|
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, the latest entry in the Harry Potter franchise, was released today (November 18) and I haven't found a thread for it in the first three pages, so here goes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vso5o11LuGU Directed by Harry Potter vet David Yates, the film revolves around Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne), a well-meaning magical naturalist who travels to New York City in the 1920s. After a brief altercation with Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler), part of his collection of esoteric beasts is released around Manhattan. Teaming up with wizard sisters Tina and Queenie Goldstein (Katherine Waterston and Alison Sudol) in an effort to track them down, they become embroiled in a power struggle between Muggle (No-Maj, on this side of the pond) zealot Mary Lou Barebone (Samantha Morton) and driven wizard cop Percival Graves (Colin Farrell). Fantastic Beasts, based on a charity-tie in book written by J. K. Rowling in 2001, is the My thoughts after seeing it, spoiling the whole film: It's what you would expect from a franchise launched in 2016. The first scene and finale are dedicated to setting up the rest of the franchise, with a white-makeup-clad Johnny Depp as Grindelwald, a bad guy mentioned once in the first Harry Potter and twice in the last. I also felt the film in general suffered from pacing problems, with vast chunks of the film dedicated to the ways in which Ezra Miller's character is abused (by characters who never meet the main cast, with only Farrell sharing more than one scene with Miller himself). I think Dan Fogler was the best part of the film; he's a convincing everyman, likable, though he contributes relatively little to the plot after the first third of the film. I also thought Eddie Redmayne gave a weak performance; he reads as an off-brand Doctor, but gives the same awed reading to all his lines, from describing his menagerie to staring Wizard Hitler in the face. A lot of other characters weren't given enough time to shine; Farrell and Miller both give decent performances but have barely any dialogue in the film. I thought the DEFCON clock in the wizard government was a clever touch. Mameluke fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Nov 17, 2016 |
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 10:17 |
|
|
I remember getting the book as a kid, watching this in a few hours and looking forward to it
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
I liked it, I'd put it on par with an average Harry Potter film, it doesn't hit the peaks of the later films in the HP franchise but it mostly steers clear of the lows. I thought Redmayne was fine in it, Ezra Miller and Colin Farrell are a bit above average (Miller in particular) and Dan Fogler (no-maj guy) steals basically every scene he's in in one way or another and is super rad. He's such a good part of the movie that he makes me wish we got more interesting Muggle characters in the HP saga. Effects are great too. Some story stuff that surprised me, big ol' spoilers ahead: I was surprised at how poorly MACUSA came across, in any other movie they'd be like the oppressive dystopian government. The execution room was one of the scariest concepts I've seen in anything Harry Potter related, and the women bringing them down to be executed have such a calm demeanor about it all that it's clear they've done this plenty of times before. This is on top of executions apparently being allowed on the spot as long the Auror is a high enough rank, no need for a trial or anything. Then you have them immediately dismissing Scamander's claim of what's causing it (willing blindness in government is of course nothing new in Rowling's writing but it still bears mentioning), killing Credence without even considering trying to save him and teach him, and seeing magical beasts in general as something to be exterminated. Oh, and this woman interrupted a meeting, lets make sure not to even let her say why she's there! I'd hope that this is building toward Grindelwald having a defensible position from a certain point of view beyond "We should be public and rulling over muggles instead of hiding!" but I don't have enough faith to expect that level of depth. I hated them using the ol' duplicate briefcase cliche, but I didn't see Credence being the source of the magical killer coming or Grindelwald pulling the ol Polyjuice special. I'd totally be on board to see the actual Graves in future films, get a chance to see Farrell play a character in a very unique situation returning to an organization after being kidnapped, and how his actual personality and beliefs differ (or are similar) compared to what we saw from Gindelwald posing as him. Overall not a perfect movie, but I'm hoping we see things get better as everyone involved gets back into the groove again and Rowling gets more proper screenwriting experience. I've certainly seen poorer executed and more shameless cash grabs!
