The Fantastic Beasts Series

[scarynikki12]

I've been avoiding all media so that I wouldn't be influenced. As a result I was unaware that Depp was in this. I really enjoyed this movie but his scene is enough to make me reconsider seeing the sequels. I really hope he gets recast. 

Moving on, my favorite tiny moment was

Spoiler

Newt saying that the Obscurals aren't as common as they used to be, as a nod to people no longer believing in witchcraft. 

Absent Depp (Colin would be a much better

Spoiler

Grindelwald

 I thought this was a great movie. 

[benteen]

I thought it was alright but I have to admit that I just wasn't feeling this movie.  I don't know what it is but I was disappointed.  The cast was good despite the inexplicable decision to WHISPER EVERY LINE OF DIALOGUE.  Seriously, who the hell made that decision?  Eddie Redmayne is the worst offender but Katherine Waterson is just as guilty in that department.  And they're both really good in the movie.  Redmayne's Newt reminds me heavily of Matt Smith's 11th Doctor.

Spoiler

 

The decision to cast Depp as Grindelwald instantly makes the character 1,000 times less interesting and also exposes Hollywood hypocrisy once again.  Depp is a hack who plays the same character in every movie and will do so again with Grindelwald.  It makes the sequels a lot less attractive.  Add to that how ridiculous he looked at the end.

I love the look of 1920s Wizarding NYC although I have to agree that it was underdeveloped as well.

 

Edited November 18, 2016 by benteen

[Demented Daisy]

Absolutely adored this movie, as did the audience that I saw it with.  Lots of applause at the end.

And frankly, Marvel, that's how you make a movie about magic!  This made Doctor Strange look cheap and ridiculous.  IMO, of course.

[Yokosmom]

Quote

I thought it was alright but I have to admit that I just wasn't feeling this movie.  I don't know what it is but I was disappointed. 

I was too, though part of it was that the film was just so damn dark, I felt like I had to peer at the screen really intently to see what was going on.  I don't know if it was the 3D or the theater not projecting the film correctly.

I think that they needed to have a few more small scenes between the characters to build relationships, rather than just running from one crisis to the next. Also, Tina and the Salem whatever woman just looked so alike to me.  Same face, same hairstyle--it was distracting.  Also, Redmayne really does need to stop mumbling--I know that his character is socially awkward, but he could enunciate a bit better.

The beasts were the best part of the movie.  Loved the niffler and bowtruckle, as well as the amorous beastie whose name I cannot remember. I liked the ending with Jacob.

Spoiler

 It is possible for him to get together with Queenie.  They will have to move to England though, where their marriage and his knowledge of the wizarding world won't be such a problem. English wizards don't seem to have a problem with muggle spouses.

For those of you holding off on seeing this film because of Depp, he is really only in about 15 seconds of it.  I'm withholding judgement on what he'll do with Grindelwald until I see the next films.  Because, despite not loving this film, I did like it enough to see the others.  I'm just hoping that there is a bit more character interplay in the next one.  I'm also hoping that Jacob, Queenie and Tina will be a part of it, though if it does take place in another country, I'm not sure how that would work.

[Popples]

I don't know why, but I couldn't get excited for this film, and I really wanted to. Even the trailers left me cold when everyone else was raving about them. However, if they showed nifflers and they're really cute, I might have to be in. I always have trouble trying to picture them in my mind.

[Yokosmom]

The niffler is in a number of scenes and is, indeed, very cute.  Sort of like a platypus.

[Athena]

Quick reminder that once a movie has a wide release in the US, there is no need for spoiler tags. Thanks!

[angora]

I went in expecting to enjoy it and really came away loving it.  If nothing else, it was so interesting to go into a Potterverse movie not knowing what's going to happen!  Though it's by no means a perfect movie, it absolutely worked for me.

