Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

2016

Adventure / Family / Fantasy

406
Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 73%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 81%
IMDb Rating 7.5 10 194879

Synopsis


Uploaded By: FREEMAN
Downloaded 2,153,724 times
March 14, 2017 at 04:16 PM

Director

Cast

Johnny Depp as Grindelwald
Zoë Kravitz as Lestrange
Ezra Miller as Credence Barebone
3D 720p 1080p
2.03 GB
1920*1080
English
PG-13
23.976 fps
2hr 13 min
P/S 106 / 245
988.3 MB
1280*720
English
PG-13
23.976 fps
2hr 13 min
P/S 791 / 3,762
2.03 GB
1920*1080
English
PG-13
23.976 fps
2hr 13 min
P/S 790 / 3,571

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by Sam 3 / 10

Do not believe the hype

I was excited to take another plunge into the wizarding world of J.K. Rowling. I greatly enjoyed the Harry Potter (HP) books and, despite some flaws, the HP movies.

Prior to viewing, I looked at the other pre-release reviews to determine a critic consensus and despite some minor negative feedback, the majority seemed to love this movie. I am very disappointed. This movie was terrible. Analysing any aspect of each scene reveals just too many errors in transition or logic for me to truly enjoy this film. Sadly, I felt so disconnected by its lack of realistic behaviour and logic I spent much of my time discovering more faults, such is the nature when you do not enjoy a movie.

The core story-line falls flat when compared to any HP book or movie. It lacks character and often does not make sense. Some characters are posted as the self redemption seekers and yet continually choose, knowing well the consequences, morally evil decisions. Other central characters can't seem to make any decision themselves, paralyzed by lack of reasoning. I get it, these people are witches and wizards and thus eccentric takes on non-magics. This idea was taken a step too far in this movie. America felt like it was being run by about 20 buffoons while the main characters waltz around fragrantly discharging their own laws.

Do not expect to see any magnificent, fantastical creatures here either. In every case the extent of the imagination was to take 2-4 animals in our world, smash them together and voila. Even with such a simple formula, you can count the number of creatures you see on both hands. To top that off, the CGI was bested by the first Harry Potter, again it seemed to be rushed to final production without a true critical eye.

I was sorely disappointed with this film. If not for the HP stamp I feel it would barely review as a B-grade movie, charging blockbuster prices. That HP stamp though will likely bump it higher, but please keep your critique realistic lest we cop the same treatment in the probable sequel.

Reviewed by alvmanalm 1 / 10

Newt's Ark

David Yates has done it again - what a terrible movie. Boring from beginning to end. J.K. Rowling just wasn't able to write a script that could live up to the Harry Potter books and universe. Fantastic? Not so much. Beasts? Sure, lots of them, but uninteresting. Where to find them? All inside a magical bag. There's absolutely no character development: we get to know very little about Newt Scamander, his personal quest, his thoughts or what drives him; Tina is just bland; and Kowalski is a comic relief that just wasn't necessary. Throughout the movie, you never understand why Newt has a "Noah complex" or why he was driven to build his own Ark of magical creatures; there's no tension, no drama involved - muggles don't know about those creatures, so they can't hate them or understand how dangerous they might be, and wizards just don't seem to care enough about them. Why exactly was Newt expelled from Hogwarts? What exactly was his relation to Leta Lestrange? We just don't know. Graves was an interesting character, but very poorly developed. Sure, he is revealed to be something more and we couldn't know too much, but we never get to understand the context in which he professes his ideology. For a movie that revolves around magic, there's actually not that much magic being used during the movie. Maybe next time they should try a movie with less special effects and a little bit more acting. The Harry Potter books were always about the narrative - well written, enticing, thrilling, focused on big existential issues, such as death, the quest for immortality, friendship. This movie was about the visual power of cinema, and that just isn't enough. Besides, a whole generation grew up with Harry Potter, a generation that actually "grew up", so a PG movie won't work.

Reviewed by georgechristophert 1 / 10

Absolute Rubbish, no story, no characters, just special effects

It is unbelievable that JK Rowling's name is even attached to this film.

The discipline and thought that went into the Harry Potter characters and story certainly wasn't applied to this catastrophe, which, like the Hobbit and so many other Hollywood regurgitation(s), merely seeks massive profits by piggybacking on a successful franchise while being utterly devoid of substance.

It isn't even worth going into detail. There is only one truly likable character, though you can't relate to ANY character as we know absolutely nothing about them, nor do they have any developed relationships with each other.

The entire script is built around the magical creatures doing damage to NYC, again, a ridiculous premise, as the damage is massive and there is no backlash. The complicated boundaries between the magical and non-magical worlds and people, so well laid out in HP, are completely absent. The most ridiculous example of idiotic, careless detail is that for most of the scenes on the streets of NYC, it is practically a ghost town, whereas in reality, NYC in the 1920s was nearly as densely populated as it is now. Perhaps more so, not worth it to fact check this.

And Eddie Redmayne as the lead was totally inaccessible, not engaging and half of his speech literally unintelligible. Fully one third into the movie it is finally established that he, the lead character, is closer to magical creatures than humans, but by then, not only do we not care about him or like him, but really the script gives him not ONE real relationship wherein to show forth his character. Who is he? Where does he come from? We don't know. Anyway, a horrible choice for a lead character, someone who has no emotional connection to any characters. Even his relations to the animals is explored surface level, there is no one relationship with anyone or anything that develops throughout the story and makes the audience care about the character. Only superficial plot-related details are given and there is no emotional or human life at all.

This is the same way all the characters, every single one, is treated. They are merely 2 dimensional props, there to perpetuate a plot that is mostly centered around special effects and hubris action, magical creatures rampaging here and there, and, as I said, unrealistically, going on undetected.

Literally, not one shining point to this film. Another disgrace to storytelling, devoid of all substance and creativity, pumped out of the Warner Bros fecal-making factory. Utterly disappointed.

Read more IMDb reviews

199 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment