrapolation and padding. Some judicial editing could have knocked at least twenty minutes off its child-unfriendly 133 minute running time and made a better film. Undoubtedly the first half of the film is better than the second, with the finale slouching into – as my other half put it – "superhero" territory with much CGI destruction and smashing of glass. What is perhaps most surprising about the story is that there are few obvious set-ups for the next film.

Quirky and original, its a film that will no-doubt please Potter fans and it stands as a decent fantasy film in its own right. It's difficult though to get the smell of big business and exploitation out of your nostrils: no doubt stockings throughout the world will be full of plush toy nifflers this Christmas.

(For the graphical version of this review and to comment please visit http://bob-the-movie-man.com. Thanks!).

Magical introduction to the new era wizarding world

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 20 November 2016]

Having grown up with the Harry Potter books, and as someone who found a lot to like with all the films (though admittedly some were better than others), expectations were high for 'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them'. Especially also with such good word of mouth.

Those high expectations were met, and more. 'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them' serves as an introduction to the new era of the wizarding world, and not succeeds brilliantly doing that but also works as a magical slice of entertainment in its own. A long film it is, but a vast majority of the time it doesn't feel like it, so engrossing is the world that the film creates.

Not all's perfect. 'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them' takes a bit of time to get going, with a slow and overlong introduction that tended to also be confusingly written. Jon Voight is wasted as a character with not much personality or development and with a subplot that practically is forgotten about, both by the viewer and by the film. It is too early to tell how well Grindelwald will fare as a villain, but first impressions weren't that promising with Johnny Depp's performance not really igniting my fire, for somebody who specialises in oddball roles he just seemed too lightweight for such an evil character. This said, the future films I'm sure will turn this around if they keep going forward rather than backward.

'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them' lives up to its name visually. The look of the film is spellbinding, from the wonderful use of colour, with perfectly contrasting shades of light and dark, to cinematography that is never garish and too simple 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 better are the special effects for the creatures, all of which are technical marvels. This said they are more than that, they are also creatures with their own distinct identity and purpose, as great as Demiguise, Occamy and Thunderbird the standout is the adorable Niffler who also provides some of the biggest and best laughs.

James Newton Howard's music score has the right amount of the haunting, the whimsical, the ethereal and the rousing, always dynamic with the action and what's going on in the film. The script has some grim social-commentary and suspense, which gives the film its darkness, while also bringing some perfectly pitched humour (mostly from Jacob and the Niffler), poignant emotion and sense of wonder, while balancing these different tones in a way 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 delight, they certainly gave me a sense of nostalgia. There is a lot going on in the story, but all in a way that is told with charm, exuberant and offbeat wit, enchanting imagination and nail-biting suspense. Loved the little details as well, such as the wand-shining house elfs, the bake-offs, the office-cleaning and the magically translucent umbrellas.

David Yates was more than ideal as director, having the firm ground from having directed the last four Harry Potter films. There are no complaints to be had visually and technically, and, other than the slow start, could find little to fault with the way the story was told. The characters are well drawn and their personalities well established, with the only real glaring exception being with Voight's character. Found myself really caring for the heroes and the creatures, and got a real sense of threat from the villains (excepting Grindelwald).

Acting was top notch, apart from Depp (and Voight doesn't really 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 amusing and amiable Dan Folger. On villain duty is Colin Farrell playing his dastardly role with smarmy relish and a chilling and heart-breakingly repressed Ezra Miller, though the latter is more ambiguous as a character whereas the former is full-on villainous. Samantha Morton also impresses.

On the whole, a magical introduction to the new era wizarding world, and mostly it is fantastic. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Five-Word Review: Delightful, Perfect Series Starter; Disjointed

[BillSims28 · 7/10 · 20 November 2016]

'Fantastic Beasts' kicks off an all-new franchise in JK Rowling's Wizarding World, set in 1920s New York. Gellert Grindelwald has alienated old friend Albus Dumbledore with his extremist, revolutionary ideas and begun terrorising Europe. Dumbledore, meanwhile, becomes a professor at Hogwarts where his students include Newt Scamander, who is more comfortable around magical animals like Bowtruckles and Nifflers than people. Upon travelling to New York City, however, things do not go to plan.

