Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

2016

Action / Adventure / Family / Fantasy

824
Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 73%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 81%
IMDb Rating 7.3 10 363511

Synopsis


Uploaded By: FREEMAN
Downloaded 3,825,072 times
March 14, 2017 at 04:16 PM

Director

Cast

Johnny Depp as Grindelwald
Zoë Kravitz as Lestrange
Ezra Miller as Credence Barebone
3D.BLU 720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
2.03 GB
1920*800
English
PG-13
23.976 fps
2hr 12 min
P/S 3 / 27
988.3 MB
1280*720
English
PG-13
23.976 fps
2hr 12 min
P/S 18 / 411
2.03 GB
1920*1080
English
PG-13
23.976 fps
2hr 12 min
P/S 18 / 454

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by viktorys 3 / 10

Disappointment

Fantastic beasts and where you find them. Well… Not somewhere interesting. In fact, some place that is pretty scattered and incoherent, and very much boring.

What is this film actually about: a. A story of a muggle who happens to get a glimpse of a magic world? b. Of a journalist who tries to preserve the variety of magic animals? c. An auror, who lost her job and tries to claw her way back? d. An unhappy kid who possesses the most destructive powers? e. "The bad guy" with a very sinister, however just as much unclear agenda, in the face of Johnny Depp who makes a 30 second jaw-dropping appearance as a blond?

This film has no story, no core. You know, where you can trace a dramatic structure: some kind of problem, rise, climax and ultimately some kind of solution.

I, as HUGE fan of JK Rowling, am very disappointed to have witnessed this cinematographic cacophony. Not even Eddy Redmayne or IMAX experience could save it for me.

Reviewed by beany_kelly 6 / 10

SFX pretty good, characters & pacing lacking.

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 ...

Reviewed by JLRVancouver 6 / 10

Lackluster spinoff from the Potter-verse

British wizard Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) shows up in 1926 New York carrying a suspiciously animate briefcase and soon strange beasts are running wild in Manhattan. Superimposed on this situation are some secondary stories of a dark wizard trying to establish a magical Reich, a disgraced Auror (Katherine Waterston), and a muggle cannery worker (Dan Fogler) who wants to be a baker. There is not much of a plot, the movie is primarily a series of CGI set pieces strung together. Typical of Rawling's 'Harry Potter' stories (and movies), there is a lot of clever imagery and imaginative moments that serve to cover frequent inconsistencies or lapses in logic in the plot and the ending of the film is especially contrived and flimsy (see 'goofs' for details). The 'fantastic beasts', while well rendered, are not particularly interesting, perhaps because they were just made up for the movie (the vivification of 'mythical' creatures was one of the highlights of the Potter series). The movie also suffers from the trend in the HP series to make the 'magic' more action-friendly: the wizards now handle their wands like handguns and fire spells at their nemeses, making 'magic battles' look like shootouts in Star Wars. The script is OK and the actors are all quite good in the roles (especially the central three characters) but overall, the movie is an uninspired 'by-the-numbers' opus targeting a guaranteed audience of Potter-philes.

Read more IMDb reviews

200 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment