Say it with me:

Say it with me:

Movie of the year.

was it really that good? worth seeing in theaters?

delusionals

Its really good if all you watch are superhero movies and meme horror flicks like It Follows, babbydooki, etc

good movie solid 8

turrible b8 m8

Say it with me: the spin-off of one of the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises. Each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody, just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

It's terrible

Oh boy this film full of cgi monsters is going to be pure epic, epic for le wiiieeeen

that picture is fucking stupid and i've read most of those

4/10

stfu pleb

Wrong pic sorry

>Say it with me:

the spin-off of one of the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises. Each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody, just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

There I said it with you, what do I get?

>There I said it with you, what do I get?

My seed in your mother's field.

try harder shill

Thats not Hacksaw Ridge

I don't understand how anyone could possibly love this film. It was a 6/10 at best. Fucking NOTHING happens for an hour and a half and then suddenly near the end of the film, an actual plot appears and then is resolved immediately. It felt like several different films shoved into one.

Blonde girl was cute
Monsters were cool
Obscurus are awesome
Nothing happening isn't bad, it's just nice to see Wizarding New York, and and Kowalski being weirded out, it's comfy and nice

tru

>Dated CGI
>Plot that goes nowhere
>awkward tone, movie goes from quirky and lighthearted to dark and edgy real quick
>overacting main character

>having bad eyes
>finds a harry potter universe movie too complicated
>autism prevents enjoyment of more than one emotion per day
>criticizing an academy award winner that gave a critically acclaimed performance

lose some weight

clean your face

gain height

have sex. im beggin you.

>beautifully designed, animated, rendered creatures
>abysmal compositing that makes them look fake as fuck whenever they are supposed to be touching a real person
such a waste

did interns comp this film

you're hardly better than he is. how old are you that you went to watch a movie for babies?

No. The pacing and just overall structure is god awful. There's no real plot for the first half of the movie so you feel like you're stuck in an hour long intro and after the maybe 20-30 minutes of a cohesive story the movie has like 5 different endings. All of the actors are also completely flat and inexpressive, even the comic relief character is bland and unfunny. There's also some typical Rowlings bullshit with glaring plot holes and a general lack of creativity. For fuck's sake the American word for muggles is apparently "nomag". Yeah, like "no magic". She unironically wrote that.

All in all it's only good if you're a Harry Potter fangirl and are just dying for any material related to the universe. If you take it at face value and try to analyze it in its own right it's a dogshit film.

It's pretty good, but if you ever watched an episode of Doctor Who it'll remind you of it constantly. From the pacing right down to the main character being a less obnoxious Doctor.

Why is it called fantastic beasts and where to find them when it wasn't focusing on them?

please have sex.

>There's also some typical Rowlings bullshit with glaring plot holes

Name one (ONE) [1] single plot hole in this flick.

The movie would've been much better if it was mostly just comfy creature hunting with some light conflict.

rain amnesia

No, it wouldn't.

what about it? the potion that he referenced earlier as being able to wipe memories and only work on nomaj's.

name a better movie this year

as a former doctor who fan that made me kek, I suppose im not seeing this one.

Arrival
Moonlight
La La Land

They are all good and different unlike one of the dullest shitposts in the history of movie shitposts. Each shitpost following /lit/ wizards and their pals from /r9k/ as they fight assorted kinographers has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the lack of film analysis the shitposts only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of images and pasta?all to make fantasy unfantastical to make witchcraft seem kiddie.

Perhaps the die was cast when Quentin vetoed the idea of shitposting on /lit/ directing the shitposts at Sup Forums, he made sure the shitposts would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-posting for his (You). The shitposts might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-atmospherical anaylsis in its refusal of critique and watching for the plot. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the shitposts are g-g-good though
"No!"

The writing is dreadful; the books were terrible and the films were much better. As I read, I noticed that everytime he shitposts, Quentin wrote instead that Brave New World "was a low tier form of art."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that shitpost was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. The shitposters mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that he has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of shitpost by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are shitposting at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you shitpost you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

>Moonlight

get the fuck out faggot

>Goldstein