Right out of the gate, this is a wildly entertaining and simply delightful film. Within the first minute the world and setting are perfectly established, and the Roaring Twenties NYC is gorgeously realised, with a very 20s feeling about the film. The best magic from the Harry Potter films is retained and expanded upon - one of the best things is seeing the wider use of magic outside of an education environment, and a particular highlight is a scene where a strudel is exquisitely assembled and cooked using magic, all seemingly in one shot.

And speaking of the visual effects, they are fabulous. Gone are the shonky creatures like Fluffy and the Cave Troll from Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone back in 2001. The breathtaking visual flair is evident, from the intricate plumage of the Occamy to the Demiguise's silky coat (which is used to make Invisibility Cloaks). The standout, however, is the Niffler. A dragon-like obsession with treasure makes for some hilarious slapstick comedy where the adorable little creature, like a mix between a dog and a mole, rampages through a bank and collects a veritable trove of trinkets.

The plot, an original creation from Rowling, is surprisingly good, with some dynamic turns (though this occasionally gives way to poor pacing) and solid twists. The wider magical world is something I've been wanting to see since my first experience with HP, and Fantastic Beasts sets up this world wonderfully, with lots of space for future expansion. One thing this film does really well is kicking off a new franchise - there's a clear feeling that there will be lots of material for future sequels, and just enough teasing of some elements to be intriguing.

There are lots of nice touches in the film which really make it more watchable, from Newt's remarks about the Eastern Front of World War One (dragons), to the NYC-cranky-cab-driver voices of the house elves. Ron Perlman unexpectedly shows up and steals his scene with a delightful caricature of a speakeasy owner that is fabulously over-the-top, and overall the film feels separate enough from HP to work on its own but also connected enough to be accessible to fans.

The standout character is, somewhat surprisingly, Dan Fogler's Kowalski, a Muggle (No-Maj) who is equal parts comic relief and relatable schmuck. The rest of the acting is sometimes a little off, though Ezra Miller is fantastic and Eddie Redmayne seems a good choice for the role of Scamander. At first I thought his acting was sub- par, but I think the fault lies with the writers - whether deliberately or not, he is not characterised very much, though this is probably to leave room for expansion in the sequels.

In fact few of the characters have much development due to the often rushed nature of the film and its abundance of different elements, resulting in a film which is often disjointed and messy. It's also a little too tonally uneven, with some moments just being a bit too broad to hit home and clashing with its darker moments. It's at its best during its lighter moments, not taking itself seriously and having a good time.

All in all this is a must-watch for any HP fan, and should be a delightful watch for any viewer. Despite its flaws, it's a very solid start to a franchise which I hope will be just as good as its predecessor. 79/100.

Magical, but very different, successor to the Harry Potter sphere

[sossevarvo · 8/10 · 16 November 2016]

I wasn't sure what to expect from Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. It smelt curiously of "cash grab" since the Harry Potter films managed to conclude themselves quite perfectly, all the more so considering Warner Brothers preemptively announced four sequels before this film had reached theatres. The best compliment I can give it is that it proved me wrong- Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them never feels lazy, or cheap - it's a worthy adventure that will have all but the most cynical revelling in the wonder of the Wizarding World.

The film is fast paced and constantly dishing out new surprises, in the form of beautifully rendered, inventive CGI "beasts," and a number of hilarious, imaginative features of this magical world of New York that successfully create the illusion of being in a different world. There are tons of minute little details that delight in the purest sense. The set of new faces are mostly agreeable, the most likable being Dan Fogler, whose bumbling "non - magi" is a welcome addition. He elevates sometimes silly jokes with expert comedic timing and facial expressions. Katherine Waterston is fine enough, as is her flirtatious sister. And what of star Eddie Redmayne? He is alternately charming and annoying. The character of Newt Scamander is one fully realised by Rowling's script, yet Redmayne's Hugh Grant- esque, crouched delivery is at times grating. Nonetheless he wins you over in the end. I won't say who the villains are, because that plays into the intrigue of the plot, but suffice to say villainous characters were decidedly underused for my taste, and could've used far more development than the already packed script granted them.