I loved Newt and his beasts, especially the fact that he was specifically seeking out endangered beasts and creatures that were being exploited by wizards.  Also, while he obviously had heaps of affection for his beasts despite all the trouble they caused, I like that his main issue was that the lock on the case wasn't secure enough, not that he was being willfully reckless with them.  This wasn't Hagrid trying to raise a baby dragon in his hut or letting a giant spider breed an army of bloodthirsty children in the Forbidden Forest - Newt knew that, no matter how much he loved them, they were still wild animals, and he had to use the appropriate discretion when handling them.  (Although, speaking of Hagrid, Hogwarts apparently has a history of expelling wizards who are way into magical creatures.  Charlie Weasley's lucky he made it to graduation!)

I really liked having Jacob as a major character - even though Newt disapproves of MACUSA's rules prohibiting mixing between wizards and Muggles, there really weren't any important POSITIVE Muggle characters in the original books, so it was nice to see this one putting its money where its mouth was re: its "Hey, Muggles are people, too!" stance.  He was a fun character, and I thought the film struck a good balance between "freaked and out of his element" and "wonderstruck."  I was really hoping that they'd discover the Obliviation rain (or whatever) wouldn't work on him; IIRC, Newt said it erases bad memories, and I was hoping they'd come to the conclusion that, even though a lot of it was frightening or overwhelming, Jacob didn't actually consider any of it bad.  The bakery ending was nice, but I still would've liked to see it go down that way.  I really felt for him when Newt finally explained what obliviation meant.

Speaking of Muggles, while I appreciated Newt's comments about MACUSA's Muggle anti-miscengenation laws, I would've liked to see a little more from the U.S. wizards' side about WHY those laws are in place.  There were hints of it - stressing the importance of safety, the fact that the anti-witch group was called the Second Salemers - but it would've been nice to have at least one character spell out, even briefly, what American wizards suffered under the country's enduring Puritan roots, along with the continuing fear of that persecution reemerging.

I LOVED the Obscurial and that whole concept.  The animation on it was terrific, and the metaphor was just perfect - hiding yourself because you've been taught to hate/fear what you are, until it bursts out and destroys everything around you before ultimately consuming you.  Brr.

[benteen]

From what I remember from information released several months ago, after Salem the American wizarding community became fearful of further Muggle reprisals and passed those laws.  It's not made clear in the movies and I wish it would have been too.

It's interesting and refreshing that in the wizarding community that there's no racial discrimination.  But there's heavy blood and species discrimination.

Agreed that the Obscurial was fascinating.  I wonder if Dumbledore's sister was one.

What was with all the whispering by Redmayne, Waterson and several members of the cast?  I could barely follow what was going on because I could barely hear them.

Edited November 18, 2016 by benteen

[Browncoat]

I saw this this afternoon, and I liked it well enough.  I thought it was a tad slow getting started, but once it got going, it was much better.  LOVED the niffler!  And hooray for the bowtruckle!  In fact, hooray for all the fantastic beasts we met.  I hope Frank (?) made it back to Arizona.  For a flying creature such as he was, getting from NYC to Arizona shouldn't take too long, assuming he doesn't make a wrong turn at Albuquerque. 

[thuganomics85]

Wasn't sure what to make of this going in, since I didn't know if J.K. Rowling would be able to capture the magic she had with Harry Potter, but I ended up really enjoying it!  Maybe some of it was just do the real life events lately, but I just found it charming, fun, and enjoyable, and I left with a big old smile on my face, which I know sounds cheesy, but I felt like I really needed it.

Enjoyed seeing all of the creatures, with the niffler as the highlight.  I would so be down with adopting a platypus looking creature, who steals shiny things! 

I don't know if it was on purpose or not, but I kind of thought "No-maj" was lame, but I kind of got a kick out of it, because, of course, it would be the American wizards that coin up a boring and lazy phrase to call non magic people, while the British went with Muggle, which will never not be awesome.

