Animali fantastici e dove trovarli
Titolo originale: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
Le avventure dello scrittore Newt Scamandro nella comunità segreta di streghe e maghi di New York settanta anni prima che Harry Potter leggesse il suo libro a scuola.Le avventure dello scrittore Newt Scamandro nella comunità segreta di streghe e maghi di New York settanta anni prima che Harry Potter leggesse il suo libro a scuola.Le avventure dello scrittore Newt Scamandro nella comunità segreta di streghe e maghi di New York settanta anni prima che Harry Potter leggesse il suo libro a scuola.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Vincitore di 1 Oscar
- 15 vittorie e 54 candidature totali
Tim Bentinck
- Witness
- (as Timothy Bentinck)
Tom Clarke Hill
- Photographer 2
- (as Tom Clarke-Hill)
Recensioni in evidenza
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!
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!
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 ...
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 ...
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 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.
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.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizThe name "Newt Scamander" appears on the Marauder's Map in Harry Potter e il prigioniero di Azkaban (2004).
- BlooperWhen Senator Shaw is speaking at the dinner party, the US flag to his right has offset stars like the present 50-star flag has. In 1924 the flag was a 48-star flag where the stars were in even rows.
- Citazioni
Jacob Kowalski: Uh, Mr. Scamander?
Newt Scamander: Oh, call me Newt.
Jacob Kowalski: Newt. I don't think I'm dreaming.
Newt Scamander: [mildly amused] What gave it away?
Jacob Kowalski: I ain't got the brains to make this up.
- Curiosità sui creditiAn occamy slithers into the film title to form the S in "Beasts".
- Versioni alternativeInternational versions of the movie have an elaborate localization of the visuals. Examples are newspaper headlines at the beginning, the inscription on Newt's suitcase locks and some other in-film visuals.
- Colonne sonoreYou're The Cream In My Coffee
Written by Buddy G. DeSylva, Lew Brown and Ray Henderson
Performed by Ruth Etting
Licensed courtesy of Wyastone Estate Limited, Trading as Retrospective
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paesi di origine
- Siti ufficiali
- Lingue
- Celebre anche come
- Animales fantásticos y dónde encontrarlos
- Luoghi delle riprese
- St George's Hall, St George's Place, Liverpool, Merseyside, Inghilterra, Regno Unito(City Hall of New York interior scene)
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 180.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 234.037.575 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 74.403.387 USD
- 20 nov 2016
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 816.037.575 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 2h 12min(132 min)
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 2.39 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti