Struggles desperately to be three movies at once: One about Pokemon, one about proto-Voldemort and one (uncharacteristically dark story) about child abuse. But none of these three movies are bad movies so _Fantastic Beasts_ gets a pass from me. I was particularly fond of the degree to which it tied into the Harry Potter world at large. There were moments were I went “Oh Harry’s used that same spell before!” or characters that fitted naturally into the narrative being mentioned, as opposed to getting all _Agents of SHIELD_ season 1 on us, and awkwardly name-dropping something from the other films every 5 minutes, just in case we forgot, which was what I was afraid it might do. End result, _Fantastic Beasts_ is a flawed film that I was still very happy to have watched, and exceeded my expectations. _Final rating:★★★ - I personally recommend you give it a go._

I must say I was expecting to like it, and I really liked it despite the few generic moments throughout the film. Can watch again/10.

Personally I found this movie to be 2+ hours of excellent entertainment. This is one of these movies where I simply cannot understand how people can give one and two star ratings stating that it is garbage etc. I do not get what these people expected? Maybe they just have to complain? The original Harry Potter books are very much books for children or young adults and so is this movie. It is a highly entertaining story in a magical universe with some adventure, some suspense and a lot of humor. The magic and the magical animals are quite cool. The pocket universe (or whatever they are called in the Harry Potter world) is simply gorgeous and cool. The story is not really much to write home about but it does not have to be. This is a magical movie where the magical atmosphere is what makes the movie. It is a good enough story involving a bit of suspense, action, friendship, bad guys, quite some humor and, of course, a lot of magic. More importantly perhaps, the story is not overly stupid nor does is try to peddle crappy SJW nonsense messages about gender or diversity nor climate. This movie delivers where it counts as far as I am concerned. It is entertaining, plain and simple. If I should endeavor try to find something to complain about it would probably be that the lead character was fairly bland. He did not really have much charisma. That and the fact that I never really understood which, despicable (presumably) acts the main opponent, Grindelwald, had actually committed before the events of the movie. On the whole I enjoyed the movie a lot and although it is perhaps not the absolutely best movie I have ever seen but it still deserves a top rating.

**Well, everything's in the title itself, you watch it only to confirm.** I don't want to be so negative like the film critics, but this is a big disappointment for me watching being a film fanatic. I don't think anyone who loved 'Harry Potter' film series would thumb this new beginning. This is not like 'The Lord of the Rings' and 'The Hobbit' from the same universe, but different trilogies. I was excited for something like that, as a concept wise, for the fresh tale from from the fresh characters in the same universe. I don't know about the book version, but the film did not click for me. It had a bunch of nice characters, and to set in the Harry Potter universe, really it should have been a masterpiece. The major drawback was the story. There's nothing to appreciate the screenplay. It's about some creatures from the magical world got out in the human world, just like 'Jumanji'. So our hero struggles to recapture them. Meanwhile, some others too involved in and the reason will be revealed in the final stage. Nice casting and great visuals. I won't point out its director's fault, because he has done his duty very well. He's also will be the man behind the rest of the sequels. I think it deserved the Oscars for the costume design. Not a bad film, particularly for the kids. Comparing it with the Harry Potter franchise makes it a worst film, but independently it is an okay film. So the initiation was average, but I'm still expecting the follow ups to be much better. _5/10_

Remarkably lacklustre for a film involving magical creatures. <em>'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them'</em> underwhelmed me, in short. At no moment across the 130 or so minute run time was I ever invested or drawn into the story or the characters. I didn't feel any good performances from the cast either. Dan Fogler sticks out in my memory most, though the rest are forgettable. The special effects are also not to the level I was expecting; that's not to say that they are bad and I'm not certain what I was indeed anticipating from them, but I just found 'em to be meh - nothing blew me away. Which is a vibe that I got from the whole film unfortunately. Hopefully <em>'Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald'</em> does more for me.

Hats have to come off here to Eddie Redmayne. I reckon he must have spent virtually all of the filming days staring at a green screen reacting to CGI. That's my problem with this. Though set in a fantasy world, there's nothing remotely authentic about it. Not his "Newt Scamander" character, nor the constantly changing scenarios that are busily trying to engage our eyes without bothering with our brains. "Newt" arrives from Britain into the USA with a magical suitcase full of creatures that is the target of the dastardly "Grindelwald" (a few fleeting appearances from Johnny Depp). When it is stolen and some of the beasties escape, it looks like a bad time to be insuring the properties of New York's Fifth Avenue and with all hell breaking loose, "Newt" and his new muggle friend "Jacob" (Dan Fogler) to round them all up and thwart a plan that will bring the wizarding world to the brink chaos. There's no denying that the film looks great, with astonishing attention to detail and an impressive imagination behind the design of mystical creatures and their animated visual effects. The thing has no soul, though. Unlike with her earlier "Potter" characters, JK Rowling hasn't really created anyone here about whom I really cared. There are some fun critters - the curious platypus and their own mini version of "Groot", but Redmayne just seems to be rushing around reacting all the time, without us really getting to know him or much about his mission. Colin Farrell, Ezra Miller and Depp suffer likewise, with little effort put into imbuing them with much persona. Even the magic itself seems sterile and derivative. It's not terrible, it's more a sort of "so what" that you just know will spawn loads of predicable sequels and "Newt" and "Grindelwald" square up for a battle royal.