Just came back from watching this. Pretty entertained, all around. Everyone on the cast impressed me except Depp, but then I suppose he didn't a lot of opportunities to do so.

Spoiler

I was very surprised to find out that Credence is alive. His death seemed pretty over and done with in the film

Some complaints exist, sure, but on the whole the film entertained me. Farell is amazing, and the effects were top tier. Got to see it on 3D too, which was definitely worth it.

 

So, I saw it again. I stand by my initial impression. It was an exceptional movie. I enjoyed it every bit as much the second time through.

One thing that stood out a bit more the second time, that I didn't give enough credit to after first watching it: Queenie. I loved Queenie. Really hope to see more of her in the sequel.

Also: Republic

Spoiler

What? Where are you seeing that Credence is alive? I missed that on both viewings, if true.

 

All over the internet. Not on the movie itself, which is why I was also confused. Apparently there was a deleted scene that revealed this, and he's scheduled to be a main cast member for at least the next movie.

 

Spoiler

It's also hinted at within the movie itself. After the climax, there's a moment where Newt looks up and he sees a little whisp of surviving "Obscurus-shadow-stuff" slither out of the subway.

 

Spoiler

I didn't notice that, but I think I'm glad that he's coming back.

I've got a question: Do you think Jacob remembered anything? Everything? At the end, he displayed the same tic we saw from him earlier in the movie when interacting with Queenie (rubbing the wound on his neck). On my first watch, I took it to mean that he remembered her. Now, I'm not so sure. I mean, he could have just thought she seemed familiar somehow. Or it could have even been his reaction to a pretty woman smiling at him--if he reacted that way before, there's no reason to think he wouldn't react similarly to meeting the same woman again even if he didn't remember her. I'm torn, though I'd like to think he remembered something beyond vague dreams of the beasts.

 

Spoiler

The way I think about it is that Jacob's subconcious is still aware of what happened, but he doesn't explicitly remember anything. So the images of the animals come to him and when he sees Queenie some buried part of him makes him think of his neck.

This is not the first time we've seen such a thing: recall that Lockhart, post-obliviation, still liked to sign things.

Also consider that obliviation affects the mind but does not affect the soul. Traditionally the soul is the source and carrier of your essential character and self. It also seems likely to me that within the HP world, the magic of love is a greater power than the memory charm - while you could remove memories of love, you could not destroy the feeling itself.

 

Just saw the movie. 9/10.

Spoiler

I didn't like the girl, Tina(I think?). Something about her was just off-putting. I absolutely loved Grindelwald! But I was a little confused on the original point of him posing as Graves. Was it because he was searching for the girl, or because he was hiding out under an assumed identity?

 

I saw this in my local cinema, and just remembered it was, for some reason, rated by IFCO (Irish Film Classification Organisation), not BBFC (British Board of Film Classification).

Anyone else get this, or was it just because my local was running a bootleg?

 

Spoiler

I believe he wanted to find the girl to provoke her into causing more damage.

Not sure, I noticed the IFCO thing when I went to see it, never noticed it before, maybe they are planning a takeover.

 

Spoiler

You know, it's actually interesting how, if that is the case, how very similar Obliviation in Harry Potter is to how certain characters lose memories in Kingdom Hearts, a great, but very convoluted video game series that I happen to enjoy. Seriously, just put Taure's explanation above, but replace souls with hearts.

Anyways, there is one thing you have to consider, and that's the fact that the way all the muggles were 'obliviated', wasn't straight up normal obliviation, but a experimental untested potion devised by Newt that was sent out en-mass through rainwater. For all we know, it works just different enough from regular Oliviation that Jacob is able to subconciously remember the events much easier than a person who was oblivated regularly. Because the memories aren't being altered like in normal obliviation, I suspect that instead of removing the memories, the potion causes the memories to be pushed away, so that even if they are still there, they can't be consciously called forth.

