While traveling to 1926 New York with a briefcase full of magical creatures, British wizard Newt Scamander is swept up in a conspiracy that threatens to expose the entire wizarding world.
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is a prequel to JK Rowling’s Harry Potter series that takes place almost a century earlier. While it contains its predecessor’s imaginative wit, it unfortunately inherited some of its major flaws, the biggest one being that it’s at odds with the medium it’s being told in. Like the Potter franchise, Fantastic Beasts is imaginative and compelling, but it begs for a literary interpretation unhindered by the rigid confines of film structure. If I could have just read the story and created the images in my mind I would have enjoyed it so much more.
The positives: Director David Yates does an admirable job of bringing 1920’s New York City to life, reimagining its seedy speakeasies as magical parlors teeming with witchcraft and wizardry. Rowling’s story is original and it avoids the cardinal sin of most prequels, which is to make shameless callbacks to their flagship films. Here she establishes her movie as its own beast, complete with a more dangerous landscape far removed from the safe confines of Hogwarts.
The problems: Rowling’s literary career was devoted to building a world brimming with endearing characters and elusive backstories that her readers love to get lost in. But Fantastic Beasts forgets to focus on its main character, and Newt Scamander gets lost in the shuffle of his own story. The overarching plot is so convoluted that the film becomes a revolving door of famous faces who show up to hint at a greater threat before disappearing altogether. The most egregious instance of this is the late character reveal of Grindelwald (played by Johnny Depp who was probably on set for a single day) that unfolds like the Scooby gang pulling off the villain’s mask at the end of an episode.
Another fault is that Yates and Rowling are busy place-setting for the rest of the series instead of letting the story meander and explore the tangent threads of its world. As they’re rushing to get to the point, they lose focus of the film’s real magic that comes to life whenever Newt (played with a charming aloofness by Eddie Redmayne), goes back to his briefcase and its fantastical creatures.
The filmmakers are more focused on establishing the shaky truce between wizards and humans (lovingly dubbed No-Maj’s in the film). While Colin Farrell is devilishly menacing as usual, his presence alone can’t carry the film’s chunkier elements. And Dan Fogler steals every scene he’s in as Jacob Kowalski, a regular guy whose dreams of opening a bakery are curtailed when Newt accidentally opens his eyes to the magical world of witchcraft and wizardry.
Despite its clunky storytelling, however, there’s still enough magic and wonder in Fantastic Beasts to enchant Potter fans and newcomers as well. This may not be award-winning material but it’s a fun period piece that makes for solid family entertainment. For all of its wonder and magic the films story is strictly paint-by-numbers.
Notes:
· The film spends too much time building up manufactured mysteries that don’t have satisfying reveals. This takes away from the main plot and also makes the film confusing to follow.
· Unlike Harry Potter, who remained the focal point throughout his series, Newt often becomes a side character in his own movie. Yates and Rowling never find a convincing way to insert him into their overarching story.
