Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them


Adventure / Family / Fantasy

Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 73%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 81%
IMDb Rating 7.4 10 306099


Uploaded By: FREEMAN
Downloaded 3,155,745 times
March 14, 2017 at 04:16 PM



Johnny Depp as Grindelwald
Zoë Kravitz as Lestrange
Ezra Miller as Credence Barebone
3D.BLU 720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
2.03 GB
23.976 fps
2hr 13 min
P/S 7 / 25
988.3 MB
23.976 fps
2hr 13 min
P/S 35 / 335
2.03 GB
23.976 fps
2hr 13 min
P/S 31 / 318

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by JLRVancouver 6 / 10

Lackluster spinoff from the Potter-verse

British wizard Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) shows up in 1926 New York carrying a suspiciously animate briefcase and soon strange beasts are running wild in Manhattan. Superimposed on this situation are some secondary stories of a dark wizard trying to establish a magical Reich, a disgraced Auror (Katherine Waterston), and a muggle cannery worker (Dan Fogler) who wants to be a baker. There is not much of a plot, the movie is primarily a series of CGI set pieces strung together. Typical of Rawling's 'Harry Potter' stories (and movies), there is a lot of clever imagery and imaginative moments that serve to cover frequent inconsistencies or lapses in logic in the plot and the ending of the film is especially contrived and flimsy (see 'goofs' for details). The 'fantastic beasts', while well rendered, are not particularly interesting, perhaps because they were just made up for the movie (the vivification of 'mythical' creatures was one of the highlights of the Potter series). The movie also suffers from the trend in the HP series to make the 'magic' more action-friendly: the wizards now handle their wands like handguns and fire spells at their nemeses, making 'magic battles' look like shootouts in Star Wars. The script is OK and the actors are all quite good in the roles (especially the central three characters) but overall, the movie is an uninspired 'by-the-numbers' opus targeting a guaranteed audience of Potter-philes.

Reviewed by Hannah 9 / 10

Brilliant Perspective On The Magical Universe

Fantastic Beasts Offers A Whole New Perspective On The Harry Potter Universe. It's Not Harry Potter But It Is Just As Enjoyable. Newt Scammander Is Played Well By Eddie Redmanye And The Rest Of The Cast. The Plot Is Engaging & Most Of The Characters Are Very Likable. However I Found That Some Of The Scenes Were Not Given Enough Time To Develop Before Moving On To Next Scene. Overall A Very Good Family Film; Full Of Magic & Charm.

Reviewed by zkonedog 5 / 10

Mostly For The True Potterheads

This will be one of my simplest film reviews on IMDB, as it is pretty clear to me along what lines this film will be split. Casual fans of the Harry Potter universe? They'll probably leave a bit disappointed or mystified. The true Potterheads (who know every nook and cranny of that universe)? My bet is that they'll come away with a much greater sense of enjoyment.

For a basic plot summary, "Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them" tells the story of Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne), a young wizard with a penchant for studying odd creatures. While just trying to conduct his studies, he gets mixed up in a power struggle between the muggles (or "no-mags" as they are referred to here) and the wizarding community. His only ally seems to be Tina (Katherine Waterston). In a separate subplot, a wizard named Graves (Colin Farrell) is fixated on a boy named Credence Barebone (Ezra Miller), who seems to be more key to this storyline than his meek appearance would suggest.

I consider myself a very casual fan of the Harry Potter franchise. I've read all the books, watched all the movies...and that's it. No multiple readings/viewings, no obsession over all the little details and names. To me, the Potter universe is more shallow than deep (my own experience here...I know that universe is indeed quite rich if one chooses to do a deep-dive). I enjoyed watching Harry and Co. grow up in their journey together, but that is about where "Harry Potter" ends for me.

As a result, there are two reasons why I found this movie to be just middle-of-the-road:

1. Put plainly, the story of Newt Scamander just isn't as engrossing as the other previous material. Whether this was meant to be the case (more of a "side quest" mentality) or whether the execution was flawed I can't say for sure, but to me this was a tale that just kind of meandered in terms of narrative. For a movie that is supposed to be the launching point for main character Scamander, it sure spends a lot of time elsewhere. One wonders, then, if Scamander was used more as an "excuse" to re-enter the wizarding world than being fleshed out as a great character within it. Even the charming acting of Redmayne couldn't quite make me believe that I was seeing anything special in this case.

2. This is the kind of movie that obviously is building off fragments of the Potter universe. Because most fans are of the obsessive variety, I think, there isn't all that much context given. The film just assumes that a base layer of knowledge is already present in viewers...a base layer that I did not posess. A good example of this: the reveal of the name Grindewald in the opening minutes of the film. That name did nothing for me, and nothing was ever really done to hammer the significance home. The film just assume viewers know the significance of his place in the wizard world.

So, I think this is one of those reviews that leans more towards my subjectivity than perhaps the overall quality of the film. This isn't a bad film by any stretch of the imagination. Based on filmmaking alone, it is probably more of a 7-star film. However, in terms of its appeal to me personally, it gets dropped down a few pegs. I'm just not a big enough Potter fan to understand all the little inside winks-and-nods or "easter eggs", and those are things that must be understood to truly be enveloped in the experience.

Read more IMDb reviews


Be the first to leave a comment