Les Animaux fantastiques

For me, this film perfectly fits the term "producer's film." There’s craft certainty, but also inner nihilism. The logical nonsense (why doesn't Scamander use his wand right away in the hunt and instead lets everything go to the extremes?) hidden under Yates' confident direction will lull you into a sense that everything is fine. When you want to recapitulate the plot after the end, you can’t. (21/11/2016)

If you expect to go see something that will expand the universe you’ve identified with your entire childhood and that you still swear by to this day, you tread lightly – even on the cinema carpet itself. You have no clue just how enchanted you’ll be in the upcoming minutes. You do not make a sound and suspect that it all ends well. But suspicion isn’t automatically a win. Sometimes it all goes bad and it can be a real mess-up. But not in Newt Scamander’s case, who has originally introduced himself to me with zero emotions and via a book that I’d gotten as a Christmas gift that winter, that I haven’t touched since and that’s been collecting dust somewhere. But film studios are a superpower and money needs to come from somewhere. And when one brand is squeezed dry, another one must replace it and so Newt came to the stage, starting with movie number one and ending with god-knows-what number, all according to the earnings and creative possibilities, of course. But personally, I gotta say that Newt and the other characters have all left a mark on me. During the movie, I realized that once again, I was in the world of witchcraft and wizardry, just a few years earlier than before, which isn’t bad at all. I was also happy to watch Katherine Waterston and Alison Sudol, both of whom I hadn’t even known before. The muggle Dan Fogler also didn’t disappoint me and so didn’t Johnny Depp at the very end. I feel like I know the direction it’s all going to go and honestly, I’m glad Johnny Depp will be a part of it. It’s almost as if my childhood was coming back… And with these kinds of movies, that’s never a bad feeling. (28/11/2016)

In general, I appreciate the excessive patience of Potter fans who wait until you know who turns into you know who, but I don't suffer from such a lack of imagination that I can't imagine thousands of better ways to waste 134 minutes of my life. Yes, the film is as long and self-serving as the previous sentence. And it has a nice soundtrack. Your Universal Platypus. (16/11/2016)

Better and much less useless than what I feared, but at the same time worse and more useless than what I hoped for. (23/12/2016)

Five years is an incredibly long time, so when the first notes of the familiar soundtrack started playing, genuine goosebumps appeared and didn't leave me until the closing credits. My beloved JK Rowling is constantly adding surprises, new ideas, and genuine magic to the script every few seconds. What's more, Eddie Redmayne perfectly fits a role for the first time in his career, a role tailor-made for his quirks and shyness, which stands out even more in contrast with the chilling (and as expected, perfect) Colin Farrell. But what I enjoy the most is that the heroes are adults who are skilled in magic, so all the chases are incredibly dynamic. Combined with the touching fairytale romance, it's not just a surprise, because I was expecting a fantastic spectacle, but I didn't expect the Fantastic Beasts to play the most touching personal notes for me. (22/11/2016)

Fantastic Beasts and Why Go to See Them? Because they really are fantastic, cute, and I bet I won't be the only one who would like to have some of them at home. Another pretty good reason to see the movie is Eddie. To me, he's a supernatural character himself, so he fit in here quite incredibly. I don't want to compare him to Harry, but I have no choice because watching him just gave me that divine feeling. The butterflies in my stomach, the goosebumps, the tears of excitement... you know the drill. Rowling did not disappoint and I want to live in her head. :)) (09/12/2016)

Really pleasant. Not a sequel to Harry Potter, or anything like that. There are big names are thrown into the equation, but not as forcefully as I was afraid it would be. Fantastic Beasts are solving their own problems at a time, when Harry Potter’s dad wasn’t even in diapers. For the first time in his career, Redmayne actually plays a truly nice guy, who knows how wave a magic wand when necessary. The Beasts themselves are nice. The Bowtruckle and the kleptomaniac mole are easily the best. Rowling handles the story very well, functional mystery/detective story is gripping to the end. Collin Farrell’s performance is effortless, but the heart of the movie is Dan Fogler. The non-magician’s perception of the world of magic is a great idea. His resigned acceptance of everything that’s happening is magical in his delivery. At first I was worried little wary, but now I can’t wait for sequel. The music is a subtle tribute to Williamson, the main theme is truly well composed. P.S.: Let Fassbender play Dumbledore next time. (27/11/2016)

