sign in
register
Watch
fuboTV USA Network Max Amazon Channel
+9
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
fuboTV USA Network Max Amazon Channel
+9
JustWatch
Remove ads

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

2016
Family/Kids
Fantasy
2h 12m
The adventures of writer Newt Scamander in New York's secret community of witches and wizards seventy years before Harry Potter reads his book in school. (imdb)
Directed by:
David Yates David Yates
Written by:
J.K. Rowling J.K. Rowling
Starring:
Colin Farrell Colin Farrell Jon Voight Jon Voight Ron Perlman Ron Perlman Johnny Depp Johnny Depp Samantha Morton Samantha Morton Carmen Ejogo Carmen Ejogo Dan Fogler Dan Fogler Eddie Redmayne Eddie Redmayne Katherine Waterston Katherine Waterston Ezra Miller Ezra Miller Alison Sudol Faith Wood-Blagrove
More
Franchises:
Harry Potter, Fantastic Beasts
Genres:
Family/Kids, Fantasy, Adventure
Countries:
UK, USA
Languages:
English, Central Khmer
imdb More information at IMDb
See title update history
Suggest an edit
Show Less
Your probable score
?

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

2016
Family/Kids
Fantasy
2h 12m
Your probable score
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer
Avg Percentile 41.38% from 3476 total ratings
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer

Ratings & Reviews

(3476)
Compact view
clear
Compact view
Show
Sort
beedubBeeDub
Rated 05 Jan 2017
78
40th
Lackluster. We have a dull (and apparently autistic) main character, a thin and muddled plot, awkward pacing, and a non-ending that exists primarily to set up the sequel(s). There are flashes of the old Harry Potter brilliance (the goblin nightclub was cool), but they never have the chance to develop before we dash off to another tedious, CGI-laden action scene. Ho hum.
Rated 05 Jan 2017
montycircusMontyCircus
Rated 18 Nov 2016
20
12th
Eddie Redmayne mumbles in an incoherent British accent. Cutesy CGI animals. Chase sequence. Repeat. For 2 hours.
Rated 18 Nov 2016
ytadelYtadel
Rated 19 Nov 2016
4
43rd
First off, I have to hugely respect this film for NOT doing a Jurassic World/Force Awakens and just remaking the first film. It would have been really easy to just make another flick about a young wizard going to their first year of magic school, and instead they did something completely and utterly different. Massive kudos. That said... I find what's here to be poorly paced, thinly plotted, tonally erratic, CGI dependent, and even the performances aren't that good (stop mumbling, Redmayne!).
Rated 19 Nov 2016
antidood1antidood1
Rated 20 Nov 2016
45
12th
The Harry Potter series was long overdue for a Hobbit-style CGI-ified reboot. Finally fans of the original series' wildly interesting characters, engaging storylines and magical sense of wonder will get exactly none of that in this new installment. And the best news is: there's four more in the pipeline! Please kill me before a Dobby-spinoff ever sees the light of day.
Rated 20 Nov 2016
eisenyxEisenyx
Rated 10 Dec 2016
74
55th
It's a fine movie but there is nothing extraordinary in it. It's like an introduction to a new movie series. Nothing special. It will support the sequels though.
Rated 10 Dec 2016
oldgoatoldgoat
Rated 23 Jan 2017
73
59th
I get the feeling the person this movie was made for was a lot younger than even the last 3 potter movies. That said, it's a solid fun kids movie that adults should like and the sequel should be better. A lot of pacing problems and lack of actual plot should be innately fixed in the 2nd movie due to things happening by the end of this.
Rated 23 Jan 2017
cinemaasiaCinema_Asia
Rated 07 Dec 2016
65
42nd
Eddie Redmayne: *mumble* *mumble* *mumble* *awkward look* *mumble* CGI stuff. *mumble* It's still reasonably entertaining but this ain't no Harry Potter son. Not by a long shot.
Rated 07 Dec 2016
damildamil
Rated 21 Nov 2016
55
34th
I think Rowling came up with a decent story for this movie, but Yates turned it into a huge convoluted mess. I had no solid idea of what the actual plot was or what the various characters' motivations were. The other major failure is Eddie Redmayne and his character. Oh my god, does he suck. Just a bland, mumbling husk of a character. I learned nothing about him. I liked the '20s setting and the fleshing out of the Potter world. You need a stronger director when dealing with this fantasy world
Rated 21 Nov 2016
indyatmnINDYATMN
Rated 22 Nov 2016
80
59th
Most of the first 2 hours of world-building & plotting are not particularly compelling w/ CGI that doesn't feel particularly imaginative & human characters that don't feel particularly interesting. Still, Rowling caters to the geeky kid in all of us offering us a hero who's too mild-mannered to look anyone in the eye & a fat guy who isn't there just to be laughed at. But things only take off in the last half hour as they take on a particularly memorable & sympathetc wraith of anger & repression
Rated 22 Nov 2016
aflickeringAFlickering
Rated 22 Nov 2016
1
4th
chaw is still the best on HP: "Fantastic Beasts is an indecipherable, labyrinthine jumble that showcases exactly how much Rowling needs someone to edit her and how there probably aren't many people with that kind of courage and clout. It's not a thesis so much as the brainstorming session for a thesis." just endless shoehorning here, rushing through enough plot and subtext strands for ten movies - lots of fertile ground largely wasted. ugh the x-men climax is as bad as that parody in sils maria.
Rated 22 Nov 2016
kasperlKasperL
Rated 29 Oct 2017
55
39th
It gets a pass, but I won't be running out into the street, grabbing random people by the shirt to tell them that this is something they simply have got to see, you know? And I'm definitely not head over heels about the prospect of watching four more of these.
Rated 29 Oct 2017
goremeatgoremeat
Rated 12 Apr 2017
50
30th
Not so bad if seen as a comedy. And, how funny it is that they elbowed in a Roy Batty "all those.. moments.. with the magic and stuff... lost in time like tears in the rain.. time to get brain wiped" scene to add some amount of gravity. Do muggles dream of pastry beasts? Also, Rhino ???? who would've thunk it.
Rated 12 Apr 2017
xakkmasterXakkMaster
Rated 18 Nov 2016
84
73rd
What it lacks in story compared to the HP saga, it more than makes up in style and imagination. Yates is perfectly suited to direct these movies and the setting of 1920s New York really hits the mark. It's a fun-filled romp that left me satisfied in so many ways.
Rated 18 Nov 2016
leonardisLeonardis
Rated 18 Nov 2016
87
54th
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them may feel a bit dragged in some spots, but it's handled with enough magic and story to keep you interested nearly the whole time. The creatures are all pretty to look at, Yates' directing is pretty good, and it's cast pretty well. The movie feels like the start of a franchise that may actually be pretty entertaining and it even gets into some darker territory and becomes about more than just the beasts. If you liked Harry Potter, this is definitely for you.
Rated 18 Nov 2016
ofterdingenOfterdingen
Rated 17 Nov 2016
40
20th
Too busy showing off (and it isn't even that impressive) instead of telling a remotely exciting story.
Rated 17 Nov 2016
boxcarsBoxcars
Rated 27 Nov 2016
5
19th
The highlight of this movie are the titular fantastic beasts; their designs and abilities comprise the film's most magical set pieces. But when the narrative strayed from them, I was stuck with a cast of characters that weren't too engaging, and a hodgepodge of subplots that didn't blend together too well. The film also showed a disappointing disinterest in any really satisfying worldbuilding.
Rated 27 Nov 2016
jthuskyjthusky
Rated 22 Nov 2016
76
72nd
This was a collision of two films. The one relating to the title, where wizards and witches chase down the aforementioned beasts, was honestly quite wonderful with a few standout performances and entertaining set pieces. The second was less dominant but less enjoyable, setting up the prerequisite franchise that every film these days needs to develop. Overall, though, the good outweighs the bad by a significant amount, leaving behind a likable and interesting beginning to a new story.
Rated 22 Nov 2016
corbadCorbad
Rated 16 Dec 2016
80
79th
While it capably tells a fresh story in what is effectively a new world, it is yet a pleasing return to the voice and feel of the final Harry Potter films. Not necessarily to its detriment, but curiously, the film features secondary characters and relationships that easily outshine the qualities of its leads. At different times terrifying, wonderful, and touching, the film is always (but for its clumsy beginning sequence) engaging and cohesive.
Rated 16 Dec 2016
cowfrappecowfrappe
Rated 01 Dec 2016
61
35th
Diverting but forgettable. Nothing about the film justifies its existence, especially not as the beginning of a five-film franchise.
Rated 01 Dec 2016
groovysoulsGroovy_Souls
Rated 19 Dec 2016
60
40th
It lacks a real, solid story and its pacing is incredibly wonky, but the charm of the world-building in Fantastic Beasts is more than enough to keep any viewer interested. Getting through the first hour is a bit tough, but after that it has a few shining moments. Like the Potter series, I see Fantastic Beasts reaching a stride in its future releases as it builds upon its cool world with more fleshed out characters and well-thought stories.