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
Just got out of a screening. We finished the movie but my wife had an allergic reaction afterwards, and now I'm sitting in an ER. Anyway; good movie; the magical trunk being a nature preserve and storeroom both pleased me and annoyed me. I had t been following any spoilers at all, so I wasn't expecting literal Grindlewald. I did spot "graves" having the Hallows icon on his person about 30 minutes before it became relevant, and was rather proud of myself for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
I watched this yesterday and maybe I was just cranky but I thought this movie was 15 minutes too long. The parts inside Scamander's magical creature preserve were fun and I liked the interaction between Scamander, Kowalski and the Goldstein sisters. But at this point I'm just bored to death by fight scenes that level buildings and conjure doom for entire cities. Also, that execution room was really, really dark. I did not expect that. And I would have preferred Colin Ferrell's character still being a thing going forward. When he turned into Captain Grindelwald, I groaned. I guess I've had all the Depp I can handle at this point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 07:46
|
|
|
Jack's Flow posted:I watched this yesterday and maybe I was just cranky but I thought this movie was 15 minutes too long. The parts inside Scamander's magical creature preserve were fun and I liked the interaction between Scamander, Kowalski and the Goldstein sisters. But at this point I'm just bored to death by fight scenes that level buildings and conjure doom for entire cities. Also, that execution room was really, really dark. I did not expect that. And I would have preferred Colin Ferrell's character still being a thing going forward. When he turned into Captain Grindelwald, I groaned. I guess I've had all the Depp I can handle at this point. Agree on most of this, but as I said in my earlier post Assuming Grindelwald was disguised as Farrell's character through chugging Polyjuice potions, and not some other perfect biological disguise method we haven't seen before, it would make sense for him to keep Farrell alive somewhere, as Moody was kept alive in Goblet of Fire. So we could get some more Farrell, and like I said seeing a guy dealing with that kind of wild trauma seems like it would make for an interesting character. How do you get past being kidnapped and impersonated by Magic Hitler? You're stuck with Depp no matter what though, so apologies there. As for where they go with it in the future, I'd totally be down for a mostly anthology setting that keeps introducing and focusing on new characters while other characters weave in and out when it makes sense in the story, culminating in Dumbledore taking down Grindelwald at the end. Until then we're seeing magic societies or even schools all around the world. Maybe one of the movies makes Grindelwald the main character outright and we follow things from his perspective, really dig in to why he's doing bad things and illustrate him as a bad man with good intentions from his point of view, whereas Voldemort was basically just an outright force of evil no matter how you slice it. You could point out how he lost some or even all of his family to a witch hunt, how that's still going on today and causing suffering for wizards, etc. In short, we've seen the deep cut of the Harry Potter universe focusing on just that character's experiences and worldbuilding along the way as he saw things (for the most part), so why not do lots of shallower cuts that show us magic on a properly global scale, set against the backdrop of Grindelwald's actions and eventually WW2?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 11:27
|
|
|
I actually enjoyed this more than I enjoyed the most of the main Harry Potter films, I agree that it felt 15 minutes too long, the end felt really drawn out. Eddie Redmayne was fantastic in this. The execution chair was absolutely terrifying, and them straight up killing Credence was a pretty good part as well, especially as during the whole thing Newt only wanted to help and preserve these beasts, and genuinely thought he was about to save Credence as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
This would be my question for those who have seen it so far: Is there enough life in this for 4 more movies?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
There are a lot of sequel hooks, for sure. On one of the more superfluous ones: Why did Zoe Kravitz show up in a single photo as Newt's ex named Lestrange? Not to get all "mad at Heimdall," but cosidering the fairly obvious persecution parallels for wizards in both this movie and the latter Harry Potters, doesn't introducing a black member of the racist, pureblood Black/Lestrange clan confuse that? Especially when every other family member we've seen has been white. If the producers wanted to show an interracial relationship in future films they could have just made Newt black. Mameluke fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Nov 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
One of my favorite moments in the movie, that I didn't recognize until a friend pointed it out on the car ride home: When Graves is interrogating Newt about why one professor would argue in favor of keeping him at Hogwarts, it was Grindelwald asking why his old friend Dumbledore had a soft spot for Scamander. Nothing earth-shattering here, but it adds another layer to that scene.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Here's a legitimate question: how kid friendly is the movie? I know it's rated PG-13 but I work at a movie theater and I wholly expect people to come out of the woodwork to bring their kids for it because Harry Potter Is For Kids And This Is Too and I really want to be able to provide an answer for parents if they ask if the movie is okay for kids. I'm gonna define kids as <11. It doesn't help that they've been playing up the Fantastic Beasts And Magic aspect in all of the commercials.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
There are a couple of scenes with dead bodies but nothing gory or anything like that. There's also one scene of child abuse but again nothing explicit. Kids will definitely like it as the majority of the film is Newt and Jacob trying to catch the beasts. All in all I liked it but the two plots don't exactly mesh all that well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
As terrifying as the room is, it's still better than magical Britain's version of execution where you encounter all your worst fears and nightmares shoved in your face and then get your soul eaten.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
This movie is terrible. I would really love to go into detail about how this movie is just so loving bad. But I would have to summarize the entire movie and that would be so many words so I will just keep it short: The new canon that wizards and muggles are physiologically different? Stupid. The fact that persecuted witches hide their magic away to protect themselves, creating a thing called an Obscurius, which lashes out at people (completely defeating the point, which is to stay hidden) and kills them in 10 years? Awful, just awful. The fact that Newt's totally safe and not dangerous at all monsters attack people, damage the area in and around NYC, and break into and vandalize buildings. So dumb. Just the complete and utter incompetence of everyone, everyone. It hurts. The authorities just straight up killing a tragic kid on a rampage who was being successfully talked down? Aaaah. And mother loving Grindewald pointing out that hiding yourself from muggles for muggles' sake is stupid. (He is 100% right.) FFS, Newt smuggles monsters into America like some kind of terrorist or something, and in an unsecure container to boot, just... face palm. Wizards are dumb. Also, mind reader chick continuing to read people's minds after they ask her not to really bothered me.  I'm now of the opinion that every time JK Rowling adds more content to her world she makes it worse.Please don't watch this bad movie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Jenner posted:
She literally couldn't help it. She was just hearing thoughts as if they were being spoken aloud
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Jenner posted:This movie is terrible. Those are fair points, but I still enjoyed watching it. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Jenner posted:
I actually really liked this, only because you can see how it evolved from the existing idea of magic children losing control and accidentally making magic happen when they're growing up. To me, this sounds like childen can basically go down two paths... one where the child is nurtured and raised properly, and the other where the child is taught this is shameful and they MUST hide it away or forcefully contain it. Which ends in disaster. Think about what would happen in a world where the Dursleys raised Harry by telling him he was magical, but taught him it was a horrible disease and must be stamped out. He would've literally exploded and murdered them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Pryce posted:I actually really liked this, only because you can see how it evolved from the existing idea of magic children losing control and accidentally making magic happen when they're growing up. Um, didn't the Dursleys do just that, though, or try to? Which makes Dumbledore's decision to leave harry with them for his entire childhood even more completely irresponsible in retrospect, leaving him with an abusive family and trusting to the fact that the mom will feel guilty enough to keep from starving/killing the kid? Why didn't what happen to Credence happen to Harry? But yeah, movie's all right; not great, but enjoyable and a good return to the Wizarding World that I'm sure the fans will love. Dan Fogler is indeed the best part and steals every scene he's in, and I too am sorry we never got more of a Muggle's eye view of the main books (it would, if nothing else, help the perception of Muggles as background/punching bags for all of the magical characters in those books). As for Jenner's points... I don't disagree myself, but I was mostly OK with it because it was clear to me that Credence's handling and the other totalitarian aspects of the Wizards society at this point are not meant to be seen as good things in the slightest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
For my money, this was by far and away my favourite Harry Potter film. Its the first time where I felt the Wizarding world as portrayed in the films was something that would be actually running behind the scenes of the real world. In the other films, wizarding britain felt like it was lagging a hundred years behind where as in the books I always felt like it was more up to date than that. I guess that sort of thing is down to how you want the world portrayed but I always felt the main series films were far far too hammy to make me fully believe in the wizarding community. Dan Fogler was pretty fantastic whenever he was on screen. Very likeable generally and not so over the top goofy as to be annoying, as someone else here said it made me want to see more of what happens when muggles get mixed into the magical world. I am not the biggest fan of Eddie Redmane but I felt that he did a great job with the role. All that said Jenner posted:The new canon that wizards and muggles are physiologically different? Stupid. I agree on the whole physiology difference thing, that is kind of contrary to much of what Rowling wrote in the past. I dont mind the concept of an Obscurius, it felt much akin to a dementor which set a precedence for this sort of creature. It might have helped had it been mentioned before but Rowling has every right to update us on new details of her universe. Newt being blind to the danger his own creatures presented seemed natural for a character who is so obsessed with creatures. I can easily buy into the idea that his love of his animals makes him blind to some of the more obvious dangers. I never considered many people in the HP universe competant. I could elaborate but questional character decisions have always been a thing in Harry Potter so I dont see it as a deal breaker now. As far as the MACUSA knew, he was tearing the city apart and was blowing their society to bits. Cant say it shocks me that they just wanted the problem sorting as fast as possible. Grindlewald's attitude is dependant on your point of view. I always saw the Wizard Community going into hiding was as much about protecting Muggles from Wizards as much as it was about Wizards being protected from muggles. I can believe though that in 1920s america, It would be hard to live that lifestyle safely. They established quite early on that the MACUSA had banned Beasts and that it was the only safe way to complete his objective. I was suprised that she didnt stop mind reading too. I think it was easy to infer though that she didnt have much control over it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
On this point, American wizardry seems pretty flawed just for how it let Credence and Modesty fall theough the cracks. We know a few things from the Harry Potter books. Hogwarts possesses some sort of mechanism to detect innate magic in children, since Hogwarts invited muggle-borns who would never have been registered. Harry's experience shows us they're willing to go to lengths to ensure wizard kids are registered. (Unless of course Harry was special because he was rich) And Umbridge's appointment shows that government interference on the school level isn't uncommon. So how, in the MACUSA, could two [three, since I bet the ginger kid was also a witch] orphans slip through the cracks in such a dangerous way?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
The MACUSA was definitely supposed to come across as hosed up seeing as they did stuff like forbade Wizards and No-Maj's from having any kind of contact.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
Really conflicted here, because the movie felt to me like a Potter film, a Pokemon episode, and a remake of Carrie mashed together into something tonally incoherent. I liked the individual pieces and felt that any one of those three elements would make a fine story, but they just didn't gel together for me. I really loved the horrifying execution room, but I have a hard time seeing it in the same movie as the extensive "hippo wants to hump some dudes, Redmayne stomps and farts" scene. I really assumed Newt was gay and that he loved Kowalski. They had a genuine connection that didn't exist at all between Newt and Tina and he took him into his private home to share his beloved treasures and let him in on intimate secrets. I assumed Queenie's "I have trouble reading men like you" line was pointing to Newt's sexuality rather than just a "he's British" joke but it doesn't go anywhere interesting with that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
Why is this movie so grey and dreary.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
The ending sucked. Weightless, meaningless CGI destruction on a grand scale, and then all of the consequences of it immediately get reversed by a sloppy deus ex machina that makes no sense even in context.FiftySeven posted:I agree on the whole physiology difference thing, that is kind of contrary to much of what Rowling wrote in the past. muscles like this! posted:The MACUSA was definitely supposed to come across as hosed up seeing as they did stuff like forbade Wizards and No-Maj's from having any kind of contact.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
jivjov posted:She literally couldn't help it. She was just hearing thoughts as if they were being spoken aloud Look I get it. It still really bothers me. Sorry, I just can't not invade your privacy all the time. loving magic. My advice to any wizard in the Harry Potter Universe who is considering a career in villainy, go big. Because if you do something small like fail to inform the authorities of some criminal activity (even if you did try to and they just ignored you and sent you away, doesn't matter.) or you are a victim of persecution and abuse who has never been trained in magic and are just lashing out they kill you. But if you destroy whole city blocks and purge massive swaths of humanity they either let you run wild while they shrug and wring their hands or arrest you and lock you up in places so insecure you can just break right out and continue committing atrocities. The Wizarding World is awesome! Pryce posted:I actually really liked this, only because you can see how it evolved from the existing idea of magic children losing control and accidentally making magic happen when they're growing up. My way of avoiding persecution, which kills me, is to do this thing which not only doesn't hide me but actually makes me a threat to everyone and also still kills me. Brilliant! You think they'd find a better way. Wizards have this one neat trick that kills them before humans can do it, muggles hate it! resurgam40 posted:Um, didn't the Dursleys do just that, though, or try to? Which makes Dumbledore's decision to leave harry with them for his entire childhood