 

All I'm saying is

Spoiler

I had Grindelwald being a master of disguise first.

 

Relatively new interview:
http://www.snitchseeker.com/harry-p...lot-points-sequel-cursed-child-movies-105836/

Reveals a few things about the movie... including the specifics of the "disguise".

 

Grabbing popcorn in a minute. 10 minutes to the movie. Pretty excited.

 

I saw this earlier in the week. Overall, I thought it was pretty good, but it wasn't stellar.

Impressions:

Pros:
- Loved Newt's menagerie.
- Jacob was pretty great, as was Queenie.
- MACUSA was interesting, but I think it was too visually-MoM. Not enough of a uniquely American flair. i.e. unimaginative set designers.
-

Spoiler

Liked Graves pre-reveal.

Cons:
- It was too long.

Spoiler

- Did not like the Graves reveal at all. I think he was a stronger character as an acolyte a la Inner Circle.
- Gillert was horribly miscast.

Indifferent:
- I'm still not sure what I think about the Obscurus idea.

Edited Spoiler - Xiph

 

I'll write a longer review when I've had time to think on some points, but the fresh impression is definitely positive. Loved the atmosphere of the environment, the MACUSA and I think Colin Farrell was underused, but did a great job with the material he had to work with. The film benefits greatly from being a story that was written to be filmed instead of being an adaptation. Will give my rating with the long review, but I can recommend it.

 

Liked the movie overall, felt it had a sense of wonder and, well, magic, that the later HP movies lacked. Not bad for what I expected to be a desperate WB cash grab (gotta make a cinematic universe to print money with since DC is tanking), though perhaps my complete lack of expectations helped it.

With that said, my main issues with it:

Spoiler

If the Wizarding community is convinced any Muggle knowing about them is catastrophic and will mean war, why didn't they just obliviate the New Salem woman, an obvious security risk? Or even 'disappear' her, since apparently MACUSA is cool with casually executing people without a trial. Also while laws against intermarriage prevent half-bloods how on earth do they deal with muggleborns?

Farrell was a solid Graves/Grindelwald which makes it all the more painful that we're gonna be stuck with a pale pudgy looking (dude is not aging well) Depp with a silly looking moustache moving forward. He looks too ridiculous to take seriously, and I can't say I look forward to how he'll portray the character acting-wise given what little we saw. A pity, since I've always found Grindelwald interesting.

Not sure I'm a huge fan of the obscurus idea really but whatever it's not as terrible as the stuff Rowling put in Cursed Child

 

Spoiler

Jacob/Queenie OTP no matter what anyone ever says.

I can seriously see Queenie breaking the law of MACUSA to be with Jacob. Who knows, perhaps in the future movies.

 

I saw the movie a while ago, and decided to put my thoughts on it into words. It turned out to be a rather lengthy review, make of that what you will.

Spoiler

Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them

Like numerous others in my generation, I grew up reading each Harry Potter book as it was released. Initially, it was a children's tale, the story of a young boy roughly my age at the time, but just as I grew up and matured, so did the protagonist, each installment in the series being just a bit more mature than the previous one. Obviously, this change in tone caused a variety of discrepancies when one read the series as a whole, but such details never dampened my appreciation of JKR's works.

Years after I last read the books or watched the movies, I stumbled across Harry Potter fanfiction. I was immediately hooked. There were numerous stories that were worse than I thought possible, both in their workmanship and their premise, but among them were rare gems that stood out all the more and made my obsession worthwhile. After a while, my enthusiasm dwindled as I found less and less good stories, but I remained a rather avid fan of the franchise. Therefore, when a new movie set in the world of Harry Potter was released, I couldn't really not watch it.

I didn't have the fondest memory of the movies (there was something about the series being split into eight, instead of the supposed seven pieces, which is never a good thing, as I am sure Tom Riddle could tell you), so I didn't entertain particularly high expectations for Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them. And that was really for the best, because while it wasn't really bad, per se, I found the movie to be rather mediocre.