Rated 19 Dec 2016
maddogmaddog
Rated 19 Nov 2016
85
87th
The title's just a tie to the book the lead is writing; it feels misplaced. The film's really about the restrictive separation of the magical and mundane worlds and how it's a prison of its own make. You can't fully appreciate that because you're busy chasing after monsters,trying to learn about the main characters who really don't seem to want you to learn about them. They're interesting enough, and there's depth of story when it gets on. We'll have to wait until next time for it to take off.
Rated 19 Nov 2016
bownBown
Rated 19 Nov 2016
74
32nd
Decent, with some great supporting characters and enough fun set-pieces to make it worth a watch. But the filmmaking overall seemed too subdued, with very little in the way of a sense of wonder. And Scamander, both as written and performed, has no real depth, seeming largely to exist as a series of mild quirks. Creature designs were fun, and the overarching themes are decent. I'd put it somewhere in the middle of the Potter flicks overall, but among the worst of Yates' ones.
Rated 19 Nov 2016
vengefulkbmVengefulKBM
Rated 19 Nov 2016
70
51st
Although I had a couple problems with the story and it was a bit too long, the cast was great (particularly Colin Farrell and Ezra Miller, who were both sensationally creepy), and I thought the creatures were a lot of fun. I'm definitely looking forward to seeing where this story goes.
Rated 19 Nov 2016
jj1986JJ1986
Rated 19 Nov 2016
60
54th
Good world-building and some scenes have fantastic visuals, but suffers from pacing problems (the film has 4 endings) and the 2 leads are thin characters who never get more sketched out. Dan Fogler is great, and it would have been more interesting if the entire film was told from the perspective of his NoMag. Colin Farrell must have been really disappointed when he signed up to play a wizard and ended up as a character who would have been just as interesting had he been played by a log.
Rated 19 Nov 2016
foxyrussianFoxyRussian
Rated 20 Nov 2016
75
31st
A very average movie. It's well acted, even Redmayne's terrible style of whispering his lines fits his character. Sadly David Yates proves once again to be a terrible director as framing scenes. J.K. Rowling inexperience at screenwriting forces a lot of uneven pacing and her writing falls back to her old cliches. The comedic sidekick steals the show though and does a fantastic job at letting the characters have some personality.
Rated 20 Nov 2016
moncliviemonclivie
Rated 24 Nov 2016
48
11th
There was so much action that I fell asleep. Redmayne, man the fuck up, you're not a sissy from Denmark anymore!
Rated 24 Nov 2016
gordonbombayGordonBombay
Rated 24 Nov 2016
70
46th
A lot better than what I had feared. It does precisely what a spinoff should. References the original work without making you want to watch that instead. Redmayne is perfect as Newt, a bit of a loner weirdo who doesn't really fit in, because let's face it that's basically who Redmayne is. Please stop mumbling! It's a sweet movie, with a pretty thin plot and okay acting. The movie's selling point however is the world and on that account it delivers. Bonus point for not making a new Harry Potter.
Rated 24 Nov 2016
beer94Beer94
Rated 19 Nov 2016
66
55th
It's style over substance but this new take on the wizarding world was enough to keep me invested and entertained. Redmayne is surprisingly weak however and I found myself being more interested in other characters, but maybe his character will develop as we dig deeper into this 5 (?!) part series.
Rated 19 Nov 2016
cagedwisdomcagedwisdom
Rated 16 Nov 2016
75
65th
I love HP to death and by default support any effort to keep the universe alive in the cultural landscape. That said, this doesn't entirely hit the mark, partly because magical creatures are actually the single least interesting part of the wizarding world. In general it feels like there's not enough meat on this bone - interesting aspects of the story are not sufficiently explored and some of the effects work was a bit disappointing. Entertaining, but the rest of the franchise must offer more.
Rated 16 Nov 2016
bionicninjasBionicNinjas
Rated 19 Dec 2016
80
65th
Not quite fantastic, but definitely entertaining. That said, I already have sequel fatigue just thinking about the fact that we can expect four more of these.
Rated 19 Dec 2016
frederikaFrederikA
Rated 15 Dec 2017
60
49th
More confusing than bad, but it is disheartening to see one of the best fantasy writers struggles so much with basic scriptwriting.
Rated 15 Dec 2017
behomesoonbehomesoon
Rated 23 Nov 2016
65
11th
Whimsical, and fun. However - Some characters felt under developed, and connecting the Salem Witch Hunt to the Harry Potter universe felt unnecessary and a little dark for what the film was. Still enjoyable though.