even more completely irresponsible in retrospect, leaving him with an abusive family and trusting to the fact that the mom will feel guilty enough to keep from starving/killing the kid? Why didn't what happen to Credence happen to Harry? This person gets it. quote:Credence's handling and the other totalitarian aspects of the Wizards society at this point are not meant to be seen as good things in the slightest. Most definitely, I was horrified. Wizards are awful. Mameluke posted:On this point, So how, in the MACUSA, could two [three, since I bet the ginger kid was also a witch] orphans slip through the cracks in such a dangerous way? It's not just in America though! Wizards just seem universally incompetent and it is painful. I can only suspend my disbelief so much. quote:Terrible decisions that are doubled down on and massive stupidity is just common in the Wizarding World.  Lurdiak posted:Why is this movie so grey and dreary. Because it's Jenner fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Nov 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
Honestly I thought the movie was fine. Workmanlike plot, main characters sagged a bit (guys, if Newt Scamander is gonna get in fights, you're gonna need to sell me a bit harder that he wouldn't collapse like a wet noodle), but the supporting and tertiary characters, the setting, and the world itself all had bucketloads of charm, and the movie just coasted by on the charm. I had an enjoyable 2 hours in the 1920s Wizarding World, solid escapism and if they want to tell me more stories about these people, I'd like to hear them, so they cleared the bar I set, and if I set it a bit low... eh. Escapism and charm and people being nice to each other is worth a lot these days. Pretty much throughout the entire movie I was thinking "man, I don't know if they meant for this 'predatory gay grooming his next victim' subtext between Graves and Credence, but it sure is coming on rather strong". A few hours later, after remembering that vibe and the twist ending, and... ha, yeah, that was completely intentional. Well played. By the way, Newt only says there might be slight, subtle differences between muggles and wizards, which seems like hardly scientific proof of same, and also kinda basic logic. Person 1 and Person 2 are of the same species, but Person 1 can manipulate invisble energy fields by force of will alone -- something is different between them. There's also Dementors, which cannot be seen by Muggles, that's more proof too. It's probably like one passive gene or something and could get teased out in thirty goddamn seconds if the wizarding world would ever like to swallow their pride and show up, hats in hands, and make an offer of "we'll cure everyone's paralysis and comas if you breed us some penecillin, seriously, our deadliest disease is a pox, and also can we get in on this "instantaneous worldwide communication" thing, we're still sending messenger owls". CapnAndy fucked around with this message at 07:35 on Nov 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
CapnAndy posted:Pretty much throughout the entire movie I was thinking "man, I don't know if they meant for this 'predatory gay grooming his next victim' subtext between Graves and Credence, but it sure is coming on rather strong". A few hours later, after remembering that vibe and the twist ending, and... ha, yeah, that was completely intentional. Well played. I really got that vibe too, only if it was intentional it makes me like it even less. One thing that made me laugh (in a bad way) was how it used the absolute laziest aspects of the other Yates Potter films -- turning magic into wispy bits of smoke and light in the absence of anything actually interesting with magic, resulting in a climax where the ultimate villain is literally a giant ball of pulsing black smoke and light . Way to be creative, Yates!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 11:53
|
|
|
God I wish they'd just done a 2-hr David Attenborough-style magical beast documentary or something like that in this setting, and not this complete nonsense. The suitcase interior had more charm than the rest of the movie put together. The Aurors completely had the fascist look, and the final sequence cutting was really weird - the aurors all stand behind the president, then the deus ex machina sequence happens, then they all are standing behind her again? It just looked like a first cut. The CG was really weightless, which is impressive for a movie that spend $180 million - even the ostrich in the park looked terrible, just gliding along with no impact. The ending shot of Newt patting his thunderbird was less convincing than CG from 10 years earlier. I thought it was kind of impressive that Modesty and Chastity both just completely dropped out of the movie once it turned out the BOY was the special one - I guess they just go back to being street orphans and starve, who cares about them. Modesty even stood up for the boy, had her moment of heroism, and was rewarded by being sidelined. And yeah it was pretty insane that the wizards were straight out executing their colleagues in what appeared to be an ACID PIT after a two minute interview, but not executing Grindelwald. What the hell was with that execution room - they pull happy memories out of your mind then lower you into an acid pit in the chair? What the gently caress kind of society is this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 11:59
|
|
|
xiw posted:What the gently caress kind of society is this? J. K. Rowling's wizarding world has always been really dystopian and problematic if you scratch just beneath the surface. I've always kinda taken that as a feature, not a bug.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 12:15
|
|
|
