Seeing this tonight, grew up with HP, so im obviously a bit extra excited for this. Also regarding reviews, here in Denmark, some critics are loving it, this is odd for a movie out of Hollywood - Especially when it's an adaptation/prequel/spinoff. So a good sign, looking forward to it.
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016)
NiceMaster Virgo wrote:^ Yeah that's the plan.
Anyway I think the best option for Dumbledore that I've heard so far is Armitage. He has the nose, the voice, the eyes, charisma and his age is appropriate. Basically perfect.£
Oh I have such a man crush on Armitage lol, he'd be a great pick
Whatever the lowest ranking is for a modest approval, is what I'd give the film. So, maybe a 6/10?
Pacing issues and an uneven tone really hold it back. A great cast with some tender moments make it worth the watch. But as a big Potter fan, I can't help but feel disappointed.
Pacing issues and an uneven tone really hold it back. A great cast with some tender moments make it worth the watch. But as a big Potter fan, I can't help but feel disappointed.
Really enjoyed it. Absolutely tremendous world building and characterisations from Rowling, this is a great introduction to the history of the Potterverse so to say. Great performances from Redmayne and the other members of the main quartet - Fogler MVP, Farrell was great to watch, surprises were Ezra and Sudol. Need whole gang back for all 5 please. Story felt tad jumpy though in the first half and it's obvious the Beasts are just there to serve as an intro to Newt (and justification for the title) and a side distraction from the main story which I hope takes far more centre stage in sequels. And the ending was faaaar too dragged out (classic JK). But super enjoyable stuff. IMAX 3D and the frame breaking was really well done and added to the experience for sure, hope Yates keeps doing it for the sequels, and nice score from JNH.
Overall - incredibly solid and enjoyable franchise starter where the characters and world building are the focus (and both excel and compensate for some of the flaws), and definitely among the stronger blockbusters this year. And may be the strongest, actually. Until Rogue One anyway.
8/10
Overall - incredibly solid and enjoyable franchise starter where the characters and world building are the focus (and both excel and compensate for some of the flaws), and definitely among the stronger blockbusters this year. And may be the strongest, actually. Until Rogue One anyway.
8/10
this isn't a review, just a mind puke hot take as soon as I got home:
Oh my god does this movie have a lot of content that simply doesn't belong together. You go from a scene of magical delight and warmth and comedy to scenes of child abuse, a terrifying invisible monster, murder, dour newspaper scenes, and back again. It's not even tonally contradictory in a provocative way since so much of the movie feels passive and unmotivated. Likely because the central narrative—if you can call it that—is a slight and fun little story cutting between all of these far more "important" stories that are many tones darker. So the central story is sort of undermined in stakes and importance at every possible opportunity. It's not that any particular section doesn't work—almost all of them do. It's that together they all try to come under a uniting theme of tolerance, protection of outsiders, etc, but in terms of pace, tone, and style they couldn't fit together more poorly.
The Beasts themselves are the far and away highlight, and almost every major setpiece with them is equal to or better than most of the setpieces from Potter. Real spectacles with real soul. Absolutely gorgeous visually, too. Saw this in Laser IMAX 3D (first time seeing Lasers) and what a movie to be the introduction. But sadly, I'm not sure Rowling understands cinematic narrative structure like, at all. Which is why I say it's as though she's adapting a broader narrative and trying to fit it all into a movie. Clumsily at that. It also must be said that the character of "Tina" is a complete failure. Boring conception, muddled intro, vague arc ("arc"), bland performance. Nothing about her works. Redmayne is fine, but issues with him are all to do with writing and narrative. ALSO: everything having to do with the 'main' villain(s) is completely bogus, which would be bad enough if all aspects around that plot strand weren't full of plot holes.
I wonder if, perhaps, it wouldn't have been more compelling to focus almost entirely on Newt trying to capture his precious Beasts while being chased by the magic authorities for breaking the law (and letting them go free) all while the 'evil' forces at work try to capture said beasts for reasons nefarious and sinister. So Newt is trying to "save" the wizarding world at large—almost by sheer coincidence as it also goes along with his internal motives for the magical monsters—while also trying to protect the thing he cares about most. As is, Newt not only doesn't have a character arc, he has almost no internal motivation whatsoever.
I can't even think of a rating I'd give it, but B- may be too generous. What I can say is there's a LOT of content in the movie I'd put in the B+ category. But altogether? We're probably in C territory.
EDIT: Should also say that there's so much going on in this movie I think it would benefit from a second viewing more than most. Might be a grower. It also promises greatness to come.
-Vader
Oh my god does this movie have a lot of content that simply doesn't belong together. You go from a scene of magical delight and warmth and comedy to scenes of child abuse, a terrifying invisible monster, murder, dour newspaper scenes, and back again. It's not even tonally contradictory in a provocative way since so much of the movie feels passive and unmotivated. Likely because the central narrative—if you can call it that—is a slight and fun little story cutting between all of these far more "important" stories that are many tones darker. So the central story is sort of undermined in stakes and importance at every possible opportunity. It's not that any particular section doesn't work—almost all of them do. It's that together they all try to come under a uniting theme of tolerance, protection of outsiders, etc, but in terms of pace, tone, and style they couldn't fit together more poorly.
The Beasts themselves are the far and away highlight, and almost every major setpiece with them is equal to or better than most of the setpieces from Potter. Real spectacles with real soul. Absolutely gorgeous visually, too. Saw this in Laser IMAX 3D (first time seeing Lasers) and what a movie to be the introduction. But sadly, I'm not sure Rowling understands cinematic narrative structure like, at all. Which is why I say it's as though she's adapting a broader narrative and trying to fit it all into a movie. Clumsily at that. It also must be said that the character of "Tina" is a complete failure. Boring conception, muddled intro, vague arc ("arc"), bland performance. Nothing about her works. Redmayne is fine, but issues with him are all to do with writing and narrative. ALSO: everything having to do with the 'main' villain(s) is completely bogus, which would be bad enough if all aspects around that plot strand weren't full of plot holes.
I wonder if, perhaps, it wouldn't have been more compelling to focus almost entirely on Newt trying to capture his precious Beasts while being chased by the magic authorities for breaking the law (and letting them go free) all while the 'evil' forces at work try to capture said beasts for reasons nefarious and sinister. So Newt is trying to "save" the wizarding world at large—almost by sheer coincidence as it also goes along with his internal motives for the magical monsters—while also trying to protect the thing he cares about most. As is, Newt not only doesn't have a character arc, he has almost no internal motivation whatsoever.
I can't even think of a rating I'd give it, but B- may be too generous. What I can say is there's a LOT of content in the movie I'd put in the B+ category. But altogether? We're probably in C territory.
EDIT: Should also say that there's so much going on in this movie I think it would benefit from a second viewing more than most. Might be a grower. It also promises greatness to come.
-Vader
Not even B+? DAMN!
Posts: 55632
Joined:
May 2010
B-b-but the trailers were... equally bland/messy!
And Suicide Squad had great trailers.£m4st4 wrote:B-b-but the trailers were... equally bland/messy!
I don't think so. 
Newt's narrative
Tina's arc was indeed thin,
I thought they handled the dramatically heavy scenes and the warm ones well, it felt balanced to me. It got some great reactions from the audience.
Fogler's performance was great and I loved Sudol in this as well.
Edit: another connection to
Tina's arc was indeed thin,
Fogler's performance was great and I loved Sudol in this as well.