Rated 23 Nov 2016
badfurdayBadFurDay
Rated 23 Nov 2016
5
40th
Feels like a much better use of the Harry Potter universe than the original Harry Potter movies were. Parts of the movie felt too silly or too long, but overall it was entertaining. I slightly liked it.
Rated 23 Nov 2016
matthew_parkinsonMatthew Parkinson
Rated 17 Nov 2016
40
31st
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is Harry Potter fan fiction that was written by the author and delivered to us in the form of a feature-length movie. It's unnecessary, expository, and apparently only a building block, as four more are planned. Many of the individual elements don't work, but similarly to other Potter films, the film as a whole is entertaining enough to overcome them. It's not a great movie by any stretch, but if you want more of this universe, it will suffice.
Rated 17 Nov 2016
sputnik84sputnik84
Rated 16 Nov 2016
88
84th
Loved it. It did everything it needed to. It's an imperfect movie, but all the HP films are too. It's enough to scratch one's HP itch for another year or two.
Rated 16 Nov 2016
anomalyAnomaly
Rated 30 Nov 2016
75
59th
I'm not nearly as big a fan of Harry Potter as I used to be, but this ended up being pretty good. Even if the story's a bit rushed, it still has plenty of those great touches that Rowling adds that remind you why you fell in love with this world before. Most of the problems stem from Yates, who isn't a good fit for a series like this. Redmayne's unconventional hero is a nice turn of events compared to more typical fare. The CGI will probably age terribly, though.
Rated 30 Nov 2016
peaceanarchyPeaceAnarchy
Rated 27 Jan 2017
74
40th
Not sure if Redmayne is overdoing it or Newt is written that way, but I found him to be rather tiring and grating, which is not what you want in a lead character. The various storylines feel disjointed, even if they kind of come together eventually, and several interludes seem to exist only to show off the visuals (which are admittedly quite good, but not stop your movie for a dozen minutes good). It still has some very good moments and enough sense of wonder and mystery to work, but not excel.
Rated 27 Jan 2017
zeboimZeboim
Rated 29 Dec 2016
0
5th
Crap plot, crap characters, crap CGI. Completely brainless.
Rated 29 Dec 2016
hellboy76hellboy76
Rated 29 Mar 2017
68
65th
A good enough introduction into the history of the HP universe, I can only assume and hope this leads us to young Dumbledore vs. Grindelwald. For now its got enough imagination and charm to stand alone for a watch.
Rated 29 Mar 2017
muutanetmuutanet
Rated 23 Nov 2016
71
66th
J.K. Rowling is clearly focusing on more adult audience. Fantastic Beasts was time after time scary. Like the last Harry Potter movies. Well, should I say David Yates is. But Eddie Redmayne's screen work is always pleasant to look at.
Rated 23 Nov 2016
obdurateObdurate
Rated 09 Mar 2023
85
80th
This is a great beginning. Redmayne is endearing and there is a lot of heart. I don't think that the supporting cast is as memorable as in HP, but arguably has better action than most of the action scenes in HP. Same with the visuals. That's not hating on HP (because that stuff worked well there too), that's just praising this. The beasts are cute. Good boys.
Rated 09 Mar 2023
magdabagmagdabag
Rated 03 Dec 2016
87
67th
I wasn't expecting to like this movie as much as I did. Even couldn't understand what Ed was saying throughout the whole movie, it was still REALLY good. I didn't really know the cast very well, but i thought they all did a pretty good job. The visuals were just stunning. Another "Harry Potter" classic.
Rated 03 Dec 2016
barraocBarraoc
Rated 04 Dec 2016
80
85th
I mostly just sat back and allowed the nostalgia to wash over me. It's great to be back in the Potterverse again!
Rated 04 Dec 2016
daphnlDaph_NL
Rated 22 Jan 2017
71
91st
I thought Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them is a great addition to and a new take on the Harry Potter world/franchise. There are many things that lack, but I found myself being captivated by this movie. And that's what I want. 71/100.
Rated 22 Jan 2017
hotsakehotsake
Rated 29 May 2018
58
46th
There was a lot of stuff going on but a lot of it just wasn't interesting. Not much for me to say aside for the fact that I managed to enjoy this enough to checkout the second film.
