Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

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

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.

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.

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'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 ...