Surprisingly, I found this thoroughly entertaining. It is caperish, and fun, and has some dark tones as well as humor. It's a nicely balanced lark that has some (expected) wonderful special effects, and i liked the period piece quality of 1920's New York City. I didn't find the accents to be too over the top or "We're on Broooadwaaaayyy!", they were pretty low key.

It's a solid film, great entertainment and should find its way into the holiday season nicely.

Great performances all around, and I really enjoyed Dan Fogler especially.

out of

Good for a 10 year old?

2006

_________________
Proud member of the white guy grievance committee

It aint the six minutes. Its what happens in those six minutes.

_________________

_________________

Got a date or something, perv?

_________________
-- source

Wow. I should have expected this.

um. Yes, a 10 year old will handle it.

Thanks for review, looking forward to seeing it

_________________
Sherman remarked, "Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?" Grant looked up. "Yes," he replied, followed by a puff. "Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow, though."

Good movie.

_________________

Great family movie.

we are in the midst of arguing whether or not my 6/9/11 yr old are ready for the potter movies. i'm like yes. They've watched all the LOTR/Hobbit movies. My wife is like these are much darker and scarier. i told her she was high and then slept on the couch.

i'm sure i'll win. they are BEGGING to watch it.

There's a Dan Bernstein joke here that I'm not going to say.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY

You are 100% right.

_________________

Am I wrong for thinking the title said "Fantastic Breasts..."?

_________________

That was my reaction to the Arrieta for Verlander/Upton thread.

_________________

I was gonna make a parody thread but the SPORTS BABES XXX folder is gone.

_________________

http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/30/13783230/fantastic-beasts-vs-star-wars-phantom-menace-comparison

Listen, um, Chaim, maybe you should sit this one out.

Comparing this movie to "The Phantom Menace" is absurd. "Star Wars" was released for general audiences; it was only "Jedi" that could be considered a "kids" movie, and even that was pretty dark and violent for a kids' movie. But the entire "Harry Potter" catalog was designed for kids. It was meant to bring a kid up through adolescence in its storytelling.

"Fantastic Beasts", if anything, is geared more toward adults. There are some silly bits in it, but to say "nothing happens"?

The guy is a millennial, and it shows; defending the prequels because he was young at the time, and now being an older manchild scoffing at a Harry Potter prequel...welcome to the real world, jackass!

"The Phantom Menace" wasn't just bad because it shattered a legacy. It was a *bad* *movie*. It had no main character, no story arc, and no real drama. "Fantastic Beasts" does have a main character (he had no clue that it was actually Waterston's character), it does have an arc (threaded through Newt, Goldstein, and Kowalski), and it has drama (suppression vs. freedom).

Fucking dolt.