Rated 29 May 2018
dougcollinsDougCollins
Rated 24 Dec 2016
100
93rd
I think I am the only one who likes this more than Harry Potter
Rated 24 Dec 2016
kingjohnbbqKingjohnbbq
Rated 03 May 2018
60
12th
This was a fairly pointless movie. Eddie Redmayne is beyond annoying in this role, his "eccentricity" only comes off as idiotic and when he isn't annoying the audience, hes just really boring. Dan Fogler is the only saving grace in this movie, his character had more depth than the title character and that's sad since hes comic relief. I really didn't feel all that astounded by the beasts either. Everything on display here is pretty underwhelming.
Rated 03 May 2018
mjvmoviemanMJVmovieMan
Rated 13 Apr 2017
55
25th
It's like a J.K. Rowling story - that she wrote to tell you at bedtime to put you to sleep. 'Beasts' is a snoozer with a terrible mumbly performance by Eddie Redmayne, and a silly premise about monsters escaping from a briefcase. The movie is elevated by David Yates' direction and Dan Fogler's likable comedic relief.
Rated 13 Apr 2017
asdf83sdhfasdf83sdhf
Rated 13 Mar 2017
54
36th
CGI and green screen was not up to it.
Rated 13 Mar 2017
tavingtonTavington
Rated 19 Nov 2016
2
37th
Bland and forgettable. If you take away CGI, there's not much left. Even Shaw's subplot could be omitted. I was expecting a bit more. Just like Star Wars franchise, they try to forcefully milk already dried out cow. And by look of it, they will continue to do so with sequels.
Rated 19 Nov 2016
rebeccalexrebeccalex
Rated 23 Nov 2016
80
68th
Best part of the film: the cute, magical, funny looking creatures!
Rated 23 Nov 2016
omgfridgeomgfridge
Rated 03 Jan 2017
4
34th
Are there really going to be 4 more of these? It wasn't whimsical, interesting or appealing on a dramatic level. It is an inferior money making making machine. One cute creature design and some decent acting.
Rated 03 Jan 2017
carsonwidCarsonWid
Rated 23 Nov 2016
73
67th
In the age of the soft reboot this is a refreshing way to jump start a franchise. A completely new story and style that just happens to be in the same world.
Rated 23 Nov 2016
therealj_roTheRealJ-Ro
Rated 25 Nov 2016
75
56th
Whilst I am understanding/appreciating the appeal of Eddie Redmayne less and less each time I see him (to the point that it feels like he has one mannerism and simply does that in most every movie), he has not out-and-out overstayed his welcome, and the movie has heart and outstanding visuals. I'm very glad I saw this in 3D. Fantastic Beasts may never reach the best that the main HP series has to offer, but it absolutely stands on its own in that universe. It is required viewing for Potter fans.
Rated 25 Nov 2016
shotton25shotton25
Rated 22 Nov 2016
40
15th
Colin Farrell's best American accent
Rated 22 Nov 2016
christofchristof
Rated 15 Feb 2017
88
89th
I originally thought this was a poor film, but revisiting it, I realised that it is quite remarkable. Celebrating an alternative model of masculinity where the hero is vulnerable and caring. The end-of-film-fight set piece with the monster ends in sadness and a sense of failure that the monster could not be saved overturning the Hollywood might-is-right narrative (check out Pop Culture Detective Agency on YouTube for an in depth analysis).
Rated 15 Feb 2017
dresd_r_e_s_
Rated 20 Mar 2017
3
65th
I was pleasantly entertained by this. It lacks in story compared to the Harry Potter saga, but manages to keep its grip with great visuals and a cool setting in 1920's New York. Yates clearly know his way around this universe. Redmayne starts to bother me a bit with his everlasting insecure mannerism, but Waterston and Fogler in particular surprised and delivered beyond. *Good
Rated 20 Mar 2017
filliganFilligan
Rated 25 Nov 2016
90
78th
Whoa! This was goddamn great! It's nice to be reminded why I enjoyed reading the HP books so much: Rowling is, when you get down to the structural beams of her talents, a pretty good writer. This is a brand new cast of endearing, unique characters (maybe my favorite of Redmayne's work -- I'm not kidding) that doesn't veer into wild studio schlock (you know, Fogler is comic relief but he's not an idiot (wow!)). Fun sequences that rekindle the magic of this world. Shocked how good this ended up.
Rated 25 Nov 2016
fenixdownfenixdown
Rated 10 Dec 2016
71
39th
It's a fun little fantasy ride through 20s era NYC.
Rated 10 Dec 2016
thegreyfoxthegreyfox
Rated 12 Nov 2017
25
5th
More Wizardy Wozardy bullshit, jam packed with ridiculous CGI and Eddie Redmayne reprising his role as the Danish Girl, with annoying faux smiles and subservient neck twists ..... just awful .. well at least the first hour was, at which point I turned off and went to watch some paint dry. What an embarrassing waste of a decent cast.