I grew to like the four main characters, although I ended up preferring the sidekicks.  Newt could be a bit too wacky at times, and Eddie Redmayne seems to be using this as a possible audition for Doctor Who (really was giving off a Matt Smith vibe in several scenes), but he came around at the end.  Katherine Waterston was fine, but Tina was a bit dull compared to everyone else.  On the other hand, I really enjoyed Jacob, which is amazing since I never really liked Dan Fogler (mainly because the first thing I ever saw him in was that god awful, Balls of Fury movie), and I loved Queenie and Alison Sudol.  Have no idea who she is, but she left an impression.

Great seeing Colin Farrell and Carmen Ejogo as always.  And, as usual, equally great to see random British actors I know show up in minor roles.  Highlights were Humans' Gemma Chan as one of the wizards during the court scene (she only had one line, but still!), and The Expanse's Dominqiue Tipper as a random Auror at the very end, who didn't say anything, but still made me yell "Naomi!" inside my head.

I heard that Johnny Depp was going to be in the franchise, but didn't know he was being introduced now.  I'll give him a chance, but I'm majorly bummed that this means Percival Graves is no more.  I feel like Colin Farrell is extremely underrated, and I want him to get another shot again.

I did feel like there was a lot going on, and some could have been expanded on, like more of Samantha Morton's character and I don't even know what the point of Jon Voight's character was.  But, overall, it was a really entertaining film and I can't wait to see more of this universe!

[benteen]

Brian Orndorf's review summed up some of my feelings about the movie.

Quote

“Fantastic Beasts” is an entertaining movie, but it’s rarely fun, sternly trying to line up dramatic dominos for future toppling."

And Redmayne makes a strange performance choice to mumble as Newt, speaking through a clenched jaw, making important exposition difficult to understand.

This was an excellent point.  There were few laughs in the movie and it just wasn't as fun as it could have been.  The audience I went with was pretty silent for long stretches of the movie but in fairness, several people clapped at the end.

The first Harry Potter movies started off light and fun before they became darker and more serious.  Fantastic Beasts seems to have picked up where the last Harry Potter film left off.  Dark and not as fun though I loved all the HP movies and found them more entertaining than this one.

Edited November 19, 2016 by benteen

[dkb]

Does anyone know what Depp says when he looks at Newt at the end?

Was trying to figure it out and thought I would understand at the second viewing, while trying to  listen really hard, but still didn't get it.

Something about " We are all dying..." I think.                                                                    

3D was alittle better than the regular 2D version, but not by that much. I feel you still get similar experiences.

Edited November 19, 2016 by dkb
formatting

[KatWay]

Ughhh Johnny Depp. He neither looked great as Grindelwald nor can I imagine him giving any sort of subtle performance after hamming it up for years now. I walked away from the film super disappointed Colin Farrell wasn't really playing Grindelwald. He was really good in his role, subtly menacing, subtly creepy and hard to read, while simultaneously coming across as potentially sympathetic AND dangerous. I could see why people hadn't understodd he was evil, he managed to act really respectful towards MACUSA in general.

And now we'll be stuck with Johnny Depp. That really makes me question if I'm going to go ahead and watch the rest.

I loved the setting, the creatures and the reveals both of Credence and Grindelwald were very well done. I had some issues with the cast honestly. It was lacking an everyman like Harry, Hermione and Ron. Everyone was Luna Lovegood quirky, which took me out of the film sometimes. Why was Eddie mumbling so much? I kept wondering if Newt was supposed to be on the spectrum when I think they were going for awkward instead. Tina was also a bit too jittery and constantly on the verge of tears. The only character I really loved was Kowalski.

Some bits were really well done, but some scenes went on for too long and didn't really add that much IMO and the dialogue felt a bit hammy at times. Especially since everyone kept whispering it. So not a perfect film by any means but entertaining to watch.

[MadyGirl1987]

18 hours ago, benteen said:

Agreed that the Obscurial was fascinating.  I wonder if Dumbledore's sister was one.

