Rubbish nonsense movie


No story utter crap, creatures looks totally fake..

reply

The creatures looked so *beep* fake it wasn't funny anymore... the movie lacks everything. What a snooze fest.

reply

Forget funny it wasn't even a good drama.

reply

How the hell does J.K.Rowling get away with it, it's all special effects and no story.

reply

And "deus ex machina" all day every day! Magic is the answer to every plot problem!

reply

Jk Rowling is the most famous author on the planet because of her complex stories.

If you're seriously acusing this film of having no story, you're a troll

reply

With you 100% I did not even remotely enjoy Fantastic Beasts but claiming it had no story is laughable.

"Be the change you wish to see in the world"

reply

What was the story mate? Please enlighten us all.

reply

You've seen the film, you know the story. I'm not spelling it all out for you. Just because you didn't like it (And neither did I) doesn't take away from its existence. And being a dick on forums doesn't detract from it's existence either.


"Be the change you wish to see in the world"

reply

Dude I just shared what i felt about the movie..and why are you offended anyway? Are you J K Rowling?

reply

Blast they're onto me Rubeus Hagrid, hide the Horcrux's, feed the owls, get the brooms. Make haste!!! 

*Flies off into distance chased by a golden snitch*


"Be the change you wish to see in the world"

I rated THIS: 4
Last rated movies
Chastity Bites: 8
The Lesson: 2
Monster Camp: 3

reply

It's a fan boy... They get even more offended.

The Greatest Documentary Films (Highly engrossing docos) -
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls002769580/

reply

Fanboy?

Surely you can't be referring to me, the guy who has already claimed not to have enjoyed it and rated the movie a 4/10 


"Be the change you wish to see in the world"

I rated Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them: 4
Last 5 ratings
Summer Rental: 8
Fubar 2: 2
Fubar: 2
Flood: 3
Breaking the Silence: Truth and Lies in the War on Terror: 8

reply

With you 100% I did not even remotely enjoy Fantastic Beasts but claiming it had no story is laughable.


If anything Fantastic Beasts suffered, because it had too much story. Was the film meant to be a fun and simple adventure about cute monsters? Or a dark (slightly pretentious) social commentary on the era between the two World Wars?

If it is the later, J.K. Rowling is not best suited to tell such a story. She has proven more than once, that she is not very good at history, and keeping track of the dates historical occurred. How difficult was it for her to do a Google search, to learn when Washington D.C. was founded? Or when the Woolworth Building was actually constructed?

reply

The film never ever lead you to believe "it was a fun and cute story about animals". Never. The entire film was about Grindelwald manipulating credence and the animals were a briefly held cover, and it wasn't hard to tell.

Let's get real. Rowling doesn't write fluff. Talk to Rick Riordan or George Lucas for that bs

reply

Let's get real. Rowling doesn't write fluff. Talk to Rick Riordan or George Lucas for that bs


Pretty sure, all three have the same demographic.... stop kidding yourself.

reply

Really you want historical accuracy in a story about wizards in NY. GTFOH. Stop reaching.

reply

Harry Potter was good but Fantastic beast is really horrible. I am not blaming J K rowling, she is just cashing in on the success of her previous novels, I would also do the same.

reply

wow.. the first comment that i haven't thought was written by a moron.

These fan boys and girls expected way to much.
I Grew up with HP i sore the first one in the cinemas, im 28 and a male and i thought this was decent enough, it wasent the best, but it is no where near as bad as these wankers are making it out to be.
Seems like we just have a bunch of whinny little bitches because they didnt get another HP.
The Greatest Documentary Films (Highly engrossing docos) -
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls002769580/

reply

You didn't pay attention then. It's a story about acceptance and curiosity versus intolerance concerning otherness.

reply

While that may be true.

This is supposed to be a story about adventure and magic.

Acceptance and curiosity are sub-plots. If I wanted to watch a bore-fest about acceptance and curiosity, I'd switch on CNN.

reply

Personally, I feel the movie delivered in the adventure and magic department. There is an entire sequence in the case primarily devoted to showing off all the wonderful creatures. I always felt the magic was more downplayed in Potter (no complaint really!)

