There are two films in this. One a standalone fun romp, the other a darker franchise-building plot. They just never organically come together and that is a problem.

The reviews indicate similar issues to Avengers:Age of Ultron and The Force Awakens where they spend too much time setting up sequels and don't link it in to the film that is going on now.

I don't even think it spent much time setting up the sequels. Yes, there is a set-up, but it isn't huge. The whole thing just feels disjointed. Also, both leads (Redmayne and Waterston) have zero chemistry and are playing boring, bland characters.

Now for the positives: Alison Sudol is wonderful and an amazing discovery. Dan Fogler steals most of his scenes. The titular beasts are awesome.

I enjoyed the worldbuilding set ups. Didn't bother me at all.

It was great being back in the Potter world, especially in 1920s NY. And unlike the Potter films (where I had read all the books before seeing the films) it was nice to not know what was going to happen next.

Nice cameo at the end.

The old timer went to the cinema??! And to see a kiddie flick??! What with Trump winning the election, this world's gone mad.

I thought this was quite charming.

Harry Potter is a relatively wide appealing franchise in the US.

I really liked this. I actually liked all the actors in their roles, and surprisingly especially the muggle, and the effects are awesome. The Niffler is a scene stealer.

Don't worry, my attitude toward Algren is generally this: If he likes something, I'm sure to hate it and vice versa.

I also love going to animated films, too. And I write Young Adult novels.

A good story is a good story.

A lot of the press on this film emphasizes phrases like "plays to adults" and "a surprisingly adult new franchise" - it appears they're really hoping to broaden their demographic.

I loved this. I can't grade it before seeing it again because this movie is so littered with stuff I feel like I missed a lot. Really this movie is like Christmas come early for a Harry Potter fan. It manages to feel like Harry Potter and feel fresh and new at the same time (unlike a certain other franchise). The four leads are great, especially Alison Sudol's Queenie and Dan Fogler's Jake. I also really liked Newt and Tina, though I did not quite understand what was going on in her Pensieve memory. Waterston has a very distinct voice. The half of the film with our leads finding the Beasts was just pure delight, a wholly joyous experience. The niffler scenes made my audience laugh out loud. I liked the Erumpent, the bowtruckle, the demiguise and really all of them I really liked how they gave the film a very authentic 1920's New York flavor; it almost felt like a magical Great Gatsby. I thought all of the action sequences were well done and exciting, and the film's message about preservation of wildlife resonated. The other half of the film involving Ezra Miller's character Credence was hard to follow at points (did not understand what the obscurus was supposed to be) but it was still interesting and led into the finale well. It was nice having a film set in New York where otherworldly beings don't come through a hole in the sky and attack. The smaller scale fight in the subway was better. Colin Farrell is really good and I knew Johnny Depp was Grindelwald, so I was caught off guard by his reveal. I'm really excited to see where these films go (I have a feeling they are going to include Voldemort and Dumbledore's unadapted back stories in the later films) and this was a great reintroduction to the world. Fuck it, I'm going to grade it.

A

I liked it better than Zootopia.

That quote should go on the poster.

I was neither overwhelmed or disappointed with this. I was entertained most of the time but the story as a whole was rather light. Newt is a rather uninteresting character as a lead for a new franchise. Dan Fogler totally steals the movie.

I was happy with it. I'm still deciding if I'd give it B- (***1/2) or B (****), but it definitely does what Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone did to me when I first read it. It wasn't the best book I ever read but it had magic and grabbed you and you knew it was going to be something special. And it was. From that point on every new book got better and better (or was at least as good as the one before).

As a huge fan of HP books I wasn't really sure what to expect from the movie based on the fact that everything about it was unknown. But Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them immediately sets up great characters (just like HP). The lead group is immediately specific, very likable and believable. The story is full of little bread crumbs that JK connects back to HP but you can also spot the way she sets up future major plot points. You're not sure what they're going to amount to in the end, but there's a distinct way of JK plotting here at work that worked amazingly in the HP books and sometimes it just didn't translate well in the HP movies. I guess having JK as a screenwriter this time is a true blessing.