I simply can't write about this film other than as a huge pleasure. It gets everything right, and if I reach for the comparison that is directly offered, the magical duel between the fantastic Mlok Scamander and the bland Doctor Strange has a clear winner. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them does not need a boring introduction to introduce us to the main characters (although they are relatively unknown), because they are all experienced magic people and we get to know on the fly what they can or cannot do. They don't even need awkward jokes behind every scene, although there is no shortage of humor. Of course, they have the advantage of being set in a familiar world, but they don't settle for that and expand that world very nicely with new plots, characters and little things like "Muggles in England, non-wizards in the USA". It's all understandable, whether you know Harry Potter or not, and enhanced (how else?) by a fantastic cast led by the quirky Eddie Redmayne, the delightful Katherine Waterston and the brilliant romantic comic duo of Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol. (23/11/2016)

Yes, I have a soft spot for Rowling and her storytelling, and if I had to spontaneously choose which arbitrary fictional world I would want to spend the rest of my life in, it wouldn't be Middle Earth or Pandora, but a magical community where you can summon beer from the fridge without having to get up off the Quidditch couch. Fantastic Beasts is a satisfying intro to a new series overflowing with visual ideas developed to the smallest detail and, above all, a palpable of love and fascination with its own world and its unlimited laws, which it then successfully transfers to the dazzled viewer through the endearing character of Kovalski. Unfortunately, the story is not that good. Rowling pushes together multiple storylines that flow independently from each other and are connected by rather skeletal and thin bridges in the finale, with the sorcerer Grindelwald, the biggest planned star of the whole series, being an essentially insignificant and unnecessary figure for the development of the story. The darker Potter-esque feel is there, but Yates certainly does an excellent job keeping the film, with the right timing of humour and a nice pace, at least within the confines of a charming children's tale, which is also true of the actors. We'll see what the sequel brings, to which this episode is obviously preparing very much. (18/11/2016)

This movie is a two-hour shapeless glob of spittle, that someone spat out and left lying on the ground, just because Rowling wrote it, and Potter aficionados have to lap up anything connected to that world. If it was not a cult brand or, god-forbid, a completely independent work, it would most certainly have received a similar beating that The Last Airbender got. However, as symbolic as Potter is for a whole generation, they could afford to play on nostalgia, and, without hesitation, indulge the audience with a ton of kitsch, because the audience would surely forgive the movie for its many shortcomings. And then, if that is not enough for you, the pacing and atmosphere are completely dead, and the characters are indistinguishable. The scenes themselves are meaningless, put there just to show off the visual effects, and then there are the fast blurry action scenes, that appear lavish on the surface, but lack any real ideas on a deeper level. However, the movie suffers most from the impotence of its story - basically, nothing happens during the first hour and a half (!). Then, only in the last half hour do we get away from the long introduction to somewhere else. Rowling should have simply stuck to writing books and not tried to write screenplays, because she obviously has no feeling for writing movie discourses at all. She could have brought a more experienced screenwriter to the team, as she had already taken the position of movie producer. Although I still like the original book and its movie series out of nostalgia, this two-hour show of tedium almost bored me to death, and I can hardly remember the last time I was so distracted from what was going on in the story, by what was on-screen visually. For the last half hour, I will give it 1 star. (09/04/2021)

Five years have passed since the last Harry Potter, so it was nice to dive back into a world full of magic, spells and many fantastic creatures after a long time. I was expecting something a little different from the film, but I can't say I was disappointed, rather, I'm excited to see what the sequels will look like. The first half was weaker, as it was basically just a succession of animals and characters with no plot, but in the second half everything started to pick up some magical momentum and towards the end we got two decent plot twists. Of the creatures, the mole-robber won me over the most, on the other hand, I could have done without the line with the somewhat disappointing rhinoceros. On the other hand, my favourite Ezra Miller was thankfully given enough space, so I was still satisfied. All in all, a nice two hours in the cinema, which was worth waiting for after all. (28/11/2016)

Un film adorable avec des personnages adorables à la tête desquels s’illustre un Eddie Redmayne incroyablement bon et sympathique. J’ai Malgré tout un reproche à faire et non des moindres : la ligne narrative de base est trop simple, limite faiblarde, et manque de pêche. Aussi j’espère, peut-être un peu naïvement, que Johnny Depp améliorera les choses dans le deuxième volet. Il n’empêche que j’ai passé un bon moment ! (30/06/2019)

Two stars for great cinematography, but that’s as far as the positives go. I understand that some things are made just as a cash-grab, but I don't like it. I see this film as Hagrid's bonus installment to the Harry Potter series. J. K. Rowling surely has another new book coming, which is bound to feature keywords like Hogwarts, Dumbledore, Muggles, etc. I think I’ve already seen all the tricks used in this film before, so I wasn't impressed by any of it and was quite bored. (15/04/2017)

I wasn't really looking forward to the film, even though I heard some rumors that it's quite good. It's more than just quite good. I was absolutely fascinated by the creatures that appeared here. It's not the only strong aspect, but in terms of the screenplay, it's a bit weaker. It’s the start of something bigger, but with good characters. (21/11/2016)