Anyway, I'm pretty sure it was not meant to be a story about adventure and magic. Harry Potter isn't. As an example, Deathly Hallows part 2 is not about magical fights and dragons and creature-like fire, even if these elements feature a lot. It's merely the backdrop to tell a story at heart about devotion, sacrifice and fighting for the greater good.

reply

The film is not about "adventure and magic" those are genres and traits. Stories are never "about" these things.

Acceptance and tolerance are themes, and the film was dark accordingly

reply

It is about adventure and magic, and life in the wizard world. What in the hell does CNN have to do with anything. Another Maroon reaching for something to post on the boards. It's a wonder they are shutting it down.

reply

The americans ruined it.

reply

The truth is that she's female and the PC media give her crappy prose a pass because anything done by a woman "must" be applauded. Regardless of how good, or in this case, how craptastic the product or art. Look at the PC and feminist reaction to the Ghostbusters remake. One of the worst films of the past few years, and anyone who dares say so is somehow being anti-female.

P.S. Want to read a great female writer, pick up a Charlotte Bronte or Flannery O' Connor novel. They were/are great female writers.

reply

Funny, im the most Anti PC person you will ever meet, yet i thought this was fine. If you take it as a fun adventure for 2 hours instead of life and death then most people will have the same viewpoint.
These people just expected way to much.
I agree about everything being fked up due to wanker libtards who turn everything into a politically correct version, but this movie was fine, it had nothing to do with her being a woman or PC... It was simply a lash out by angry fan boys and girls because it didnt fit EXACTLY like they wanted it.

The Greatest Documentary Films (Highly engrossing docos) -
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls002769580/

reply

PC has become that buzzard that every lemming and his uncle love to post. Why not actually review a movie instead of going for the cheapest common denominator. I can see why IMDB is axing the threads. What a bunch of followers. If you want to find "PC" you can dig it up from anything. Get a life mate.

reply

Haven't read her books, but at least HP movies were essentially the same: there were decent characters, unusual world, but the stories were weak. E.g., try googling "Harry Potter in a nutshell" (http://www.yash.info/blog/index.php/reading/harry-potter-summary) and trying to analyze what was going on in those stories (a.k.a. "notes about life of John Doe"). I don't know, maybe that's because they were written for children, who knows...

reply

The Harry Potter books were better, and more mature than the films. The Wizarding World looks wonderful on screen, but the story featured did not translate well. I am pretty sure, the same thing happened with Fantastic Beasts. The script the actors read, was probably much more detailed, than the final cut of the film. That said.... the story in Fantastic Beasts seems inferior to the one in Harry Potter.

reply

They weren't written for children, per her own words, and they're specifically successful because of her complex coming of age narrative and character development. Directing me to an online meme that attempts to summarize the entire 10 installment series in a nutshell does not hold any sway over how complex they are. Stop being patronizing

reply

The Harry Potter series was written for children and teenagers. There is nothing condescending or patronizing about children's literature. Some of the most iconic stories in history, were written specifically for children. The story in the Harry Potter books, is not as complex as you may think. As it just follows Joseph Campbell's rules of the classic hero's journey.

http://www.thewritersjourney.com/hero's_journey.htm

reply

Everyone a literary scholar behind a keyboard.

reply

Yes.

I have to agree.

I grew up with HP, and any one of the movies could be playing on TV if I so happened to be flicking through the channels, and if an HP comes along, I'd stop flicking and watch.

Even if it was GOF or HBP...just saying...

But this movie was a total bore-fest.

Like you said, no story. Not even a primary antogonist.

Great idea, great actors, great set pieces, but terrible execution.

JK Should stick to books, and let the movie makers do their thing.

reply

Great idea, great actors, great set pieces, but terrible execution.

JK Should stick to books, and let the movie makers do their thing.


Agreed.... J.K. Rowling's script was terrible. The two storylines would have worked better as a book, but as a film they did not mesh well. Everyone tried to make Fantastic Beasts a great movie, all except for J.K. Rowling. It was glaringly obvious, that she never wrote a screenplay before.

reply

I'm sure your probably one of the great script writers of our time.

reply

You complain about a lack of story in FB.. Well, the Columbus films didn't tell any story. Fantastic Beasts, on the other hand, is a story about how we treat otherness. What story did PS and COS tell? Nothing connect the scenes in those films thematically = no story.

I can however understand not liking the plot of the film, but I liked it good enough.

Primary antagonist? Grindelwald, though mostly disguised as Graves, who stole every scene he was in. He is a far better villain than Quirrel in the first Harry Potter movie, but not as good as the other HP villains if we are to compare them.

reply

[deleted]

Very constructive indeed.

I understand preferring the story of the post-Columbus HP films to Fantastic Beasts, but let's not pretend Columbus grasped what the story was about thematically in his two films.

reply

Fair enough.

The philosopher's stone and the chamber of secrets are by far my least enjoyable movies. Although I thought half blood and GOF were terrible movies, I'd much rather watch them than the first two.

Not to potter fans, they knew where the franchise was headed because there were already four books.

Still not an excuse though. They had to kick start the franchise off on a light note, and that's exactly what Columbus achieved. And I'd like to think that it gracefully darkened in thematic experience. It just didn't DC you into the franchise and ask you to swallow it all up. (I'm a DC fan but facts are facts)

Nevertheless, when or if the next FB movie comes out. I will watch it. I respect the unprecedented writing ability of Rowling.

But I was very disappointed by FB.

reply

What story did PS and COS tell? Nothing connect the scenes in those films thematically = no story.


That is also an issue with those two books. They were just introduction of a fantastical world the protagonist was thrust into. Prisoner of Azkaban was arguably the first Harry Potter book to tell a cohesive story.

Primary antagonist? Grindelwald, though mostly disguised as Graves, who stole every scene he was in.


Which is why so many viewers want Colin Farrell to return, at some point during the later films. Part of the reason Percival Graves stole the show, is because he was portrayed as morally ambiguous.

reply

That is also an issue with those two books. They were just introduction of a fantastical world the protagonist was thrust into. Prisoner of Azkaban was arguably the first Harry Potter book to tell a cohesive story.


Possibly. I haven't read them for years. I'd argue they needed more aggressive adaptation. My favourite films of the series POA, DH 2 and HBP (in that order) arguably took most liberties with the source material.

reply

Possibly. I haven't read them for years.


Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone is viewed through nostalgia glasses, while Chamber of Secrets is basically filler. Neither one add much to overall arc of the series. Which is part of the reason, I hate the idea of Fantastic Beasts being five films. Judging by J.K. Rowling's previous work in the Wizarding World, it takes her a while to world build. Meaning, the main storyline of the Fantastic Beasts series, is unlikely to begin before the third film. It is easier to pull that off in a book, but in a film it runs the risk of boring the audience to tears.

As a standalone story, Fantastic Beasts had quite a bit going for it. In fact, the film works better that way. However, as a franchise starter it was rather dull, and nothing really happened. Much of that had to do with actually showing Grindelwald's face, instead of him remaining a mysterious figure for the time being. Also, having a villain who is a Seer raises some really bizarre and unnecessary questions. Such as.... why would Grindelwald agree to duel Dumbledore in 1945, if he already knew the outcome?

reply

Yeah, I agree they should have kept Grindelwald a mysterious figure to build up anticipation about him. I believe the impact of Voldemort's return in GOF was strengthened by the fact he never showed up in POA.

reply

The mystique surrounding Grindelwald, would not have even been that difficult to pull off, in Fantastic Beasts. Had Percival Graves just been a secret follower, it would have portrayed just how dangerous Grindelwald was. He would have successfully converted the most powerful American Auror to his cause. Plus, the audience would have understood, why Graves would be willing to betray MACUSA. While the International Statute of Secrecy does protect most wizards, it also puts the blame on the victims of abuse. Rappaport's Law might be misguided, but it goes against the foundation of Ilvermorny. A school which honors a No-Maj, and is part of the reason blood-purity does not exist in North America. The international wizarding community is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

reply

Story or no story, COS and PS were entertaining. FB was just plain boring nonsense which dragged on for hours.