I was wondering that myself! It certainly seems like it would fit the description of what happened with Ariana. Even how Dumbledore's mother

Spoiler

was killed during what Aberforth calls "one of her rages."

I actually went back to Deathly Hallows and looked up Aberforth's description of what happened to Ariana and it made me even more certain that is what happened to her. It could just as well be describing Credence.

Quote

It destroyed her, what they did: She was never right again. She wouldn't use magic, but she couldn;t get rid of it;it turned inward and drove her mad, it exploded out of her when she couldn't control it, and at times she was strange and dangerous. But mostly she was scared, sweet and harmless.

[Browncoat]

Colin Farrell was good, but he reminded me an awful lot of Albert Runcorn in Deathly Hallows Part 1.  Because of that, I just assumed he was evil, although I didn't twig to how evil until near the end of the movie.

I think Eddie Redmayne's choice of not looking Credence in the eye was a good one.  To me, it signified that Newt was actually there to help instead of to try to overpower.  Not making eye contact can be interpreted as friendly, even submissive, and IMO, that was a good tack to take with Credence.  Which I want to spell Creedence, thank you Creedence Clearwater Revival.

And a side note -- I was sorted into Thunderbird for my Ilvermorney house at Pottermore!

[Silver Raven]

Newt seems to be somewhere on the Asperger's spectrum, but he was a sweet, nice guy.  But my favorite performance in the whole thing was Ezra Miller.  I thought he subtly killed it.

The inside of the suitcase was ... magical.  I'd like to live there.  :)

I'm confused about the Obscurials, though.  If they tamp down their wizardry, they explode into Obscurial? How, then, was Harry not even knowing he was a wizard until he was eleven?

[Browncoat]

I wouldn't mind living in that suitcase, either.

[MadyGirl1987]

38 minutes ago, Silver Raven said:

I'm confused about the Obscurials, though.  If they tamp down their wizardry, they explode into Obscurial? How, then, was Harry not even knowing he was a wizard until he was eleven?

The magic isn't repressed since he didn't know there was anything to repress, maybe? They touch on this in the first movie a little, with the boa constrictor in the zoo, but in the books they mention a bunch of weird stuff happening around Harry, like a bad haircut his aunt gave him regrowing overnight, that is pointed out as signs of his wizardry. His muggle-born mom is shown in memories doing magic before knowing she is a witch, as well. Maybe stuff like that helps prevent such a situation?

[methodwriter85]

I felt like it was good, but the character development was lacking. I just didn't buy the end where they're all devastated that Jacob's memories are going to be wiped, because the group really didn't bond that well, although I bought Queenie being into him.

Johnny Deep...ugh. Super-depressed Colin Farrell doesn't get to play the baddie.

I figured this movie was darker because this isn't really being made for the kids- it's being made for the grown-ups who were kids when the mother franchise got started.

Edited November 20, 2016 by methodwriter85

[wlk68]

I haven't read the book so was completely unspoiled .I thought this was just okay. I twigged on to who the obscurial was fairly early and spent the remainder of the movie waiting for the characters to catch on. Also, Eddie Redmayne bugged me. As I said I haven't read the book so I have no idea how true to character he was but he bugged. He mumbled and never seemed to look anyone in the eye.   

My favorite characters were Kowalski and the sister. I kept hoping that some sort exception would be made for Jacob.

[Snickerdoodle]

2 hours ago, wlk68 said:

I haven't read the book so was completely unspoiled .I thought this was just okay. I twigged on to who the obscurial was fairly early and spent the remainder of the movie waiting for the characters to catch on. Also, Eddie Redmayne bugged me. As I said I haven't read the book so I have no idea how true to character he was but he bugged. He mumbled and never seemed to look anyone in the eye.   

My favorite characters were Kowalski and the sister. I kept hoping that some sort exception would be made for Jacob.