Rated 12 Nov 2017
mentaculusMentaculus
Rated 21 Nov 2017
79
70th
There's not exactly a void of CGI-heavy family-friendly action films on the market these days. But we sorely lack the kind of unpretentious period comedy that seemed to get steamrolled by early 1970's cynicism. I appreciated Fantastic Beasts for its sober idealism and the surprising care towards the supporting players. As far as I'm concerned, Fogler is the real lead - he's the only character with an arc - and seeing the Potter world from his perspective lends it an unexpected freshness.
Rated 21 Nov 2017
driscarpindriscarpin
Rated 07 Dec 2016
44
20th
Tem alguma coisa errada com um filme que você passa boa parte do tempo querendo que o Colin e o Ezra se beijem pra movimentar as coisas.
Rated 07 Dec 2016
warrensmwarrensm
Rated 13 Dec 2016
83
64th
There are actually very little connections between this and the Harry Potter films that are evident. It actually tries to establish its own story, so Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them may look like a Harry Potter film, but it doesn't feel like an actual Harry Potter film. And you know what, that's not a bad thing
Rated 13 Dec 2016
deaddillydeaddilly
Rated 23 Nov 2016
60
27th
Not a half-bad foray back into the Potter world. I had a lot of fun with the first half of the story and thought the episodes with Scamander's beasts were charming and energetic. It was when the weird dark magic shit started happening that I disengaged with the film entirely. The film descends into a prototypical NYC monster battle that was insanely bland. I also didn't get the weird reveal at the during the climax, but whatever.
Rated 23 Nov 2016
rossRoss
Rated 03 May 2017
65
64th
You already got the Oscar Eddie, Stop acting like a lunatic! Except for another terrible Redmayne performance the rest of the film works, especially Fogler, who obviously should be the lead. The mystery is also better than all the HP ones and Farrell is a great villain. I can easily guarantee that he is better than the one lined up for the sequel.
Rated 03 May 2017
mandymandy
Rated 21 Nov 2016
6
44th
A little slow to get going, but that is to be expected as this is just the start of an epic adventure, The beasts are cute and imaginative but the actual story is quite dark. Too much destruction and restoration of CGI buildings for my taste.
Rated 21 Nov 2016
ericamblerericambler
Rated 04 Dec 2016
79
75th
Free of the fetters of Hogwarts, FANTASTIC BEASTS gives J.K. Rowling's magical world room to breathe without being bogged down too much by grand prophecy and fan service. All the hallmarks of a Rowling story are there--combining adventure and wonder with a staunchly humanist moral perspective--in an appropriately darker tale that rises to meet the intelligence of an audience weaned on the Potter films. This is the film to lead us out of the YA wilderness.
Rated 04 Dec 2016
bowfingerbowfinger
Rated 15 Nov 2016
40
32nd
Too self indulgent for its own good. And I don't know how to put this, but it just feels 80s-y.
Rated 15 Nov 2016
xacviantxacviant
Rated 30 Sep 2017
68
22nd
Jacob and Queenie are delightful; Newt and Tina are boring. There are many intriguing story elements and lots of potential, but Rowling, making her screenwriting debut, fails to capitalize upon them. Good moments, but the reset-button finale is a real bummer.
Rated 30 Sep 2017
minorsageMinorsage
Rated 11 Apr 2017
60
33rd
Everything you expect and less.
Rated 11 Apr 2017
scorpusScorpus
Rated 29 Nov 2016
77
61st
Fantastic Beasts is slow to start, but evolves into a fun film that takes the Harry Potter universe in a new direction
Rated 29 Nov 2016
noisemakerNoiseMaker
Rated 02 Jan 2017
69
40th
As is always the case with J K Rowlings I conclude with: Too much! It seems to me like she doesn't know when to stop so she just keeps adding more and more to the story without it getting any better. The ending was too long.
Rated 02 Jan 2017
td888td888
Rated 20 Feb 2017
70
76th
Kudos to Rowling. I have never been a big fan of the HP universe, but this is a well thought out story. There were so many wrong directions this movie could have gone, it makes all the right plot choices. It was a blast to watch.
Rated 20 Feb 2017
lennyneroLennyNero
Rated 21 Nov 2016
88
90th
Not a fan of the books and movies of Potter (don't hate them neither) but I enjoyed this one very much. It's fun, looks gorgeous, the sentimental parts feel genuine and even the comic relief is funny. An absolute delight. This said, as every single Potter movie it is overlong.
