Animali fantastici e dove trovarli

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.

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 ...

As just about everyone in the whole muggle world (or nomaj world if you're reading this in the States) knows, FBaWtFT is the first of a five film spin-off series from the Potter franchise, still under the careful stewardship of David Yates. (And if the other films in the series were 'amber-lit' rather than 'green-lit', their production now seems assured after the US opening weekend alone has brought in nearly half its $180 million budget).

Set in New York in the mid-1920's Eddie Redmayne ("The Danish Girl"; "The Theory of Everything") plays Newt Scamander, a Brit newly arrived with a case full of trouble. Newt is a bit like an amiable and ditsy David Attenborough, with a strong desire to protect and establish breeding colonies for endangered species. It's fair to say though that these are creatures that even Sir David hasn't yet filmed.

Within the battered old case (a forerunner of Hermione Grainger's bag, which was probably borrowed from Mary Poppins), Newt stores a menagerie of strange and wonderful creatures which – after a bump and a mishap – get released by wannabe baker and muggle Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler, "Fanboys"). Newt has the job of rounding up the strays with the help of Tina (Katherine Waterston, "Steve Jobs"), an out of favour member of the Magical Congress of the USA (MACUSA). Unfortunately this couldn't be happening at a worse time: something else – nothing to do with Newt – is wreaking havoc across New York and MACUSA is on red alert suspecting the involvement of a dark wizard, Gellert Grindelwald, following attacks in Europe. And keeping the secrets of wizardry from the NoMaj population is getting increasingly difficult, especially with the efforts of the "Second Salemers" movement run by Mary Lou (Samantha Morton, "Minority Report") and her strange adopted family.

This film will obviously be an enormous success given the love of all things Potter, but is it any good? Well, its different for sure, being set many years before Potter and only having glancing references to Hogwarts and related matters. And that gives the opportunity to start afresh with new characters and new relationships which is refreshing. It's all perfectly amiable, with Redmayne's slightly embarrassed lack of eye-contact* in delivering his lines being charming. [* Is this perhaps the second leading character in a month that is high on the autistic spectrum?] . Redmayne does have a tendency to mutter though and (particularly with the sound system for the cinema I saw this in) this made a lot of his dialogue inaudible. Waterston makes for a charming if somewhat insipid heroine, not being given an awful lot to do in the action sequences.

Kowalski adds a humorous balance to the mixture, but the star comic turns are some of the creatures, especially the Niffler… a light fingered magpie-like creature with a voluminous pouch and expensive tastes!

In the 'I-almost-know-who-that-is-behind-the-make-up-but-can't-quite- place-him' role is Ron "Hellboy" Perlman as the untrustworthy gangster Gnarlack. And in another cameo – and probably paid an enormous fee for his 30 seconds of screen time – is Johnny Depp, which was money well- wasted since, like most of his roles, he was completely unrecognisable (I only knew it was him from checking IMDb afterwards).

At the pen is J.K.Rowling herself, and there are a few corking lines in the script. However, in common with many of her novels, there is also a tendency for extrapolation and padding. Some judicial editing could have knocked at least twenty minutes off its child-unfriendly 133 minute running time and made a better film. Undoubtedly the first half of the film is better than the second, with the finale slouching into – as my other half put it – "superhero" territory with much CGI destruction and smashing of glass. What is perhaps most surprising about the story is that there are few obvious set-ups for the next film.

Quirky and original, its a film that will no-doubt please Potter fans and it stands as a decent fantasy film in its own right. It's difficult though to get the smell of big business and exploitation out of your nostrils: no doubt stockings throughout the world will be full of plush toy nifflers this Christmas.

(For the graphical version of this review and to comment please visit http://bob-the-movie-man.com. Thanks!).

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.