I was hoping they would make an exception for Jacob, too -- that would set up a great conflict for future movies.  Or if Newt and co. went against the president's wishes and didn't obliviate Jacob.  Then in future movies they would always be on the look out for someone from the American magic government trying to obliviate Jacob and there would always be the worry that it could happen at any moment.  Just a missed opportunity there.

[Silver Raven]

7 hours ago, wlk68 said:

I haven't read the book so was completely unspoiled .I thought this was just okay. I twigged on to who the obscurial was fairly early and spent the remainder of the movie waiting for the characters to catch on. Also, Eddie Redmayne bugged me. As I said I haven't read the book so I have no idea how true to character he was but he bugged. He mumbled and never seemed to look anyone in the eye.   

My favorite characters were Kowalski and the sister. I kept hoping that some sort exception would be made for Jacob.

The book is not a novel, it's a take on a textbook that the students at Hogwarts would study from.  The story in the film is original.

[Spartan Girl]

Just saw it today and I loved it. J.K. Rowling is a great screenwriter. 

I loved Jacob. It was great to have a Muggle character that was nice and completely enthusiastic about magical things. And I totally ship him with Queenie. Hope he comes back in the sequels.

I knew Johnny Depp/Grindewald was in the movie briefly, but the twist that he was Graves all along knocked me for a loop. Should have guessed because their hairdos were so similar, LOL. Anyway, I too am willing to keep an open mind about him being in the movies.

I appreciated the allegories of the Obscuros and how the prejudice between magic and no-Maj people was affecting the government. But at least the American wizard int world had a cool woman for president -- and this was in the 20s!

Not sure we need five movies, but if they can be as good as this one, then I'm game!

[Browncoat]

Google images of baby echidnas (also known as puggles)...  Looks like a niffler to me!

[BitterApple]

My husband and I saw this last night and thought the movie was amazing. We were in a theater full of grown-up Harry Potter groupies and everyone was clapping and cheering when the movie began, it was really cute. 

Johnny Depp as Graves, threw me for a loop, but I'm kind of bummed Colin Farrell won't be in the upcoming movies. I really liked him in this role. 

I'm not sure how they're going to stretch this series for five movies, but hopefully the quality will remain high. As of right now, I'm on board.

[Aliconehead]

With regards to Jacob, the way they focused on the bite mark during the oblivating rain, I thought that would prevent it from working. I still would not be surprised if in the second movie we find out he does remember. The way he kept looking around and his happiness at seeing Queenie just make me think this. 

[stealinghome]

I saw this last night and thought it was just okay. I liked everyone much better than Newt (wasn't impressed with Eddie Redmayne's performance), so that made the movie hard to get into, and didn't find any of the characters memorable. They were enjoyable, but not memorable. Colin Farrell gave the cast's best performance but Johnny Depp is so ew. 

the story was just okay to my eyes too. The movie felt like it didn't quite know what it wanted to be. I might rent or Netflix them, but not sure I'd go to the sequels in the theater. So, yeah, the movie was okay, but I'm disappointed because I wanted it to be better.

Jacob TOTALLY remembered at the end when he saw Queenie.

Edited November 24, 2016 by stealinghome

[blueray]

Quote

Although, speaking of Hagrid, Hogwarts apparently has a history of expelling wizards who are way into magical creatures.  Charlie Weasley's lucky he made it to graduation!

I was thinking this too. Why would they expel someone for it. I feel like if anything they'd want to keep a closer eye on them ;). And education will help them learn to follow their interests safely instead of hiding the creatures somewhere.

I liked the movie and wasn't spoiled at all. I liked the lead guy (who did remind me of someone who just stepped off of Doctor Who). I like that we got a muggle as a main character, as it brought a new perspective in to the main group. I hope that he did remember at the end of the movie, as it seems like he knew who she was and the pastry thing lol. I hope that they are in the sequels along with the other woman (forgot her name).