In all, this film never quite touches the awe and great characters imbued within each Harry Potter film and book, but it offers many delights nonetheless, and is definitely worth seeing, especially on a big screen, where it looks positively beautiful.

Boring

[anedaei-80996 · 6/10 · 30 April 2020]

It was so boring....and One other thing: Actually it didnt have a story

Mostly For The True Potterheads

[zkonedog · 5/10 · 10 February 2018]

This will be one of my simplest film reviews on IMDB, as it is pretty clear to me along what lines this film will be split. Casual fans of the Harry Potter universe? They'll probably leave a bit disappointed or mystified. The true Potterheads (who know every nook and cranny of that universe)? My bet is that they'll come away with a much greater sense of enjoyment.

For a basic plot summary, "Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them" tells the story of Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne), a young wizard with a penchant for studying odd creatures. While just trying to conduct his studies, he gets mixed up in a power struggle between the muggles (or "no-mags" as they are referred to here) and the wizarding community. His only ally seems to be Tina (Katherine Waterston). In a separate subplot, a wizard named Graves (Colin Farrell) is fixated on a boy named Credence Barebone (Ezra Miller), who seems to be more key to this storyline than his meek appearance would suggest.

I consider myself a very casual fan of the Harry Potter franchise. I've read all the books, watched all the movies...and that's it. No multiple readings/viewings, no obsession over all the little details and names. To me, the Potter universe is more shallow than deep (my own experience here...I know that universe is indeed quite rich if one chooses to do a deep-dive). I enjoyed watching Harry and Co. grow up in their journey together, but that is about where "Harry Potter" ends for me.

As a result, there are two reasons why I found this movie to be just middle-of-the-road:

1. Put plainly, the story of Newt Scamander just isn't as engrossing as the other previous material. Whether this was meant to be the case (more of a "side quest" mentality) or whether the execution was flawed I can't say for sure, but to me this was a tale that just kind of meandered in terms of narrative. For a movie that is supposed to be the launching point for main character Scamander, it sure spends a lot of time elsewhere. One wonders, then, if Scamander was used more as an "excuse" to re-enter the wizarding world than being fleshed out as a great character within it. Even the charming acting of Redmayne couldn't quite make me believe that I was seeing anything special in this case.

2. This is the kind of movie that obviously is building off fragments of the Potter universe. Because most fans are of the obsessive variety, I think, there isn't all that much context given. The film just assumes that a base layer of knowledge is already present in viewers...a base layer that I did not posess. A good example of this: the reveal of the name Grindewald in the opening minutes of the film. That name did nothing for me, and nothing was ever really done to hammer the significance home. The film just assume viewers know the significance of his place in the wizard world.

So, I think this is one of those reviews that leans more towards my subjectivity than perhaps the overall quality of the film. This isn't a bad film by any stretch of the imagination. Based on filmmaking alone, it is probably more of a 7-star film. However, in terms of its appeal to me personally, it gets dropped down a few pegs. I'm just not a big enough Potter fan to understand all the little inside winks-and-nods or "easter eggs", and those are things that must be understood to truly be enveloped in the experience.

It was missing something

[gammam-75993 · 6/10 · 21 March 2022]

The story is fine all on it's own but I felt that the film was still missing the charm, that warm feeling the other films in the franchise was able to bring.

Charming Expansion of Harry Potter Universe

[paul_s_hills · 9/10 · 19 November 2016]

This is my first review on IMDb. I felt compelled to do so after reading Empire's underwhelming 3 Star review (does their opinion count for anything any more?), then going on to watch the movie myself last night.

It was excellent. Heart-warming and charming with extremely likable lead characters. The story wasn't too heavy - enough to keep things ticking along - though there were plenty of "Easter Eggs" and satisfying references to other known HP people & places (Grindelwald, Le Strange, Hogwarts, Dumbledore etc)

The Special FX were pretty amazing - most of the Magical Creatures were well realized and convincing. There was plenty of humour throughout, while the music....I am not sure if other have mentioned it....but the movie's soundtrack is just as fantastic as those wonderful beasts!

