I just saw the 1922 silent film, Safety Last.

That film knows how to build the tension. Toward the end half the audience, including me, were gasping and chewing their knuckles.

Kate, Re. Arrival:

I actually felt like that worked pretty well (not having read the story yet).

The story goes into more details about intricacy of the alien language. It also delves into physics (which the movies doesn't do at all) and manages to find a way to tie the two disciplines together for betterment of the story. The movie does an admirable job, but as someone who's loved the story for 10+ years, I can't help but go, "but if they ALSO included that bit! And this other one!" while totally understanding why things had to be cut and/or added for cinematic retelling. :)

Re. free will vs. predestination discussion (following includes spoilers for the short story): I revisited the story after the movie and in the story, it is pretty clear that Louise has no choice but to reenact her life as she sees it laid out in front of her. Which seems bleak and pointless when stated flat like that, but in the story, Ted Chiang manages to imbue her acceptance of what is to come with tremendous grace and meaning. In the story, her daughter dies in her 20's in a climbing accident, which could have been easily prevented had Louise truly had a choice in the matter. I suspect this struck the screenwriter as too passive and futile (I happen to disagree), hence the change in the movie. It hasn't been discussed much in the review of the movie because it's so spoilery, but it is a pretty big fundamental change in one of the core concepts of the story.

I think what I'm getting is that I should read the story.

Yes, you should. I'm curious to see how people who saw the movie first would take the story.

Cereal: Went to see Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them over the weekend.

The Bad: I thought the world-building was pants, and the two leads, fairly devoid of personalities. I know he has an Oscar and all, but the sooner Eddie Redmayne figures out how to act without creating his characters out of a collection of ticks, the better. I think he's talented, but whenever I see him on screen, I feel like whatever is supposed to be the core truth of his character is buried underneath all the flashy jazz hands. Also, the pacing seemed kinda off? The movie seemed curiously low energy in parts for all the fanciful stuff that was happening on the screen.

The Good: It looked FANTASTIC. The creatures in particular were marvellous (that Niffler had about 100x more personality than its handler, I'm just saying). Kids are gonna be bananas for the film and it's gonna sell so many toys, my God. Like, I'm in my 40's and I totally want some merchandise. The visual effects folks have outdone themselves.

The two supporting characters in the adventure (Queenie and Jacob), while somewhat one-dimensional, were ADORABLE. The scene in which Queenie assembles the strudel in air! Their sweet little romance! I was charmed.

True to the Potter tradition, I thought the antagonists were dynamite. The Obscurus was a great concept and genuinely frightening, and Ezra Miller KILLED as the tormented young wizard. If the muggles/no-maj thing was an allegory for racial injustice, Obscurus seemed like it would map easily onto closeted homosexuality, especially given the disturbing relationship Credence had with Graves, which had a tinge of dangerous predatory sexuality. Which makes mapping it to closeted gayness incredibly problematic. But Grindelwald is canonically gay, I think? Their scene in the alley was so upsetting yet charged, it was kinda difficult not to see it (or maybe 20+ years in fandom has fried my brain, I don't know.)

Count me in among the folks who thought Colin Farrell was AMAZING (he had so much menacing presence) and was crushingly disappointed when he turned into Johnny Depp.

Concur with your assessment of Colin, Vonnie.

I was especially impressed with his wandwork. He really made it physical and imposing.

Weird to think it's this specialized element of acting that only matters to the HP movies, but I thought his particular solution was fantastic. Others have tended to make it more balletic or like fencing, but I thought his was more like a whip.

I thought his was more like a whip.

Yeap. Everything about him seemed so concentrated and intense, with nary a wasted movement. I could also go on and on about his costuming choice -- those dramatic black and white collars on his vest! The scarf!

I could also go on and on about his costuming choice -- those dramatic black and white collars on his vest! The scarf!

I *lurved* that costume! So cool.

So, Newt is totally a Hufflepuff, right? And I know they were not in Hogwarts (and Jacob is not even a wizard) but Queenie and Jacob are also totally Hufflepuffian. Tina is a Ravenclaw, I think.

My main objection to Fantastic Beasts was how little the fantastic beasts themselves actually mattered. I'm pretty sure the A plot would have played out more or less identically if Newt had apparated directly to Arizona, instead of traveling for no apparent reason by steam ship to NYC first.

Also how is an eagle whose magical power is making it rain native to the American Southwest? Does JKR even know where Arizona is?

Well, it was a Thunderbird, so I suppose she imagined it might be around thunderstorms from time to time .

I do agree with you on the lack of Beast plot action, apart from the Niffler setting the whole thing off really. That may be something more important in future parts though .

I spoke to another person today whose heart sank when he saw Johnny Depp, and who wished he and Colin Farrell had traded parts. It must be a thing .

I suppose an advantage of being a casual observer to the whole Harry Potter phenomenon is not being that horrified when someone turns out to be Johnny Depp.