Visually, the movie was stunning. As can be expected from a 21st century blockbuster, each frame was flawless and polished, each shot and angle carefully considered. From the very first scene, I was immersed in Manhattan of the early 20th century. Characters, costumes, architecture and set-pieces all fit flawlessly into the era. I must admit, I am somewhat of a fan of the industrial/retro aesthetic of the 20th century, so for me this an amazing thing to see the movie set in that time.

The 20th century was a time of change, where the society as a whole made amazing leaps at the cost of the individual. New technology revolutionized the world, leaving many in poverty as their jobs became redundant, while others profited from the new opportunities. Simultaneously, all other facets of life were affected as well, as technology now allowed feats that were not too long ago considered impossible. Communication, mass-media and propaganda allowed politicians to reach millions, compounding the rise of ideologies such as nationalism, capitalism and socialism.

All of this would have been fantastic topics to expand upon in a movie, to depict how the magical world, as a completely hidden and isolated society, reacts to such monumental changes occurring all around the globe. There are many issues to consider, not the least of which is the maintenance of the international statue of secrecy, which must have been increasingly at risk as each individuals opportunity to disseminate information increased. However, such topics were only briefly touched upon in the movie, which, in my opinion, is a shame.

The reason for this, at least as far as I am able to discern, lies in the fact that the movie tried to appeal to both fans who grew up with the original series as well as to younger generations. Therefore, the movie adapts a tone similar to the first two books or movies, but interspersed with scenes on topics that would have been more at home in the later installments of the series. I suspect that the writers were forced to perform a careful balancing act, catering to both intended audiences without alienating the other.

In my opinion, they were only moderately successful. People like me, who grew up with the series, are now in college or in various positions of employment, and as such, are concerned with very different ideas and interests compared to today's children. I too have a different perspective than I had as a child or adolescent, and as such, there were many things that I would have hoped to see in that movie.

For one, the original Harry Potter series does very little in terms of world-building. The main protagonist spends his time exclusively in the microcosm of an isolated boarding school and learns very little about the larger world. Even in the later books, the exposure to the magical world is limited to the Ministry, Hogsmeade, Diagon Alley and Godric's Hollow, all of which were only superficially touched upon. Even at the end of book seven, we still knew very little about the magical society. The world is pretty much a blank state, and this movie would have been a perfect opportunity to introduce it to the audience.

However, the movie didn't expound upon the magical world more than necessary, showing only a few small fragments that exist in their own isolation, much like Hogwarts in the main series. What was shown didn't feel like a small part of a greater, more complex world, as I had hoped. Instead, almost the entirety of the movie took place in the non-magical world, showing only brief glimpses of the magical society. In fact, there was no indication of an actual magical community. There was a ministry, of course, but its workings and purpose remained a mystery. A few oblique references to other events, places and institutions were meant to give the impression of scale, but did very little to assuage the feeling that the world was only a static set for the protagonists. Similarly, none of the minor characters showed any purpose or agenda of their own, behaving more like paper cut-outs than living beings. As far as I could tell, what we saw of the world only existed to enable the movies plot.

I had hoped for the story to expand upon the politics, economy and social structures of Harry Potters world, and though I didn't really expect much, I was still disappointed. All these things were hand-waved away, in favor of a more carefree and humorous atmosphere. As such, the movie remains primarily a children's story, despite the darker undertones that are hinted at. It is, as I previously mentioned, similar to the first few books in that regard. Now, it's not like I expected some political drama set in the magical world, as amazing as that would have been, but the complete disregard of anything that would hint towards a more complex and mature world is rather dissatisfying.