Highly recommended.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find a Compelling Plot?

[Quinoa1984 · 6/10 · 3 December 2016]

A charitable rating because I like the beasts very much (albeit it'd be nice if this was the era of Jim Henson's Creature Shop instead of ALL CGI), and I even didn't actively dislike Eddie Redmayne here like in his performances last year (though he still has certain little tics and a wide-eyed profile that's not enormously likable). Basically anything to do with Newt Scamander's adventures along with Jacob the would-be baker (a funny if one and a half note Dan Fogler) and Kathleen Waterson is a fun time, and there's an element of Doctor Who I appreciated as far as a character going off into some new place with his police box (err, suitcase here), facing off with some gnarly creatures, and humans who are a variety of helpful and disastrous.

But when it gets into the actual *plot* it becomes trickier to handle for Rowling as a (first-time?) screenwriter: there's darkness here that sometimes, not all the time, gets to be too dark, at least for what is being set up as a "franchise" or whatever. In the Potter films there was a more gradual build up to darker themes and tones and scenes and kills. Here, it's just there, and despite finding Samantha Morton to be terrifying in a convincing way as the head of an anti-witch cult, and despite finding Colin Farrel to be sturdy as a villain, I didn't much care for the conflicts around the uh, Obscurus-what-have-you (sorry if I'm not good with names, it's a late-night review), and ultimately it's a lack of heart that makes me not care as much. To put it into perspective, I found more to engage in emotionally with Fogler than Redmayne, by a mile, and only hints (but not enough) with Waterson's backstory.

What makes me want to give it an even lower rating is that the final act turns into what so many Hollywood movies from these studios out to be Legacyquel-McFranchise-villes is that it has to be some massive threat tearing ass through the city and the (super)heroes have to face off to stop it. There's actually one interesting facet to this that kinda-sorta is happening, where it's compassion or even something close to empathy, that Newt uses against the villainous force, however this gets put on the wayside for more action and special effects that are surface-cool but deep down empty and it all leads up to a reveal for an actor to come that made me throw out my hands like "WHY!?!" There's derivative things to this movie that Rowling may have made intentional or not; aside from Doctor Who, I also thought of Men in Black with it featuring a Magic-Police-Special-Agency force, and X-Men in large part with Farrel's character (tell me you don't see Magneto there, especially near the end).

I found a lot of creativity and some clever things to this - hell, a platypus obsessed with thievery is a highlight of any movie this *year* let alone this one - and just the idea that this is a hero not unlike a, uh, Charles Darwin but with magic. I went in with a lot of goodwill towards this, but didn't leave as satisfied as I had hoped given this writer and the world to work in. It's the sort of blockbuster that would have me, then lose me, have me then lose me, and so on (i.e. on one hand Ron Perlman cameo, and you'll know it when you see it; on the other hand... Ezra Miller).

Entertaining Adventure

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 15 January 2017]

In the beginning of the Twentieth Century, the magician Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) comes to New York City. While listening to the speech 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 creature 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 but he accidentally swaps his suitcase with Jacob. The former Auror Tina Golstein (Katherine Waterson) arrests Newt since he has not registered as a wizard in New York and brings him to the MACUSA. However, 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 but Tina decides to bring him to her apartment since he is wounded and confused. She introduces her sister Queenie (Alison Sudof) to Newt and Jacob, and Queenie and Jacob feel immediately attracted by each other. During the night, Newt brings Jacob with him through the magical suitcase to help 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 wizard Percival Graves (Colin Farrell) accuses Newt of conspiracy with the notorious wizard Gellert Grindelwald and Newt and Tina are sentenced to death. What will happen to them?

"Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" is an entertaining adventure with a flawed story. For example, why Newt needs to travel by ship if he may move using his magic? The cast is excellent, highlighting the cameo of Johnny Depp. The CGI is top-notch and despite the running time, the viewer does not feel bored. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Animais Fantásticos e Onde Habitam" ("Fantastic Beasts and Where They Live")

Just Fantastic, so magical, so much fun, so much heart!

