I just saw the film in theater today, and it had many highs and a few notable lows.

It was nice to see an expansion of the potterverse, especially into American waters ( bad pun considering the literal plot, I know :P), though at times I was exasperated with the acting.

NOw in all fairness it IS very difficult to act when a person is supposed to be looking or addressing a being or creature that is made up entirely of CG elements. That being said, for the most part, the main actor ( redmayne, I think his name was) did a good job. Was he high during? Maybe. But more than anything the wizard character the actor portrayed was way too meek and soft spoken for a feature film.

At times I could barely hear the main actor's words, even above his British accent. Too often he would mutter and it was so annoying and off putting that it kept sidelining the movie.

But I get it, every generation tries to emulate an actor or actress or singer of the past with a new age incarnation of similar quality; this redmayne guy is like the modern Hugh Grant, whom was also an overly speechless, stuttering half wit in his early to middle years of stardom.

The beasts . But it was during prohibition years, hence why I found the film lacking in any sort of lively color most of the time. It will help to revitalize the potter franchise to go hand in hand with the new books that shall no doubt be adapted to the screen, so as long as its not terribly predictable like certain franchise that have resurfaced after years of absence, I say bring it on.

The film was good enough, and well deserving of a solid 6, or even a 6.5 out of 10 rating if such a thing can exist. PE@CE