A True Jar Jar Fan posted:I really assumed Newt was gay and that he loved Kowalski. They had a genuine connection that didn't exist at all between Newt and Tina and he took him into his private home to share his beloved treasures and let him in on intimate secrets. I assumed Queenie's "I have trouble reading men like you" line was pointing to Newt's sexuality rather than just a "he's British" joke but it doesn't go anywhere interesting with that. I guess the fantastic beast Newt was after all along was a bear 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 12:16
|
|
|
The MACUSA field agents were literally wearing Gestapo leather coats. Their organization is hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 13:16
|
|
|
Big fish villains get slaps on the wrist irl, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 13:47
|
|
|
Considering all the other racial undertones of the movie I think you're supposed to take Newt's "slight physiological differences" with a grain of salt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
jivjov posted:J. K. Rowling's wizarding world has always been really dystopian and problematic if you scratch just beneath the surface. I've always kinda taken that as a feature, not a bug. This. On top of this, look at the Ministry and all the propaganda in the HP series. Adult wizards outside of Hogwarts are, for the most part, insular and judgmental. Arthur Weasley is belittled by his contemporaries for his fascination with Muggles. Did anyone else get a Doctor vibe from Newt? There were times I felt like I was catching bits of Matt Smith's 11th Doctor in his mannerisms and his outlook on the beasts and humanity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Really hated this one, absolutely awful from top to bottom. Painfully long and the final fight is against a black cgi cloud. It is either this or an energy beam to the sky these days. I always disliked how in Yates-directed HP movies wizards moved to just firing their wands like guns instead of spells, here they loving tommygun magic missiles. CG goblins look worse than Dobbie 14 years ago thanks to uncanny valley.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
xiw posted:God I wish they'd just done a 2-hr David Attenborough-style magical beast documentary or something like that in this setting, and not this complete nonsense. The suitcase interior had more charm than the rest of the movie put together. I would have loved this. I actually said this same thing on the way out of the theater. But there is no way they could make 5 movies built off a documentary. But if Newt got shagged by the giant bird like Attenborough got shagged by the parrot I would watch this movie at least three more times. [Insert the parrot smilies here I'm too lazy to look it up.] quote:and yeah it was pretty insane that the wizards were straight out executing their colleagues in what appeared to be an ACID PIT after a two minute interview, but not executing Grindelwald. What the hell was with that execution room - they pull happy memories out of your mind then lower you into an acid pit in the chair? What the gently caress kind of society is this? I really liked the execution room because it was a good critique on America's relationship with the death penalty/execution. We try to make it as fast/painless/humane as possible to ease our conscience so of course we would make it so the condemned happily accept and go to their death to ease the sting of guilt. jisforjosh posted:Did anyone else get a Doctor vibe from Newt? There were times I felt like I was catching bits of Matt Smith's 11th Doctor in his mannerisms and his outlook on the beasts and humanity. Oh yeah, Newt's actor was definitely channeling the Doctor. Both Smith and Tennant variations. I don't see why this needs to be spoilered? It is not revealing anything about the movie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
xiw posted:I thought it was kind of impressive that Modesty and Chastity both just completely dropped out of the movie once it turned out the BOY was the special one - I guess they just go back to being street orphans and starve, who cares about them. Modesty even stood up for the boy, had her moment of heroism, and was rewarded by being sidelined. Re: Modesty and Chastity Did they survive Credence's various freakouts? I assumed Chastity died at the same time at the same time as Mary Lou, and Modesty died when her old home got leveled.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Also, I liked the movie, but everything with the Shaws should have been cut. I forgot they were even in the movie until I checked IMDb. I'm assuming that family will have a bigger role in the sequels, but their plot just gets forgotten.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
You thought Snyder was bad at having gray, desaturated shots? Just wait until you see this fuckin thing! Anyway it was ok. I'd put it pretty much smack dab in the middle of the Potters. Kowalski was great and by far the highlight. Almost all of the supporting characters were more interesting than Scamander tbh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 10:17 |
|
|
I thought Fantastic Beasts was just okay. I appreciated a lot though that while it took place in the Harry Potter universe, it had its own ideas and lore to expand on that universe. Far too many prequels just take what is already there and popular with audiences and contribute nothing new to the world that the previous films set up. Fantastic Beasts could have very easily just been a gigantic nod and wink to the audience with references of characters and locations from Harry Potter and it wasn't. The film stands on its own with new characters and lore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 23:18
|
|