[andrigigerl · 10/10 · 17 November 2016]

Just absolutely brilliant!! This new story first of all is funny. There is so much humour in this movie, a thing the potter movies always failed to have, despite the books have lot of it. So in Fantastic Beasts you can really feel J.K.Rowlings style. And despite it being a prequel, it is incredibly creative, with so much imagination and good ideas. The characters are just so funny and well thought through.It is in many ways a return to old times. To cast a spell you have to say it again and the music is just a wonderful fantasy-soundtrack. Still in the end you can feel the darkness to come... All in all just perfect for anyone who likes fantasy and Harry Potter. And also just greatly done in all technical ways.

One hundred and eighty thousand dollar vanity project

[steve_jm_kidd · 24 November 2016]

The J.K. Rowling backlash starts right here, but it should have started a long time ago. J.K. Rowling is a wonderful story teller, absolutely. . But... How do you measure excellence in the arts? Well, there's the rub, because there is no quantitative measure, it's all generally subjective, so basically within science 2+2 make 4, and Mt Everest is just over 8,000 metres high, but really the only number we can put on a Jackson Pollack painting is how much somebody will pay for it, the only number we can put on a film is how many people go to see it. Without doubt zeitgeist, the emotions of one's contemporaries effects perceptions - why the hell do you think they put laugh tracks on TV programs?, what is advertising? What I am saying is we all 'go with the flow' Some perhaps more than others, but generally we just can't help smiling back if someone smiles at us. To capture the public's imagination I would suggest that, in general, it really helps if an artist has some talent to start with. There are many artists with some, if not immense talent. For recognition beyond one's own village however, the most important ingredient (with exceptions) is luck. Luck may manifest itself in many ways, but often it might be being in the right place at the right time. Elvis Presley was good, but really, if it hadn't been him it would have been some other young white kid with a twinkle in his eye who could sing black. It certainly wouldn't have been a black kid. Elvis presented a persona who was not at all dangerous yet people could pretend he was. Far from threatening white America he stole swathes of alt culture and assimilated it for the benefit of the ruling group. But I'd bet my bottom dollar he wasn't even the best singer in Tupelo. So back to J.K. Rowling. Quarter of a century ago she wrote The Philosopher's Stone. It was a great read. It was funny, imaginative, eminently 'readable', sufficiently complex to delight without being to obtuse to alienate, It had a character for everybody, It could be picked up and put down easily, would fit in a reasonable pocket, the goodies and baddies had recognisable demarcation, yet leaving just enough ambiguity in some, and it to the standard tried and tested trope of David and Goliath and ran with it quite exquisitely. Over her first three books Harry Potter became a global phenomenon, Elvis had competition, Rowling, was the kids, if not total literature market, and you know what? Good for her, 'cos those three books kept up the pace. The Prisoner of Azkaban nailed it. Now I delve into hypothesis. By the time of her fourth book Rowling was the absolute golden egg. She could do what she wanted. And I suggest what she wanted was greater editorial control, i.e. more of her writing left in, and, whereas the first three books would have had considerable editorial input, from professionals with vast experience in pruning work to present a more marketable product, by the time we get to Goblet of Fire, J.K Rowling, in addition to her undoubted talent had two more things going for her, the absolute undivided devotion of millions of fans (sources of revenue) and the consequent level of control over her work. And like any artist she was unlikely to think that her work could be improved by a mere muggle. Consequently the subsequent books became much larger, and, at least for me, a little unwieldy, because hell, she could do what she wanted. I'm not saying they were bad books, I'm saying that there will have been people at Bloomsbury secretly wishing, but NEVER admitting that they could perhaps just miss out a little bit here or fix a bit of continuity there. And then the film series.. And now Fantastic Beasts... It is one of the most expensive 60 films ever made, and it is, in effect a $180,000 dollar vanity project. Oh hell, I know there is a demand for it, and I'm not saying this is Ghostbusters 2016 or anything like that, I quite enjoyed it, but it is merely a moderate story populated by a cast that as individuals are sometimes interesting but more often padding for those that are. Newt Scamander is frankly boring, and the whole lingo/naming thing just seems a little trite. Granted the special effects are truly special, but give me Colin Farrell sitting on a Belgian bench with Brendan Gleeson any day over him watching some ball of smoke trashing entire avenues of New York. Fundamentally, in Harry Potter, we had personalities driving the stories. In this it is .. magic! That is not meant to be a compliment, it is a moan that the whole shebang seems like ""I know, let's put something here that is .. magic!, just wave a wand and .. say ""smoothinox fluffy flora"" .. and pow .. oh golly .. wide eyed wonderment .. cute critter ... yawn." Guess you've got to go and watch it, but if you know J.K. Rowling stop sucking up to her so much. She's great, but so are lots of people around her.

Fantastic CGI and where to find it...

[piecookie · 6/10 · 16 November 2016]

OK, let me try to sum this up.

First of all I'd like to point out that this is not necessarily a bad movie, it will keep you entertained. You got a decent plot (yet fairly predictive), you got humor, and you got somewhat interesting characters.

HOWEVER, what you got most of is CGI, CGI and... CGI. I grew up with the Harry Potter movies and every time a new one came out I was always excited to see what new cool stuff they might of added with the latest technology.

These days you can animate almost anything and therefor some of that magic (no pun intended) you had before is now lost. I simply do not get impressed by the "fanastic beasts", I only see a blob of CGI that I can't relate to, they do not feel like a part of the real world, and there is just so many of them that after a while they end up giving me a headache.

During one part of the movie I ended up wondering if I'm not in fact watching The Avengers or X-Men. There's also one scene that reminded me very much of a particular scene from Star Wars, (You'll get it).

Do I recommend this movie? Well if you don't mind the things I just mentioned, you might like it.

The best movie of the Harry Potter world.

[mgratk · 7/10 · 1 October 2018]

In a very good way, this movie reminded me of a long episode of Dr. Who. Much better than I expected. And Eddie Redmayne would make a great Doctor, by the way. This movie had a lot of heart, both in the story of the budding friendship between Newt and Jacob, and in Jacob's story with his love interest. The resolutions of both of these stories strike all the right chords. And all the rest is indeed plenty magical and fun, with magical creatures and plenty of action. I came into the movie prepared to suffer though it, as my kid wanted to watch it. I was quite pleasantly surprised.

Charming and entertaining

[bmehta06 · 10/10 · 18 November 2016]

JK Rowling will forever be known as one of the most genius humans to ever live. The fact that she can pen such a detailed and perfect magical world without Harry Potter and the beloved characters we have grown to love, it makes you feel like this world is actually real! This movie is very entertaining and and heartwarming. It's no longer a dark saga of an evil dark wizard trying to kill a young boy, it is an insight into a magical world that is so grand and amazing!

Despite taking place way before our known HP time, there are enough quick and witty references to our known HP world throughout the movie to make Potterheads smile. I went in with less than no expectations, and I was pleasantly surprised. And LOVED IT. And the best part of it all- I've always somewhat disliked the HP movies, because I'm a die-hard fan of the books. The movies never lived up to the books. For Fantastic Beasts, there are no books to compare it to, so there's no room to dislike! Can't wait for the next movies!

A non-wizarding fan goes out on a limb...what cr*p!

[cinesocialuk · 19 November 2016]

OK, so I can bit a grump where fantasy films are concerned.

Not that I don't like them, I do. My ideal kind of cinema is one that lifts me up out of my cinema seat in the dull plane of existence I inhabit and, for 90-120 minutes, transports me to another time, place or world.

But does it have to lob layer upon layer of encyclopaedic background cr*p at me? Am I supposed to do something with it? Why isn't this experience fun for me?

I admit I'm in the minority, but I find these fantasy universe films tiring. 'Fantastic Beasts...' is exceptionally well made, the production design is astonishing and is very well acted by a game cast (Ezra Miller, take a bow), but make it easy for an old man!