And I'm glad it's being made as a grown up franchise. Very bold move by WB, but I'm guessing JK has them by the balls. Her way or no way at all.

but... it... was... like... explicitly... explained...


Oh, also I do get why some of you say it felt like two movies in one, but I think it was pretty great plotting from JK. It was a classic story of an unsuspecting hero on his own quest being somehow derailed and thrown into a sinister plot. I think the movie could use another 30 minutes to better gel the two (for the most part of the movie) parallel stories. But I'm pretty sure in retrospect the plot will end up being much stronger than it seems now. There are various things just being thrown out here that will most definitely play a bigger role in the following movies. Did anyone ever expect a diary from book 2 will end up as a major plot books books later? JK puts out things in plain sight and they go unnoticed until she decides it's time to use them.

Be a mensch and give it the B.

Mensch or Übermensch?

I agree with you. My long term opinion of this film will very much depend on how the sequels build on it. The first Harry Potter is a toss up between it and COS for the weakest novel, I can't imagine that the sequels won't be even bigger and better.

I'm one of the biggest Harry Potter fans that I know. I went to all of the midnight releases of the movies, all of the midnight parties for the books. I was so, so excited to revisit this world.

I fucking hated this movie.

Let me be clear. I found Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them to (quite easily) be one of the most dull films of the year. Not only that, but the main trio of characters were absolutely insufferable. I hated all of them and wanted them all to die at the end of the movie. It was just incredibly bland, uninspired and honestly, pretty stupid. I'm hoping the sequels turn it around a bit but I'm not holding out much hope.

D

This was kind of whatever for me. I'm a Harry Potter fan, but I feel like this movie's attempt to tie into the universe kind of flopped. It works better as a standalone thing than integrating the magical world of Potter. The production design is top notch, and there are a number of cool scenes, but I couldn't help but feel underwhelmed. Also, Eddie Redmayne did nothing to change my considerable dislike of his acting; he was as wispy and irritating as he usually is. I liked Katherine Waterston (who looks bizarrely like Jennier Jason Leigh in this) and Dan Fogler, though. Colin Farrell, too.



C+

The characters completely ruined this. Prevented any sort of interesting dialogue when the characters' personalities are dull as possible. Dan Fogler gets maybe the only pass.

The beast scenes were the highlight as others have stated.

I just really hope they don't keep trying to make "no-maj" a thing.

C

A loose prequel to the generation-defining, incredibly lucrative Harry Potter franchise, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is an endearing and exciting fantasy adventure on par with the general quality of its eight-film forebear. In a nimble fashion, director David Yates—directing his fifth film in the series—and first-time screenwriter J. K. Rowling tell the relatively light, but engaging story of a magical zoologist (Eddie Redmayne) searching for adorable and/or dangerous escaped creatures in Prohibition- and Model T-era Manhattan while also laying the more foreboding foundation for another of Rowling's witchcraft-and-wizardry parables of fascism and prejudice. The casual confidence with which she and Yates use humor, motion, romance, and whimsy to deliver considerable portions of world-expanding and sequel-teasing mythology should be the envy of many other writers and directors operating in the realm of major studios and nine-figure budgets. Redmayne's screen presence (a bit dashing, a bit fey) is a fine fit for protagonist Newt, a more jovial and less outwardly burdened wizard than Potter. He leads an extensive and solid ensemble cast which also includes stony, intense performances by such prestigious names as Colin Farrell and Samantha Morton, as well as designated scene thief Dan Fogler, at once the straight man and the comic relief and entirely winning at every turn.

A-

I feel like it's trying to be its own thing. Which I admire in a world where to make a "successful" franchise movie you have to put a gazillion previously popular characters for fans to show up and talk about.

I would have preferred Farrell was Grindlewald tbh.