Phantastische Tierwesen und wo sie zu finden sind

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

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 ...

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!).

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

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.