In the same vein, the plot of the movie is easy to follow and yet predictably inconsistent. The string of events plays out in an incredibly unlikely fashion, ending with the expected happy end. Which, to be fair, is very similar to the main Harry Potter series. The main protagonist is, from an outside perspective, incredibly irresponsible and a much greater threat to the magical society by accident than the stories villain is on purpose. And yet, the way the movie shows it, said protagonist didn't actually do anything wrong. In fact, the movie perpetuates the theme that ones intent is much more important than ones actions, or the consequences of such. Additionally, none of the characters actually seem to think or plan before they act, and rely on luck to achieve their goals.

To summarize, the main protagonist looses a number of magical creatures in the center of Manhattan, every single one of which is a danger to the secrecy of magic, which is portrayed as paramount. The ministry, whose singular purpose is to keep this secret, seems to be entirely unequipped to actually do so, or to do anything else, for that matter. Of course, it is up to the protagonists to foil an evil plot and save the world, while at the same time recovering the lost creatures.

In true Harry Potter fashion, the climax of the story culminates in a dilemma, which is then resolved via a deus-ex-machina, instead of forcing the protagonists to make a difficult choice and allowing the consequences to unfold. See book one (Blood protection), two (Pulling a sword out of a hat), three (Time-travel), four (Brother wands and a two-way portkey) and seven (Backfiring Wand), which conclude in a similar fashion. Unlike the books, in which these plot devices and irregularities were readily ignored, the movie had little redeeming features which would have diminished the impact of these problems.

Interwoven with the primary plot is also a secondary storyline, pertaining to the rise of Grindelwald. I was not really surprised by this, as he was portrayed to have a major impact on the world of Harry Potter, though the way he was included didn't really fit the stories premise. In fact, I expected Grindelwalds rise to be a unseen, but omnipresent theme in the world, similar to the establishment of Nazi-Germany prior to and throughout WWII. Something to be concerned about, but nothing palpable. Of course, this expectation was based on a flawed assumption about Grindelwald.

I had always pictured Grindelwald to be a very different villain than Voldemort. Where Voldemort was a terrorist, who pursued personal power above all else, and had little care for others, I saw Grindelwald as someone who tried to reshape the world according to his ideals, for the greater good of all. An idealist, with the ambition to see his plans through to the end. As such, I expected him to be more of a politician, someone with the ability to gain support for his cause through rousing speeches and promises of a better world. I expected him to be a strategist, directing agents throughout the world to further his agendas, rather than involving himself personally. Someone brilliant, powerful and subtle.

But that's not who Grindelwald turned out to be in the movie. Instead, Grindelwald was portrayed as a mere terrorist, someone remarkably similar to Voldemort. Which was rather disappointing, to be honest, because we already have Voldemort to fill that role. A different villain would have made for a much more interesting conflict, one with more moral ambiguity and ideological justifications for both sides. And just like Voldemort, Grindelwalds scheme turned out to be rather pathetic, especially when he was defeated by the spin-offs equivalent of Hagrid. Not that Voldemort was any better, being defeated by a school-boy.

To conclude, Fantastic Beasts and where to find them is a Harry Potter movie in almost every way, despite the lack of the original series' protagonists. While that is not necessarily a bad thing, it also falls prey to the same flaws that went unnoticed or happily ignored in those books and movies. The characters were based on the same archetypes as the characters in the main series, and turned out to be unmemorable apart from the social awkwardness that permeated their interactions. The world-building was rather disappointing and did not live up to my expectations. The plot was nothing to write home about, and the carefree theme and light-hearted attitude didn't really mesh well with the more serious thematics that are addressed in the film. At least the setting and aesthetic were well done, as was the sound track, but those hint towards technical proficiency, which is to be expected in hundred-million dollar production.

As far as adaptions of the in-universe books go, Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them was not bad, though I would have much preferred to read or watch The Life And Lies Of Albus Dumbledore.

 

I tend to agree with what has been mostly posted among the reviews, but I have made an observation that I wanted to ask about:

Spoiler

so are Dragon pox epidemies a regular thing or why is that so many characters have parents who died of dragon pox? (including James Potter's as well as Lucius Malfoy's parents)