Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (no spoilers)

Just got back from seeing this for the second time. I have to say it is one of those movies that is better on a rewatch. I did enjoy it the first time (My daughter and I went to see a matinee on Friday) but this time I really liked the characters, the story, and I particularly enjoyed the music.

I think that I actually enjoyed this movie more than the HP series.

There are the expected action scenes etc. but this movie has a warm core and the protagonists have gentle-goodness to them that just made me smile. Good job J.K.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to find them - 7/10
(Great for Potter fans, but not as good as it could have been)

Let me say up front that this is not a bad movie. But I notice a lot of Potter-fans are looking at this movie through rose-colored glasses, and are unable to see its obvious flaws. This is a pretty flawed movie. Fun, but not great.

But lets start with the good. The characters are fun, the visuals are stunning and impressive. And the amazing Potter atmosphere of whimsy is all over this film. I also liked how the music of the movie starts with the soft Potter-theme, and then immediately abandons it for the rest of the film, and sticks with its own new theme music. There's plenty of references for fans to enjoy, but you do not need to be a Potter fan to understand what is going on in the film. This movie can very much stand on its own.

But now the bad. The movie seems to forget that it has a plot for about half of its running time. For most of the movie we follow the main character in his quest to retrieve his missing animals all over New York, which is fun, but has very little to do with the main plot. It seems as if the movie suddenly remembers that it has a villain (who is briefly mentioned with quick flashes of newspapers during the opening) and it forgets that it still has to build towards a finale. Out of nowhere the final act is suddenly dropped into the movie. That is a bit sloppy, and it leaves the main villain very undeveloped. I also think many of the characters are a bit shallow, and steeped in stereotypes and cliches.

Technically, the movie feels a bit sloppily edited at times, which makes some scenes hard to follow. And especially during the final act there are a lot of bright flashing lights that are a pain on the eyes if you are sitting in a dark theater.

That said, I was still entertained. But the film critic in me feels that this should have been a lot better. I also noticed that I had a hard time remembering the names of most of the main characters.

Considering that the script for these five movies is a whopping 60 pages (i.e. on average 12 pages for a single movie) I don't expect anything resembling a story from them.
For the sake of comparison: the script for the final (split) Harry Potter movies was 700 pages long.

(Note that I'm not sure about the source - I read this in a German magazine, so it's possible that it's not accurate. I have a suspicion that (at least) the latter number refers to the novel and not the actual movie script.)

Jhaelen said:

Considering that the script for these five movies is a whopping 60 pages (i.e. on average 12 pages for a single movie) I don't expect anything resembling a story from them.
For the sake of comparison: the script for the final (split) Harry Potter movies was 700 pages long.

(Note that I'm not sure about the source - I read this in a German magazine, so it's possible that it's not accurate. I have a suspicion that (at least) the latter number refers to the novel and not the actual movie script.)

Click to expand...

I'm presuming that those are the page counts of the relevant books - 700 pages seems about right for "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows".

But the problem with this comparison is that "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" is not an adaptation of the booklet by the same name. And certainly not an adaptation of part of it!

Jhaelen said:

Considering that the script for these five movies is a whopping 60 pages (i.e. on average 12 pages for a single movie) I don't expect anything resembling a story from them.
For the sake of comparison: the script for the final (split) Harry Potter movies was 700 pages long.

(Note that I'm not sure about the source - I read this in a German magazine, so it's possible that it's not accurate. I have a suspicion that (at least) the latter number refers to the novel and not the actual movie script.)

Click to expand...

yeah that's totally inaccurate since the screenplay for Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is 304 pages.

Thanks for clarifying that. Clearly a case of 'Lost in Translation'...

I thought "Fantastic Beasts" was pretty good - probably on a par with "Goblet of Fire" (which I put in the second-tier of HP movies). It certainly has its flaws, but it's also enjoyable enough.

But I couldn't help but be struck by Eddie Redmayne's character, who I'm sure I've seen somewhere before. Let's see: a madman, with a box that is somehow smaller on the outside, who dresses in a long stripey scarf and a bow-tie (though, in fairness, bow-ties are cool), and who solves many of his problems by waving around a glowing stick. Oh, and he's accompanied on his adventures by a companion who constantly needs things explained to him, thus serving as a useful conduit of exposition to the audience. Could someone help me out: Who could that be?

delericho said:

But I couldn't help but be struck by Eddie Redmayne's character, who I'm sure I've seen somewhere before. Let's see: a madman, with a box that is somehow smaller on the outside, who dresses in a long stripey scarf and a bow-tie (though, in fairness, bow-ties are cool), and who solves many of his problems by waving around a glowing stick. Oh, and he's accompanied on his adventures by a companion who constantly needs things explained to him, thus serving as a useful conduit of exposition to the audience. Could someone help me out: Who could that be?

Click to expand...

Why, I do not know WHO you could possibly be talking about.

Imaculata said:

But now the bad. The movie seems to forget that it has a plot for about half of its running time. For most of the movie we follow the main character in his quest to retrieve his missing animals all over New York, which is fun, but has very little to do with the main plot. It seems as if the movie suddenly remembers that it has a villain (who is briefly mentioned with quick flashes of newspapers during the opening) and it forgets that it still has to build towards a finale. Out of nowhere the final act is suddenly dropped into the movie. That is a bit sloppy, and it leaves the main villain very undeveloped. I also think many of the characters are a bit shallow, and steeped in stereotypes and cliches.

Click to expand...

Thanks for it, cos it seems everybody is crazy about this movie!

OK movie. Not great, not terrible. But I also have a very middling opinion of the Harry Potter series.

Other people have hit some of the big problem points. Funky pacing of subplots, way too derivative of Doctor Who, etc. It's also painfully obvious that the more they try to expand the Harry Potter universe, the more it falls apart; I think it's safe to say that there's nothing left of the world that we saw in The Sorcerer's Stone. The visual effects were very cartoony, but tolerable once you got used to the aesthetic. The historical accuracy was unimpressive. I'll also add that it's not a kids movie.

That being said, a lot of the creature scenes were fun. The things that were handwaved away, left unexplained, or ex machina'ed all had the right fit and feel (formulaic writing works when you pick the right formula). The acting was good, and the script was decent. There were sufficient references to the HP source material. And it danced delicately around anti-religious and anti-technology themes in a way I genuinely impressed with. It's hard to be more specific without spoilers.