[SPOILERS] Fantastic Beast and Why to Avoid Them

[Knight of Ashes]

I thought it was, for the most part, forgettable ; though, a few bits were memorable for the wrong reasons: couldn't stand the lead guy's innocent idiot look and his mumbling ( though my Aussie friend understood him fine but had trouble understanding the rest of the cast).  

And I grew close to livid seeing Jon Voight in a movie I paid for political reasons - reasons I can usually ignore but not this time. 

I think the only thing I liked was the bakery guy and whatsername's sister ;though, not to the point when I could be bothered to remember their names.

[Mladen]

I have finally seen it. And I liked it. It is not the amazing movie, it is not a  jewel of cinematic magic, but it has some spirit and I think that it can work.

Why, why and Merlin's pants, why did they cast Johnny Depp? Colin Farrel was amazing (actually, I really liked the acting and that is a lot given the lack of some major British names that were part of HP franchise) and I feel like someone in WB is going to regret this. I would hate to think that FB will be Depp's ticket back to stardom, while Disney will smartly wash the hands of "Pirates of the Caribbean"

Redmayne was rather expressive, and Miller blew my mind. I didn't like International Federation of Wizards, as it would be insane for British Prime Minister not to actually react when his countryman is being accused of crimes.

The movie really didn't work for me in 3D, but it should be noted that I watched it after Doctor Strange, so, that may be the reason.

Overall, it was a nice return to Wizarding World. It wasn't perfect cinematic experience, but it did satisfy the fanboy in me  

[williamjm]

I saw the film today. I thought it was entertaining, although not as good as the best of the original films. It felt like it couldn't make up its mind about whether it wanted to be a fun romp about Newt chasing down his escaped beasts, or be telling a darker story about the beginning of Grindlewald's rise to power, and I think it probably worked better when concentrating on the lighter parts of the plot. I did like some of the magical creature design in it, but it's a bit disappointing that the final battle ended up being with an emo CGI cloud. I thought the acting was good, although the Johnny Depp cameo felt misjudged and I thought Colin Farrell did a better job with the character.

On 20/11/2016 at 1:24 AM, Yukle said:

Kind of funny how 1920s USA is progressive enough to have a black woman as president but backwards enough that magical people and muggle are banned from marrying one another.  

It seems the magical community is too obsessed with its own prejudices related to magical ability to be very concerned about prejudices related to race or gender.

 

[Yukle]

On 11/24/2016 at 7:04 AM, Stannis Eats No Peaches said:

I will probably see this move at some point, but I think I may wait until DVD, though I think I have seen every other one in the cinema and I think it would be a shame to break my streak.

That's a good idea. Not worth spending much money on.

2 minutes ago, williamjm said:

I did like some of the magical creature design in it, but it's a bit disappointing that the final battle ended up being with an emo CGI cloud.

Basically the final battle was:

Newt: Hi kid.

Clivelwald: Hi kid.

Ministry: Die kid.

EMO DIES

Newt: I'm sad.

Clivelwald: Imma kill like fifty of you.

SOME MINISTRY PEOPLE DIE

Ministry: Arrest him. Also, don't charge him with murder and take his wand, just leave that goo on him. That'll do.

Johnnywald: I'm wizard Hitler.

Ministry: Meh.

Newt: You killed a kid.

Ministry: Also Meh.

END

Three more endings happen.

END

[Mladen]

3 minutes ago, Yukle said:

That's a good idea. Not worth spending much money on.

Basically the final battle was:

snip

Except

Spoiler

Credence, according to David Heyman, is not dead.

 

[Jace, Extat]

On 11/19/2016 at 10:25 AM, HelenaExMachina said:

I was planning to watch this. But then I found out who is playing Grindewald and thought  nope

 

On 11/22/2016 at 9:28 PM, KiDisaster said:

Just got back from the theater. I enjoyed it. Fun, kinda cheesy popcorn flick in a universe I like seeing explored more if only for nostalgia purposes. That's about all I needed. 

I didn't know Depp was playing Grindelwald until the reveal and I thought he looked ridiculous. Would have preferred if they just kept Collin Farrell in the role to be honest. 