I totally called that the emo kid was what they were looking for. I am not sure I really get it though. I mean Harry was abused as a kid, that was encouraged not to use magic and turned out "normal" by the time he started school at 11. Was he more abused or something?

Anyhow, I enjoyed it and will definitely go see the sequels.

[scarynikki12]

6 hours ago, blueray said:

Why would they expel someone for it. I feel like if anything they'd want to keep a closer eye on them ;).

I totally called that the emo kid was what they were looking for. I am not sure I really get it though. I mean Harry was abused as a kid, that was encouraged not to use magic and turned out "normal" by the time he started school at 11. Was he more abused or something?

Remember, at this point in Hogwarts history, Dumbledore wasn't yet Headmaster.  He was the Transfiguration professor.  In about fifteen years, when Tom Riddle frames Hagrid, he will have enough influence to convince the current one to let Hagrid stay on as a staff member but not enough to keep him from expulsion.  I just looked it up and, Dippet was Headmaster during Tom Riddle's time but not Newt's.  Newt had Phineas Nigellus Black, who made his dislike of children and being an educator well known during the Potter books.  He was also described by Sirius as "the least popular Headmaster Hogwarts ever had".  So, if Dumbledore's influence over Dippet, who seemed to be a decent Headmaster and educator, wasn't strong enough to keep Hagrid from expulsion, then no way did he have any over Black when it came to Newt.  

I think that Harry didn't become an Obscurus because of his own ignorance of his wizarding past.  The two definite examples we have from the movie are aware of their powers and the reason for the abuse.  The girl from Sudan was locked up and tortured because she was a witch.  Credence wasn't locked up but was beaten and told over and over that magic was evil and unnatural.  I agree that Ariana was likely one as well but she tried to suppress her powers after the attack and those boys let her know that it was because she was a witch.  The Wizarding World doesn't have therapy now, certainly didn't in the 1800s when she was alive, and the attack happened before she was of age for Hogwarts, so poor Ariana lived in a time where no one would have known how to really help her.  Harry was abused because he was a wizard but he never knew that so he never tried to suppress his powers.  He thought the various circumstances were strange and couldn't explain them but that's what ended up saving him from becoming one.  Once Hagrid entered his life, Harry saw someone who not only had his back against the Dursleys but also made sure his introduction to the Wizarding World was a positive one.  The Dursleys backed way off in the weeks before Harry started school and then he loved Hogwarts so much that there was really no chance of him becoming an Obscurus no matter what the Dursleys did. 

Also, yes, Rowling no doubt only came up with/found the term when she was working on the plot of the movie but it doesn't contradict Harry's experience so it works.

[blueray]

^ thank you for the explanation. That makes sense.

[Zuleikha]

I'm guessing from the fact that no reviews have mentioned it that the Goldstein sisters presumed Jewishness is never established or made plot relevant?

[GreyBunny]

I went in completely unspoiled and came away adoring this film.   

I loved that Newt was quirky and introverted (his mumbling didn't bother me, it fit him), he's gentle and kind, and absolutely brave.  He didn't have to discover his bravery, it's been there a long time (and he knew it), and he's comfortable in his own skin (he knows others might find him annoying and he shrugs it off).  He's a hero I hadn't quite seen before so his character felt fresh and I can't wait for his further adventures.

[choclatechip45]

I had low expectations going into this movie. I really enjoyed it. I loved the Dumbledore references plus the creatures were really cute.

[Snickerdoodle]

On 11/23/2016 at 9:47 PM, stealinghome said:

I saw this last night and thought it was just okay. I liked everyone much better than Newt (wasn't impressed with Eddie Redmayne's performance), so that made the movie hard to get into, and didn't find any of the characters memorable. They were enjoyable, but not memorable. Colin Farrell gave the cast's best performance but Johnny Depp is so ew. 

the story was just okay to my eyes too. The movie felt like it didn't quite know what it wanted to be. I might rent or Netflix them, but not sure I'd go to the sequels in the theater. So, yeah, the movie was okay, but I'm disappointed because I wanted it to be better.