Rated 21 Nov 2016
ernestinaErnestina
Rated 01 Apr 2018
96
97th
The only place where I will mention Harry Potter regarding this movie is "Stop comparing it with Happy Potter!". It does share the same universe, but try to abstain from comparison, the movies are with completely different atmosphere and idea. The viewers, we are all Jacob Kowalski - thrown in this amazing, magical world, away from our troubles. Sure, it also has its downsides, but nevertheless, is extremely beautiful and filled with hope and wonder.
Rated 01 Apr 2018
kgbelliveaukgbelliveau
Rated 27 Nov 2016
95
91st
Perhaps it was the world of Harry Potter that kept my mind intrigued, or perhaps even moreso it was JK Rowlings ability to capitivate with you world so grande and filled with fantasy. The recreation of New York was perhaps the most magicall part of the film. Eddie Redmayne played the lead role well giving Newt a sense of a realism by being an eccenctric nerdy introvert. The entire cast carried themselves with the utmost talent, a truly magical cast to say the least. The future is bright.
Rated 27 Nov 2016
mcjohnsonMcJohnson
Rated 17 Nov 2016
84
66th
Charming and entertaining, but the overarching plot is more than a bit vague.
Rated 17 Nov 2016
chmulcr0nchmul_cr0n
Rated 05 Mar 2017
41
10th
Is this a TV movie? How does a David Yates movie have such a boring and bland cinematography and such shitty editing? What the hell, man? Same goes for the music, the cgi, the writing and most of the acting. Especially the editing. It's so weird how creature cgi hasn't evolved the a bit in the last 20 years when it comes to things like the creatures feeling tactile, organic or like they have some kind of a soul. All I see is an increase in the number of particles and intricacy of detail.
Rated 05 Mar 2017
bentienbentien
Rated 14 Dec 2016
55
40th
Messy... and just like most other blockbusters of 2016, a disappointment.
Rated 14 Dec 2016
byderByder
Rated 26 Jul 2020
30
8th
The greatest feat this movie accomplished was hiding the seemingly complex story behind a whirlwind of plotless nonsense. Eddie Redmayne really tried his best in making Newt Scamander unlikeable and just a complete pain to watch. Every character was bland and poorly written and his autistic character suffered the most for it. Forgettable, charmless and overall just unwatchable. Can't wait to hate the sequel!
Rated 26 Jul 2020
thedailynathanTheDailyNathan
Rated 21 Nov 2016
73
37th
Perhaps a problem of expectations - I expected a more light-hearted adventure romp which I was looking forward to as a break from the ending of the Harry Potter series, but instead the series already starts off from arguably an even darker and serious beginning. There's an ongoing conflict with wizarding secrecy and that puts a damper on the potential of the "fantastic beasts", and without that it feels like more of a generic fantasy movie. Missing the richness of the HP magical world.
Rated 21 Nov 2016
joelwatchesmoviesjoelwatchesmovies
Rated 30 Dec 2016
6
43rd
Lots to like here, with a few concessions, in the characters (the meek and kind-hearted Newt and the fun Kowalski with a nice character arc are great, but Grindewald's motivations needed more fleshing out); the plot (a nuanced take on good vs. evil-every party has both-is hindered by too many loose threads and a dragged-out ending); the themes (those on politics and environmental care are intriguing but surface-y); and the directing (the music and sets are excellent but the CGI is a bit much).
Rated 30 Dec 2016
nsyNSY!
Rated 22 Apr 2022
8
58th
A movie full of CGI that showcases a lot of beasts from the mythical world of wizards.
Rated 22 Apr 2022
sellissellis
Rated 26 Nov 2016
70
36th
The least affecting David Yates-directed HP chapter. The visuals are ambitious but incomprehensible at times. The character interactions charming but shallow, vague. There are two different stories going on at the same time: the title story, and a darker tangential story. The intention is to have these two stories become one but it never really does. I came to see the finding of beasts which was promised. And it delivers, for the most part. Not sure how they'll drag this out for five films
Rated 26 Nov 2016
sherrerageasherreragea
Rated 10 Apr 2017
60
21st
Leaving aside Rowling's unfortunate involvement in fascist-adjacent politics, this movie would have been better if it had stuck to the fantastic beasts. I appreciated the autist representation, Dan Fogler is lovable, the FX are decent, the plot is garbage.