I wonder if Graves was a real person who he started Polyjuicing or if it was a completely created identity for him. 

I just wanted to parrot this. Movie had problems galore... PACING.....................PACE.............PACING

but Colin Farrel was easily the best part and they replaced him with DEPP!?! C'mon! Can we not have a dignified and, mindblowingly, sexy villain?

Seriously, if Colin Farrell didn't let me join his wizard supremacist movement the ministry could find him by tracking me as I stalked the bastard. 

Seriously. He's smart, handsome, can rock dress robes, powerful, authoritative, makes quick decisions, GREAT with kids, and politically active. I'm in love. 

Only other great moment was Dr. Who mentioning he served on the eastern front fighting dragons.

[williamjm]

20 minutes ago, Risto said:

Except

  Reveal hidden contents

Credence, according to David Heyman, is not dead.

 

Really? That's feels like a stupid development, because there was no indication of that and he wasn't that interesting a character to begin with (although the actor did bring a fair amount of creepy intensity to the role).

[Yukle]

1 hour ago, williamjm said:

Really? That's feels like a stupid development, because there was no indication of that and he wasn't that interesting a character to begin with (although the actor did bring a fair amount of creepy intensity to the role).

 

1 hour ago, Risto said:

Except

  Reveal hidden contents

Credence, according to David Heyman, is not dead.

 

Urrrrggghhh, seriously?!

That'd be super lame. There's nothing clever about a twist for the sake of a twist. And he's not even a good character. The obscurus was already a terrible idea, I really don't want it to be the Next Big Thing^TM.

[Mladen]

6 hours ago, williamjm said:

Really? That's feels like a stupid development, because there was no indication of that and he wasn't that interesting a character to begin with (although the actor did bring a fair amount of creepy intensity to the role).

OH, yeah...

Spoiler

http://www.cinemablend.com/news/1586630/fantastic-beasts-ending-a-key-scene-that-was-cut-and-why

To be fair, I thought the actor did absolutely incredible job.

4 hours ago, Yukle said:

 

Urrrrggghhh, seriously?!

That'd be super lame. There's nothing clever about a twist for the sake of a twist. And he's not even a good character. The obscurus was already a terrible idea, I really don't want it to be the Next Big Thing^TM.

Well, people already argued that it will be the Next Big Thing, given that most likely...

Spoiler

Arianna Dumbledore was Obscurial.

 

[Yukle]

3 hours ago, Risto said:

 

Well, people already argued that it will be the Next Big Thing, given that most likely...

  Reveal hidden contents

Arianna Dumbledore was Obscurial.

 

That's a retcon, though, and one that Rowling should let lie.

The message of Harry Potter is that love conquers all. It's the most powerful magic on earth.

Except the Obscurus proves that, actually, discrimination and abuse is far more powerful and leads to almost limitless magic, without a wand, without knowledge of where it comes from and without effort.

In response to that common theory:

Ariana was 

not oppressed by her family! In fact, just the opposite! It was a one-off attack from some muggles against her. If Rowling retcons her lame idea into the books, it'll prove that she didn't think it through.

I love Harry Potter, they're my all time favourite books. But the films... meh... and I really really reaaaaaallllllly wish Rowling would let the series go. The story is done. 

[Mladen]

33 minutes ago, Yukle said:

The message of Harry Potter is that love conquers all. It's the most powerful magic on earth.

Except the Obscurus proves that, actually, discrimination and abuse is far more powerful and leads to almost limitless magic, without a wand, without knowledge of where it comes from and without effort.

But, the two are not in contrition. We know that, for example, the abuse of Snape, led to his fascination with dark spells and he was rather good in it. But it was his love for Lily that made his mind so strong that was able to resist Voldemort's Legilimency.

Even with Credence, it was shown that kindness can do wonders. On that not to continue with that theory...

Spoiler

Perhaps the incident with Muggle borns caused Arianne to become Obscurial. And we know that Aberforth was able to calm her down. They also kept her private. I mean, it can work. Especially now that they have left Credence alive. It is something interesting to look into.