Jacob TOTALLY remembered at the end when he saw Queenie.

You hit the nail on the head for me.  This is how I felt about the movie.  It was good, but not great, and I wanted it to be GREAT!  I'm not disappointed I saw it, but I won't go see it again.  I may watch if it's on TV, but I probably won't.  At this point I don't think I will see the sequels, because I'm not sure where they can go with this story.

[JustaPerson]

Definitely the most disappointing aspect to me was Colin Farrell being replaced by Johnny Depp. I'd much rather have Colin Farrell. Maybe the real Graves will be found at some point? Also, isn't Grindelwald Eastern/Northern European (he went to Durmstrang)? Will Johnny Depp be doing an accent? He didn't seem to really have one.

As someone who mumbles a lot and has trouble with eye contact, I related to Newt immensely. 

Edited November 28, 2016 by JustaPerson

[angora]

On 11/25/2016 at 5:14 PM, Zuleikha said:

I'm guessing from the fact that no reviews have mentioned it that the Goldstein sisters presumed Jewishness is never established or made plot relevant?

Right.  Their last name is the only indication of their Jewishness.

On 11/26/2016 at 3:41 AM, GreyBunny said:

I went in completely unspoiled and came away adoring this film.   

I loved that Newt was quirky and introverted (his mumbling didn't bother me, it fit him), he's gentle and kind, and absolutely brave.  He didn't have to discover his bravery, it's been there a long time (and he knew it), and he's comfortable in his own skin (he knows others might find him annoying and he shrugs it off).  He's a hero I hadn't quite seen before so his character felt fresh and I can't wait for his further adventures.

Cosign all of this.  I love Newt so much.  On first glance, he SEEMS like he'd be insecure and skittish, but really, he knows exactly who he is and can hold his own wherever you put him - in the space of a couple days, he tangles with MACUSA's president, a shady goblin, and a powerful dark wizard, and he doesn't so much as flinch.  I especially love how much his strength and bravery reflects his determination to help others.  Obviously, there's nothing he won't do his beasts, and while he makes a factual defense when Graves has him in custody, he only pleads on behalf of his creatures and Tina.  No matter the situation, there's never any "I don't know if I can do this!"/"How can I do this?"/"Am I brave enough to do this?"  Others need him, so he just DOES it.  I feel like I never quite got Hufflepuff as a house until I saw Newt, but now I'm totally pro-Badger.

[healthnut]

It was definitely slow to develop but I ended really liking it as well. Colin Farrell's character was always suspicious but I was intrigued instead of annoyed like I usually am with his characters. It took a little while for me to warm up to the characters but I ended up liking them as well. I didn't care about the creatures so much bu I'm glad one of them helped save the day otherwise I would've questioned their purpose. Four more movies? I don't know about all that but I'm definitely in for the next one. Excited to see who gets cast as Dumbledore. 

I liked having a movie here in the states, too. It opens up a lot of possibilities. 

Edited November 28, 2016 by healthnut

[Cherry Cola]

Just saw this today.  I had no idea what to expect.  I really liked it.  Queenie and Kowalski were definitely my two favorites.  I liked Newt too, and was fascinated with the world inside the suitcase.  So cool!

[GaT]

I finally got to see this today, & I liked it. I thought they set up the world well & didn't make everything seem like "Harry Potter Light". I still don't like the name "No-Maj" though, she really couldn't come up with something better? Muggles is a great name for non magical people, No-Maj just sounds stupid. It reminds me of the first book when I got jarred out of the story by the phrase "put-outer" because it was so lacking in imagination, deluminator is such a better term.

I was also a bit distracted by Eddie Redmayne's decision to play Newt by not looking directly at people, & always sort of looking down.

