• 0
  • 0
  • 6,104,038
  • done
  • Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them (2016) [YTS.AG]
  • 988 MB
  • Fantastic Beasts 2016
  • English
  • 720p

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016)

  • Adventure Family Fantasy
  • In 1926, Newt Scamander arrives at the Magical Congress of the United States of America with a magically expanded briefcase, which houses a number of dangerous creatures and their habitats. When the creatures escape from the briefcase, it sends the American wizarding authorities after Newt, and threatens to strain even further the state of magical and non-magical relations.



    In mid-20s New York, Newt Scamander, the British young activist wizard, arrives in town, holding a mysterious leather suitcase which shelters a wide array of diverse and magical creatures that exist among us. Amid an already fragile equilibrium of secrecy, and the increasing disasters ascribed to the dark wizard, Gellert Grindelwald, Newt's precious suitcase will be lost--and to make matters worse--several creatures will manage to escape. Before long, this situation will catch Senior Auror Percival Graves' attention who will target Newt, in the background of an invisible, devastating, and utterly unpredictable menace that still wreaks havoc on 5th Avenue. In the end, is there a hidden agenda behind Graves' intentions; moreover, what will happen to the remaining fantastic beasts still loose in the streets?

    IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3183660/

    Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) download

    Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) download

    Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) download

    More at ibit.to
    And ibit.ws


    Struggles desperately to be three movies at once: One about Pokemon, one about proto-Voldemort and one (uncharacteristically dark story) about child abuse. But none of these three movies are bad movies so _Fantastic Beasts_ gets a pass from me. I was particularly fond of the degree to which it tied into the Harry Potter world at large. There were moments were I went “Oh Harry’s used that same spell before!” or characters that fitted naturally into the narrative being mentioned, as opposed to getting all _Agents of SHIELD_ season 1 on us, and awkwardly name-dropping something from the other films every 5 minutes, just in case we forgot, which was what I was afraid it might do. End result, _Fantastic Beasts_ is a flawed film that I was still very happy to have watched, and exceeded my expectations. _Final rating:★★★ - I personally recommend you give it a go._

    I must say I was expecting to like it, and I really liked it despite the few generic moments throughout the film. Can watch again/10.

    Personally I found this movie to be 2+ hours of excellent entertainment. This is one of these movies where I simply cannot understand how people can give one and two star ratings stating that it is garbage etc. I do not get what these people expected? Maybe they just have to complain? The original Harry Potter books are very much books for children or young adults and so is this movie. It is a highly entertaining story in a magical universe with some adventure, some suspense and a lot of humor. The magic and the magical animals are quite cool. The pocket universe (or whatever they are called in the Harry Potter world) is simply gorgeous and cool. The story is not really much to write home about but it does not have to be. This is a magical movie where the magical atmosphere is what makes the movie. It is a good enough story involving a bit of suspense, action, friendship, bad guys, quite some humor and, of course, a lot of magic. More importantly perhaps, the story is not overly stupid nor does is try to peddle crappy SJW nonsense messages about gender or diversity nor climate. This movie delivers where it counts as far as I am concerned. It is entertaining, plain and simple. If I should endeavor try to find something to complain about it would probably be that the lead character was fairly bland. He did not really have much charisma. That and the fact that I never really understood which, despicable (presumably) acts the main opponent, Grindelwald, had actually committed before the events of the movie. On the whole I enjoyed the movie a lot and although it is perhaps not the absolutely best movie I have ever seen but it still deserves a top rating.

    **Well, everything's in the title itself, you watch it only to confirm.** I don't want to be so negative like the film critics, but this is a big disappointment for me watching being a film fanatic. I don't think anyone who loved 'Harry Potter' film series would thumb this new beginning. This is not like 'The Lord of the Rings' and 'The Hobbit' from the same universe, but different trilogies. I was excited for something like that, as a concept wise, for the fresh tale from from the fresh characters in the same universe. I don't know about the book version, but the film did not click for me. It had a bunch of nice characters, and to set in the Harry Potter universe, really it should have been a masterpiece. The major drawback was the story. There's nothing to appreciate the screenplay. It's about some creatures from the magical world got out in the human world, just like 'Jumanji'. So our hero struggles to recapture them. Meanwhile, some others too involved in and the reason will be revealed in the final stage. Nice casting and great visuals. I won't point out its director's fault, because he has done his duty very well. He's also will be the man behind the rest of the sequels. I think it deserved the Oscars for the costume design. Not a bad film, particularly for the kids. Comparing it with the Harry Potter franchise makes it a worst film, but independently it is an okay film. So the initiation was average, but I'm still expecting the follow ups to be much better. _5/10_


    2 years ago

    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.

    2 years ago

    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.

    2 years ago

    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.

    2 years ago


    2 years ago

    Danke. :)

    2 years ago

    It's OK, I suppose.Good parts: Period costumes & sets were beautiful. Special effects were (mostly) very good, and the Fantastic Beasts were individually great fun.So-so parts: The acting was only OK. Newt (Eddie Redmayne) in particular left me dissatisfied. Yes he's playing an introverted character, but I saw no reason for the bond he seemed to build with Tina. The MACUSA wizards & witches were extremely underdeveloped, including the President. Their hot-and-cold treatment of Tina for her interruptions made no sense to me either.Poor: The editing seemed off to me, in a way I haven't noticed since The Chamber of Secrets. --- awkward pauses littered the film, robbing it of its momentum. Newt's interaction with some of the larger beasts didn't look realistic (e.g. his stroking the Thunderbird's neck). And I personally dislike FX-heavy movies where the Big Bad is some amorphous cloud (not as bad as Green Lantern, but pretty bad).Final thought: why do so many large beasts have bird's heads? This seems to be a thing with Rowling ...

    2 years ago

    Fantastic beasts and where you find them. Well… Not somewhere interesting. In fact, some place that is pretty scattered and incoherent, and very much boring.What is this film actually about: a. A story of a muggle who happens to get a glimpse of a magic world? b. Of a journalist who tries to preserve the variety of magic animals? c. An auror, who lost her job and tries to claw her way back? d. An unhappy kid who possesses the most destructive powers? e. "The bad guy" with a very sinister, however just as much unclear agenda, in the face of Johnny Depp who makes a 30 second jaw-dropping appearance as a blond?This film has no story, no core. You know, where you can trace a dramatic structure: some kind of problem, rise, climax and ultimately some kind of solution. I, as HUGE fan of JK Rowling, am very disappointed to have witnessed this cinematographic cacophony. Not even Eddy Redmayne or IMAX experience could save it for me.

    3 months ago

    Thank you! It's really good quality and audio!


    WWW.YTS.AG.jpg 106 kB
    Fantastic.Beasts.And.Where.To.Find.Them.2016.720p.BluRay.x264-[YTS.AG].mp4 1.0 GB
    Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them (2016) [YTS.AG]/WWW.YTS.AG.jpg 103 kB
    Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them (2016) [YTS.AG]/Fantastic.Beasts.And.Where.To.Find.Them.2016.720p.BluRay.x264-[YTS.AG].mp4 988 MB


    Downloading Seeding Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them (2016) [YTS.AG] from to 0 peers.
    0 b/s / ↗0 b/s