 

56 minutes ago, Yukle said:

I love Harry Potter, they're my all time favourite books. But the films... meh... and I really really reaaaaaallllllly wish Rowling would let the series go. The story is done. 

I have no problems expanding the Universe, but she is going back to HP too much. I would like it to be new and fresh, not tying it up to already known characters. That is why I liked the idea of Newt. Now, that Dumbledore and Grindelwald will be the focus of the franchise, not so much.

[DMC]

While I can't really disagree with most of the criticisms lodged in the OP or elsewhere in this thread, I enjoyed it - thought it was a fun little movie.  Also worth the trip to the theatre based on some of the CGI visuals of the beasts - that type of spectacle has been my main motivating reason to ever actually go see a movie the past five years or so (should note I saw it in IMAX but not 3D).  This may be more about expectations though - I've never read the books and while the movies have grown on me (in large part due to being ubiquitous on cable TV), I've always held the franchise to a pretty low standard and accepted that it's primarily oriented to children.

I will say the final "battle," such as it was, seemed off and particularly poorly put together.  Why wasn't Newt more angry at the Magic UN for presumably killing Credence?  (Moreover, if Credence is actually apparently alive - and will be in future offerings - um, what?  How the hell was the audience supposed to get that?)  If Grindelwald is so confident in being able to break free, why succumb to capture at all?  For that matter, why reveal yourself in the first place?  And yes, it did take me a minute to get the whole venom/obliviate thing.  

One thing I will defend is Eddie Redmayne, thought he was great and made me identify with the character too (in a film markedly low on characterization).  Moreover, I did not have any problems understanding him.  Which is weird, because I commonly have problems not understanding people in movies either based on the audio track or their accent.  Redmayne did seem to have some lingering method-ness by playing Newt fairly similarly to Stephen Hawking, but I guess that worked for me.

[williamjm]

2 hours ago, dmc515 said:

If Grindelwald is so confident in being able to break free, why succumb to capture at all?  For that matter, why reveal yourself in the first place? 

Wasn't it Newt who unravelled his spell, showing his true identity? Admittedly, he'd already shown that he was at least a Grindlewald sympathiser with his rant.

[DMC]

22 minutes ago, williamjm said:

Wasn't it Newt who unravelled his spell, showing his true identity? Admittedly, he'd already shown that he was at least a Grindlewald sympathiser with his rant.

Right, I meant to add he effectively revealed himself with said rant immediately before Newt exposed him.

[Mladen]

2 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Right, I meant to add he effectively revealed himself with said rant immediately before Newt exposed him.

I like to think that he knew he can't get out unscathed after Tina and Newt understood what he was doing with Credence. Although, in all fairness, he could have made them liars. 

 

5 hours ago, dmc515 said:

One thing I will defend is Eddie Redmayne, thought he was great and made me identify with the character too (in a film markedly low on characterization).  Moreover, I did not have any problems understanding him.  Which is weird, because I commonly have problems not understanding people in movies either based on the audio track or their accent.  Redmayne did seem to have some lingering method-ness by playing Newt fairly similarly to Stephen Hawking, but I guess that worked for me.

In comparison to other areas of the movie, acting was superb. I am not that big fan of theatrics, I like more naturalistic approach to the craft, but Redmayne was amazing. Not to mention the chemistry between the cast members. Miller and Farrel were also outstanding... And I know that idiots in WB will regret their decision to set aside Farrel. I can see that returning like a boomerang...

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Risto said:

I like to think that he knew he can't get out unscathed after Tina and Newt understood what he was doing with Credence. Although, in all fairness, he could have made them liars.

True, but I still would think fleeing remains an option.  Guess he really wanted to make that speech about their fear/backwards policy with Muggles.

10 minutes ago, Risto said:

In comparison to other areas of the movie, acting was superb.

Agreed, enjoyed all of the performances.  Fogler as Kowalski in particular looked like he was having a blast.

[Martini Sigil]

Saw it. Hated it.

In my Opinion, J.K. Rowling is an atrocious writer, and she's been making things up as she goes along, and forcing plot points since the second book/movie... So many things just don't make sense...