reply

Strangely enough that's what I feel about parts of PS and COS. FB, while slowing down in the middle, was more fast-paced as far as I'm concerned. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

reply

I really like the HP movies, but this was boring, boring, BORING. I was sooooo glad when it was over. Really bad.

reply

different people different opinions
i absolutely loved it

reply

This film was nice, but it's story wasn't that great. It was pretty flat, but to be fair, there was a lot that hinted things to come. Thing with Rowling is that she likes to build up. I hated the first 3 films of Harry Potter. I just didn't understand the hype. It wasn't until the 4th film that I became obsessed and went out and bought the books. I think she's laying the foundation to build the story. There was a lot in the film that lays out a map of what the next films will be about.

reply

I loved the first 3 films of Harry Potter. I was into the hype. It was the 4th film that I became disinterested. I think she lost her mojo or went too greedy.

reply

They became less about solving mysteries in the latter half and more about the psychology of the characters and the upcoming wizarding war. Yates' approach to the series was also far more grounded and functional in the sense of making the magic seem like a natural and unspectacular part of the characters' lives, which some people didn't like. Maybe he did push it too far at times, but as films they are far more engaging to watch than Columbus' golden hues and talking heads.

reply

They're never about "solving mysteries". This isn't an A-Z mystery series

reply

Exactly. HP 1 and 2 were rather lame, although 2 was far better.. but from then on the series got much better, that is what she is obviously trying to do here, but i can see the online potter community ruining it by being a bunch of try hard film reviewers.

Give it some time you god damn negative nancys.
Ill tell you now, it that is the first in a series of films, it was still much better then the first HP

The Greatest Documentary Films (Highly engrossing docos) -
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls002769580/

reply

but i can see the online potter community ruining it by being a bunch of try hard film reviewers.


Except that Harry Potter films are just average, save for Prisoner of Azkaban. My main issue with Fantastic Beasts, was that J.K. Rowling recycled many tropes from her original series. Everyone involved tried to make this an enjoyable film, it just was bogged down by a lackluster script. Strong acting, gorgeous costumes, and detailed sets cannot mask a messy story.

reply

If you want to talk about a cash-grab.... apparently, the rumors about Cursed Child being made into a film trilogy, just will not die. I can imagine, WB being this greedy and desperate. Fantastic Beasts may have had its issues, but this is hardly the solution.

http://screenrant.com/harry-potter-movie-series-trilogy-cursed-child/

reply

wow you hardcore harry potter fans are a real bunch of whinny bitches arent you?
The movie was fine. Not as good as HP 3-8 But it was better then the first 2 and the director is still doing a great job.

I knew this would happen, no matter how good it was there was going to be a bunch of 12 yo fan boys and girls who just crack it because Harry is not the subject of the film.
The only bad thing about this movie was the casting of Collin Farrell and Johnny Depp.. Moronic, as soon as you hire big names like that, the fantasy and wonder of the movie is lost, because you've seen that face play a million other roles. Silly really.

Good movie, well decent anyways, a decent addition to the HP world. Anyone complaining otherwise just expected way to much.

The Greatest Documentary Films (Highly engrossing docos) -
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls002769580/

reply

The only bad thing about this movie was the casting of Collin Farrell and Johnny Depp.. Moronic, as soon as you hire big names like that, the fantasy and wonder of the movie is lost, because you've seen that face play a million other roles. Silly really.


The adult actors in the Harry Potter films were just as famous as Colin Farrell and Johny Depp. They were the best of the best the U.K. had to offer in regards to acting talent. The issue with Johnny Depp, is he is too synonymous with a specific role in another franchise. Add the fact that the makeup was awful, and that is was caused it to be distracting.

reply

The funny thing is, I actually found this movie more entertaining than Harry Potter. I'm not a big Harry Potter fan. I've watched them all once, and some of them two or three times because others were watching. I thought the HP movies were okay, at best. Not only did I find this movie more entertaining, but I took it more seriously too. Despite the fake looking beasts, the concepts of them entirely made up for it, at least for me.

HP movies to me are rated 5-7.
I'd give this movie a 7 or 8.

To each his own I guess.

reply