Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (David Yates)

[Henry Gale]

IMDb / Wiki

[Peng]

Least favorite Potter-verse film, to my surprise (note that I still mildly like Columbus' entries; true that the direction can't compare to later ones, but they still stick to the stellar stories of the books). This magical world is still enchanting enough to get lost in, but it seems like without the structure of a book to hinge on, the film comes off fairly plodding and airless, never feel like it modulates different plot threads and tones successfully. That David Yates comes into the series late may help disguise one thing: he can't do a sense of wonder well, which is a big, big problem considering the main attraction here. The creatures fare well in scenes of them doing mischief or wreaking havoc, but in scenes showcasing their appearances with characters reacting in 'Spielberg faces', it just feels strained and so, so slow. Yates does much better with action and darker, more mature elements; the violence has impact, abuse is displayed minimally but upsettingly, and the scenes between Colin Farrell and Ezra Miller crackle, just stopping short of directly approaching what their relationship really means.

And then there's the issue of the imbalance in four leads. I don't hate Eddie Redmayne but the intentional anti-charisma he's doing here is such a character blackhole, with the usually talented Katherine Waterson falling into it with him. The supporting couple, played by Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol, is just much better in every respect: charismatic, distinctive, funny, with actual chemistry together. I know the focus on Newt is based on the concept of its title, but Fogler's character, who has a leading role charisma and also a Muggle (ahem, No-Maj) suddenly thrown into the American wizarding world, should have been our point of view into this story.

[Dukefrukem]

I was thinking to myself today on whether or not I would ever watch these movies. I hated every single Harry Potter movie with the exception of Prisoner of Azkaban. I just looked it up on imbd and was SHOCKED to discover it was directed by Alfonso Cuarón. Makes sense now why that is clearly the best movie in the series.

[[ETM]]

As I said elsewhere, I really liked it. I agree on the technical aspects with Peng, but to me this was the most enjoyable Potter film. I haven't read the Potter books so nothing beyond the films themselves means anything to me, and there's something about this that spoke to me much more than any of those 8.

[transmogrifier]

I'm watching this Saturday. I don't know why; I didn't even bother with the past two (or was it three?) Potter movies.

[Henry Gale]

It just never took off for me. I kept leaning in, willingly, waiting for it to become something genuinely enticing, but it just never happened.

Some lovely visuals here and there ― the stuff inside the suitcase, the sequence of Waterston's mind being visualized in that black goo, and the various instances of magic rebuilding the destruction; all very cool and thrilling ― but nothing with the characters ever really clicked in a sharp enough way to feel like you've gone on a significant journey with them, especially (and most detrimentally) Redmayne's tick-y non-entity of a lead in Newt. It feels like it's pulling its punches with arcs simply because it has four more of these in mind. Also it's one of those stories that doesn't really have enough to it to really go in any direction other than what you expect by its very premise. [

Show Spoiler

The beasts are loose from the case! I guess it ends when they all go back in?! Yup! Also a dark being is wreaking havoc that needs to be stopped! Good thing it's taken care of at just the right time without any repercussions for characters or things we've been told to care about!

]

There's an inherently universal relatability with the young characters in the Harry Potter stories with struggles of growing up, trying to become your own person and gain acceptance from the world around you, all while preoccupied with adversity while being faced with unexpected adversity at every turn (whether it's bullies at school or the reappearance of a dark lord who murdered your parents and scarred your face). But there's just nothing in Fantastic Beasts that acts as nearly as significant an emotional entry point with its characters at forefront. I know he's meant to be introverted and timid, but the closest we get to the film demonstrating that Newt deeply cares for anything/anyone is that he's caring with the beasts in his suitcase and that he has a picture of Zoe Kravitz in a shed. The latter of those means we don't get any more background on that aspect of him in the film at hand, just a mystery that won't be paid off for way too long to still care.

Dan Fogler's Jacob and Alison Sudol's Queenie (especially) come the closest to really shining out of the cast, but the movie never really seems to know how to put them to use, and their would-be-moving last scene doesn't feel like it laid the necessary groundwork to be truly moving. Also, I'm not sure I've ever seen Colin Farrell, Ezra Miller and Samantha Morton as such awkward non-entities on screen. That is a problem!

Bottom line, this post of mine from nearly a year ago after its first trailer came out predicted all of my fears:

I mean... I find it really hard to care about this.

As someone who was the same age as Harry at the time of Philosopher's Stone's film release, and even still hold those first Columbus movies fairly dearly to the point that I'm sure if I rewatched them now my nostalgia for them would mute any real criticisms (the same thing with his Mrs. Doubtfire and especially his Home Alone movies, to be honest), and liked or loved every other movie along the way (except for the fairly inert Goblet), I just have no emotional attachment to this.

Even with (or because of) Rowling writing it and it still being directed by Yates, who obviously was second to Cuarón as a director of the franchise, and arguably did even better with it as he made four times as many films and basically steered the whole thing on track til the end after Newell's Goblet (oddly the only one of the franchise I didn't see in theatres); It comes of as second-or-lower tier material.

It just feels like Jackson going back for The Hobbit. What's the best case scenario here?

Oh well, I hope everyone finds more to enjoy in this than I did. I just can't imagine being compelled to see any more of them outside of late-night home viewing curiosities.

Two of the year's very best movies, Manchester by the Sea and Arrival, are out right now, as are the very good The Edge of Seventeen, Loving and Doctor Strange. (I haven't yet seen Moonlight, Nocturnal Animals and Hacksaw Ridge, but those very likely fit those bills too.) Making this the reason for your trip to the theatre just feels so counterproductive right now.

**½ / 5.3

[TGM]

Mediocre Beasts is more like it. This was very much just an OK experience, right up until the very end, when it suddenly enters Return of the King territory and doesn't know when to wrap things up. This movie was over about 20 minutes before it actually ended, and unlike RotK, this movie most certainly does NOT earn its overly-prolonged closure. The big feel good finale was everyone having their memory wiped, yet if only that had worked on the audience as well...

But anyways, overly obnoxious and needlessly long ending aside, this was pretty meh. Not bad, per se, but there's absolutely nothing fantastic about a single second of this film. I suppose Eddie Redmayne was pretty good, though.

Anyways, let's rank some shit:

Half-Blood Prince
Deathly Hallows Part 1
Prisoner of Azkaban
Chamber of Secrets
Order of the Phoenix
Deathly Hallows Part 2
Fantastic Beasts
Sorcerer's Stone
Goblet of Fire

[Dukefrukem]

I'm kinda shocked Doctor Strange beat this. (opening weekend earnings)

[[ETM]]

My audiences reacted much better to Beasts.

[transmogrifier]

My audiences reacted much better to Beasts.

Same here in Korea. As an aside, funny how both end [

Show Spoiler

with a city being put back together

].

Anyway, this is alright, I guess. Better than any of the Potter movies I have seen, but only because it doesn't really take all the wizardly nonsense all that seriously and it's funnier as a result. But it's as hollow as a Kinder Surprise and it is yet another recent blockbuster that suffers from a totally boring, ill-defined threat that the protagonist just kind of stumbles upon and has no real personal stake in.

[DavidSeven]

I thought this was pretty awful.

Huge budget, but evokes no sense of wonderment in its magic or world-building. The showcased creatures are so heavily computerized and unbound by any physical rules that the actors might as well be performing with shadow puppets. Even in IMAX, it is a film that is impossible to get lost in. How this milquetoast form of escapism garners even a lukewarm critical reception baffles me. This is the type of film that has absolutely nothing to say and is just plain unapologetic over its rigid conformity to formula.

Also, I don't know what type of movie Eddie Redmayne thought he was signing up for, but I thought he delivered a wildly off-tone performance. His overly mannered take became nothing more than a distraction. The incessant mumbling actually hurt the film's coherence. And as far as I could tell, his singular goal, in some misguided attempt to appear "method" in a blockbuster, was to get his face in profile as often as possible while darting his eyes around. I'm sure he's normally a fine actor, but this was Razzie-level stuff.

[Ivan Drago]

Fuck, this was a slog. If Why Him? and Office Christmas Party are Movies That Exist, Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them is a Blockbuster That Exists. It suffers from all the problems that plague today's tentpole films, including flat characters, action sequences that get duller and duller as the movie progresses, unfocused storytelling, and an uninspired visual style. It does go to cool places with its world building, especially when the plot goes to a 1920s speakeasy and inside Newt's suitcase, and the special effects are still cool, but it's difficult to feel any kind of awe when more time is spent on establishing the new universe without giving a reason to care about any of it, and more so when the first 90 minutes of the story is devoid of conflict. If you're a rabid fan of Harry Potter that has read the book of which this film is based, you'll probably enjoy it, but I felt like the Fantastic Beasts movie is missing all the wonder, character development and excitement that made the first eight Harry Potter movies great.

[[ETM]]

Wow, talk about disconnect. I liked this much more than at least 6/8 HP movies. We enjoyed it more than Rogue One. I've never had my tastes in blockbusters differ as much from what seems to be the consensus. I guess when you're finally outside the prime demographic it's more of an abrupt halt than easing out.

[TGM]

[Philip J. Fry]

I loved Fantastic Beasts, but this video does make some very valid points, specially about Newt as a protagonist. No wonder Jacob steals the movie.

[Philip J. Fry]

*ponders*

[Rico]

The more time lapse since I've seen the movie the more I like it in my mind. I focus on the stuff I liked about it and less on its many flaws. Does that make sense to anyone else?

Redmayne still doesn't do anything for me. I'm not convinced he is actually a good actor and I've seen 5 of his films. But the side characters are fun, the world that is created is interesting, and there are moments (maybe not enough) that fill my inner child with wonder.

I stop short of saying it is a good film, I probably won't ever re-watch it, but it intrigues me enough to want to keep going with the series.

[Dukefrukem]

This movie was more interesting than most of the Harry Potter series.