Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

photo courtesy of comingsoon.net

     J.K. Rowling’s wizarding world returns to the big screen in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. Fantastic Beasts is an adaptation of a Harry Potter spinoff creature anthology book—although in actuality it’s the first of an intended five-part series telling the story of Dumbledore’s conflict with the legendary dark wizard Grindelwald. If that sounds confusing, it’s because despite some real heart, magic, and wizarding wonder, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is really two very disparate movies in one.

     Fantastic Beasts follows Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne), a magizoologist (read: magical zoologist) as he traipses around 1920s New York City attempting to recapture the, well, fantastic beasts that have escaped from his briefcase. His misadventures quickly attract the negative attention of the local governing wizarding body, the MACUSA—as well as the anti-wizard group the Second Salemers. With the help of ex-Auror Tina Goldstein, Legilimens Queenie Goldstein, and “no-Maj” Jacob Kowalski, Newt tries to recapture his magical creatures and get to the bottom of a secret plot that threatens to upend the American wizarding world.

photo courtesy of heyuguys.com

     The plot is a semi-complicated one, and it’s one that doesn’t do a lot to help the un-Harry Potter-initiated get into the thick of things. The casual viewer should get along well enough to understand what’s going on and get through, but the movie for the most part depends on at least some basic knowledge of the wizarding world to feel really comfortable.

     The best and most exciting aspect of the film is that it offers viewers the chance to return to the wizarding world of Harry Potter with an all-new adventure. That world, even removed from the Harry Potter cast and setting, is charming enough to engage an audience. But Fantastic Beasts is unique in that while it takes place in that same universe, it also introduces audiences to the distinctly American wizarding world, complete with a richly imagined and exciting new culture.

photo courtesy of thisisinsider.com

     The problem, as I’ve said above, is that there are really two movies in this movie, masquerading as one. There’s one that is charming, whimsical, and delightful, focusing on Newt Scamander and his briefcase of eccentric creatures. It follows his attempts to corral these often adorable beasts back into safety before the MACUSA can clamp down on them too tightly.

     The plot-threads centering around Newt, Jacob, Queenie and Tina are the most interesting by far. The characters are funny, warm-hearted, and lively. Their madcap adventures are entertaining and light. The beasts they attempt to recapture are indeed fantastic: beautiful, cantankerous, at times frightening.

     The other, second movie is a much darker and more serious one centering around the mysterious actions of MACUSA official Percival Graves (Colin Farrell) and troubled Second Salemer Credence (Ezra Miller). It is harsh, foreboding, and ultimately added into the mix to set up the rest of the series, which deals with the villainous Grindelwald.

photo courtesy of inverse.com

     The two pieces together feel disjointed and awkward—as if, say, one of these plot-threads was an original, exciting idea, and the other a setup for a future franchise. It’s not only that the darkness is at odds with the more whimsical tones of Newt’s adventures—Harry Potter had its share of truly horrifying dark magic amidst its childish wonder. It’s that here, the light and dark are not complementary but distracting and essentially separate in all but name. It’s particularly odd because the movie sets up a new set of heroes for the audience to invest in only to imply that their role in the future installments will be minimal at best. (The most interesting characters are by far the secondary ones, Jacob and Queenie, rather than Tina and Newt, who aren’t developed enough to be truly compelling.)

photo courtesy of box.com

     Then there’s the discouraging presence of so many elements that are forced—thrust into the story to accommodate franchise building. This is especially confounding coming from the mind of J.K. Rowling, which before brought us a world that was so delicately and enticingly unraveled the first time around. As opposed to nuanced and larger-than-life Voldemort, there’s contrived Grindelwald. As opposed to the budding romance between Ron and Hermione, we get a much more rushed, much less believable set of romances. As opposed to the subtle themes of friendship, there's heavy-handed persecution symbolism. And last but not least, compared to the mostly elegant narrative story-spinning of Harry Potter, we’re left with a deus ex machina ending.

     Fantastic Beasts has a lot to offer. Enough, perhaps, to be a fun time at the theater and a throwback to the wizarding world that our world fell in love with. Not enough, unfortunately, to be on par with its predecessors. All the pieces are there, if the filmmakers would only have committed to telling that story. Instead, what could comprise a delightful caper into 1920s New York gets bogged down in ponderous franchise-building and contrived relationships. 

photo courtesy of popsugar.com