Rated 10 Apr 2017
rufamRufam
Rated 05 Apr 2017
60
29th
It's been written by Rowling and it shows in her caring, motherly expansion of the universe. I give it points for managing to rouse me -in details (No-Maj!) and in some big set pieces- without pushing for nostalgic vibes in a huge way (Hedwig's theme pops up only once). But I'll admit it's mostly so-so, from weary plotting to unmemorable characters (Redmayne's ginger and moves like a cartoon, Fogler is too comic relief-y to deserve a Return of the King coda and Waterston... well, who is she?).
Rated 05 Apr 2017
ippeiIppei
Rated 17 Dec 2016
70
59th
I enjoyed half of it. It really felt like two different stories in one. The re-capturing of the "fantastic beasts" is terrific, but the other half about the "evil"...not so much. Eddie Redmayne was great, and I enjoyed the "Jacob" character. Ezra Miller (who I am a fan of) felt miscast in his role. I enjoyed watching this film, but it also felt like there was a lot left unanswered and hopefully that's because this is a set up for the series.
Rated 17 Dec 2016
suture_selfSuture Self
Rated 04 Jan 2017
4
34th
Not as bad as I expected. Redmayne's unconventional hero, who fashions himself as a kind of magical Jane Goodall or Charles Darwin character, is an appreciated change of pace compared to most movie star heroes. Unfortunately, the story itself leaves much to be desired. Hell, 50% of this movie could have been cut and it would have been all the better for it. More story about fantastic beasts and where to find them would have been nice. Everything to do with the Obscurus plot is a waste of time.
Rated 04 Jan 2017
tevtev
Rated 16 Jul 2023
0
4th
Would score 68 except Johnny Depp abusive and JK Rowling
Rated 16 Jul 2023
glumpy99glumpy_99
Rated 21 Apr 2017
80
62nd
Entertaining fantasy has a cumbersome, heavily expositional first act, but hits its stride once the creatively designed 'Beasts' are revealed, and the magical worlds are explored, rather than talked about, resulting in an enjoyable thrill ride more reminiscent of JURASSIC PARK than Potter. Redmayne is fine, if a little too studiously fey as Scamander, but the supporting cast is terrific, with Fogler's sidekick stealing the show and Farrell an amusingly oily villain. Excellent use of 3D.
Rated 21 Apr 2017
dogboi360dogboi360
Rated 24 Sep 2017
55
19th
Cool visual effects and charming main characters can't make a movie good on its own
Rated 24 Sep 2017
zoinkzoink
Rated 09 Apr 2017
55
8th
Missed out on the Harry Potter nostalgia. Perfectly adequate movie but nothing special.
Rated 09 Apr 2017
ppedronppedron
Rated 27 Dec 2016
78
35th
Good effects and story line
Rated 27 Dec 2016
cmonsterCMonster
Rated 25 Nov 2018
71
51st
Quite delightful and whimsical. The non-magic sidekick is good comic relief and the ever practical plot device of needing explanations. There were some questionable choices and the villains a bit thin, but all the good guys are likable and the beasts are fairly cool.
Rated 25 Nov 2018
bitabita
Rated 29 Mar 2017
90
85th
better than harry potter
Rated 29 Mar 2017
petrostserPetrosTser
Rated 02 Oct 2019
50
23rd
With merely passable CGI and a weak cast helmed by a twitchy, constantly awkward Eddie Redmayne, this HP spin-off does not by any means hold the magic of its parent franchise. But even on its own terms it comes off as childish and unoriginal, a familiar family-friendly movie offering a choke-full of cliches and absolutely nothing we've never seen before. That is not to say it's an unpleasant watch or devoid of some mild thrills, but a missed opportunity for a memorable new universe all the same.
Rated 02 Oct 2019
hakkanarejohakkanarejo
Rated 30 Jan 2021
95
63rd
1926. The story follows a so-called magic zoologist named Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne). Newt has just completed his worldwide excursion to find and document an extraordinary collection of fabulous creatures. During a layover in New York, things get out of hand when a few mythical creatures manage to escape from his magical suitcase, which could cause trouble for both the wizarding and the Muggle worlds.
Rated 30 Jan 2021
moopermooper
Rated 25 Feb 2017
65
44th
Boring plot where you just ask yourself why do you even watch it
Rated 25 Feb 2017
kavuKavu
Rated 23 Feb 2017
48
23rd
Boring. Redmayne is starting to repeat the same role over and over again and the plot has no content to speak of. Decent effects though.
Rated 23 Feb 2017
jessjess125Jessjess125
Rated 12 Sep 2022
80
49th
High potential
Rated 12 Sep 2022

Collections

Loading ...

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...

Trailer

Loading ...