But her premise --the world she created-- is terrific.... even if it's convoluted and poorly planned.... So it makes it makes it really disappointing when she had the chance to start all over, and yet fell back into the same awful patterns

[Yukle]

6 hours ago, Martini Sigil said:

Saw it. Hated it.

In my Opinion, J.K. Rowling is an atrocious writer, and she's been making things up as she goes along, and forcing plot points since the second book/movie... So many things just don't make sense...

But her premise --the world she created-- is terrific.... even if it's convoluted and poorly planned.... So it makes it makes it really disappointing when she had the chance to start all over, and yet fell back into the same awful patterns

I don't think she's awful and she certainly didn't make it up as she went along. Some clues, such as having his mother's eyes and the "Wand chooses the wizard"  were there from the beginning. Plus, it's not that hard to google her handwritten notes - she showed them to her publisher when she first tried to get it published.

All of the major plot points are there.

I also really like her novels as Robert Galbraith, which are well written.

The issue is that I don't think her heart is in it. I think Warner Bros has encouraged her to make new series and she hasn't been able to refuse. It's not money that has swayed her, since she's loaded, but probably the chance to screen-write a very successful franchise. She does want to screen write and eventually direct a film, so this franchise in her mind is probably a stepping stone for that.

But... I do agree that it shows she is forcing plot points in this film. It's convoluted and stupid.

[Seasick Shrimp]

Saw the movie in theaters about a week ago. For me it was a mixed bag.

Pros:
+ The main characters. I know some people thought that the movie lacked proper character development, but I didn't find that to be true at all. As always, Rowling delivered splendid main characters, and I absolutely loved and adored the whole little gang of new friends (that is, Newt, Tina, Queenie, and Kowalski).

+ The fantastic beasts, lovely bunch of creatures that added a cosy, nice flavor to the story.

+ The four main actors (those mentioned above), great job by all of them!

+ The dialogue, both witty and moving

+ The beautiful '20s setting, mainly the speakeasy with the greedy goblin, that was absolutely awesome!

Cons:
- Obscurios. This was my biggest issue with the film, and I don't think that they should have kept obscurios at all in the story. It would have been better off without this new type of magic. And it was handled in a superlame way, I didn't like the amount of power that they had, and to me it didn't feel like they fit in in the HP-universe at all. That emo-kid who got superpowers was so boring and out of place, can't really understand why they would think that that was a great plot line. The whole thing about Credence just felt super-cliché and like cheap writing. Big thumbs down for this, and I hope that obscurios won't play a big part later on in the series (although it felt like it will).
- Some actor choices: Colin Farrell as fake-Grindelwald, Ezra Miller as Credence, and last but certainly not least; Johnny Depp as the real Grindelwald. All three of these choices  were a teeeeerible mismatch in my eyes, just terrible. And that is coming from someone who likes all three of those actors, just not for the roles that they were given.

Sooo, to sum things up; I am torn. I really liked a lot of it, most of it actually, or at least the imo most important parts; the characters and the beasts, and the whole storyline about Mr. Scamander. If only they would have removed everything regarding Obscurios, I would have been very pleased indeed! I am definitely excited to see more of Kowalski, Queenie, Tina and Newt in the many sequels to come.
 

[Yukle]

On 11/30/2016 at 3:07 AM, Seasick Shrimp said:

Pros:

+ The dialogue, both witty and moving

Cons:
- Obscurios. This was my biggest issue with the film, and I don't think that they should have kept obscurios at all in the story. It would have been better off without this new type of magic. And it was handled in a superlame way, I didn't like the amount of power that they had, and to me it didn't feel like they fit in in the HP-universe at all. That emo-kid who got superpowers was so boring and out of place, can't really understand why they would think that that was a great plot line. The whole thing about Credence just felt super-cliché and like cheap writing. Big thumbs down for this, and I hope that obscurios won't play a big part later on in the series (although it felt like it will).
 

This definitely was the funniest of the films.

The obscurus is just a terrible terrible idea. You just know that Ariana Dumbledore is going to be retconned to have been one and it's super lame and super stupid and superbly terrible.

They suck.