As for Grindelwald, I was not happy with the way he looked. I had the impression he was a good looking blond, I don't know why though, was he described in the book or did I hallucinate his description? Anyway, The snow white spiky hair & white eyebrows, pale eyes, just screams "character". Johnny Depp is going to play him quirky & large, no doubt in my mind.

On 11/28/2016 at 4:10 PM, Sgt Pepper said:

Queenie and Kowalski were definitely my two favorites. 

Mine too, I hope we see more of them in the other movies, but I thought Tina was pretty bland.

[magdalene]

Major misstep to have Depp be the villain. I wish Colin Farrell would have continued.

[BitterApple]

On 11/29/2016 at 11:27 PM, magdalene said:

Major misstep to have Depp be the villain. I wish Colin Farrell would have continued.

I agree. I've never been a Johnny Depp fan and his casting as Grindelwald kind of ruins it for me. I think Colin Farrell is the superior actor and doesn't overplay his part the way Depp often does. It's definitely a disappointment because the other characters were casted quite well.

[JBC344]

I'm wondering with everyone really loving Colin Farell in the role if they can bring him back?  They could always use the excuse that Grindelwald was impersonating the real Graves who was hidden somewhere.  In the movie it seemed like Graves (Colin Farrell) was pretty high up and Madame President's right hand man.  If that was the case it seems like Grindelwald was impersonating him for a very long time.  I would much rather there be a real Graves out there, allowing for Colin to come back. 

[proserpina65]

Just saw this last weekend.  I really enjoyed it for the most part, but was not happy about losing Colin Farrell for skeevy scene-hog Johnny Depp.

[Silver Raven]

Maybe Grindelwald will continue to pretend to be Farrell in the sequels.

[blueray]

Quote

I still don't like the name "No-Maj" though, she really couldn't come up with something better?

 I don't like it either. I'll keep saying Muggle even though I'm from the US :).

I was on youtube and found a good video where fans and cast discuss the wizarding world and of course the movie.

[Terrafamilia]

On 11/29/2016 at 9:11 PM, GaT said:

As for Grindelwald, I was not happy with the way he looked. I had the impression he was a good looking blond, I don't know why though, was he described in the book or did I hallucinate his description? Anyway, The snow white spiky hair & white eyebrows, pale eyes, just screams "character". Johnny Depp is going to play him quirky & large, no doubt in my mind.

Well, Voldemort didn't start out looking like a snake so there is something of a precedence for dark wizards having their dark wizardry affect their appearance.

3 hours ago, JBC344 said:

I'm wondering with everyone really loving Colin Farell in the role if they can bring him back?  They could always use the excuse that Grindelwald was impersonating the real Graves who was hidden somewhere.  In the movie it seemed like Graves (Colin Farrell) was pretty high up and Madame President's right hand man.  If that was the case it seems like Grindelwald was impersonating him for a very long time.  I would much rather there be a real Graves out there, allowing for Colin to come back. 

I was thinking along the same lines, only that Grindelwald replaced the real Graves fairly recently. I don't know if he used polyjuice potion for the impersonation and if so, does the person being copied need to be alive in order to make the potion? If Grindelwald didn't feel he needed Graves around for some reason, memories/knowledge or for whatever means were used for the disguise, I doubt Graves is anything but powder by now.

[JustaPerson]

No-maj is lame, but it seems exactly like something Americans would come up with (I'm American, mind you) so I get a kick out of it. 

[scarynikki12]

My bestie and I were lamenting the Depp casting, including confusion that an American actor would be cast as a German (isn't Grindelwald German or implied?) when they made such a point of casting Brits for the Potter movies. Then she said they should have cast Christoph Waltz and I got mad that this didn't happen. I can handle Colin becoming Christoph, though I also want Colin back as Graves (he was just so good!).

[Browncoat]

Oooh, good call!  Christoph Waltz would have been a great choice for Grindelwald.