When I first heard that “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them” was becoming a theatrical spinoff of that scar-faced boy wizard series, I rolled my eyes and groaned. I interpreted as many folks did, a cash grab that would be thrown together clumsily and without regard to artistic quality. All that mattered was the bottom line, and association with the biggest cultural juggernaut of the 2000s would mean that to meet the monetary expectations, little effort would be needed.
Rest assured, I referred to the “Harry Potter” franchise as I did in the first sentence in ironic jest. Like many of my generation, J.K Rowling gave me some of the fondest memories of my childhood and adolescence. I’ve read each book at least half-a-dozen times and I see the eight films, decent at worst (“Goblet of Fire”) and a masterpiece at best (“Prisoner of Azkaban”), are the standard bearer for serialized, long form cinematic storytelling. The scene in “Boyhood” where Ellar Coltrane and Lorelai Linklater attend the midnight release of the “The Half-Blood Prince” in costume gave me the biggest nostalgiagasm I can remember.
And to potentially besmirch all of that with “Fantastic Beasts,” which was subsequently announced to be a five-film series even before the first was released, is like if Da Vinci decided to do another portrait of the Mona Lisa when she was in her mid-80s, her beauty ransacked by time and age.
Yet as the release date drew nearer, I knew there was no way I would let it pass me by. The “Harry Potter” world was too rich, vivid and irresistible, the destination of a young mind’s imagination far too often, to ignore any major property related to it. I began looking at the positives. David Yates, director of “Order of the Phoenix” through “Deathly Hallows Part 2” was once again at the helm, the cast looked promising, and the piece would at least present plenty of world building opportunities, which its parent series had less and less time for as it struggled to cram the sprawling story into digestible two-hour entries. I figured I would be getting a candy-coated thank you to the fanbase that made it worldwide phenomenon, and that’s not so bad.
I was wrong. And I’m so happy that I was.
Taking place in the 1920s, magical naturalist Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne, appearing outside of shameless Oscar bait for the first time in his career), arrives in New York City with a briefcase full of magical creatures. A Niffler, a metal-scrounging creature resembling a platypus, escapes it’s confines and turns a bank into a personal lunch buffet. The meek and awkward Scamander attempts to retrieve it before chaos ensues. He fails.
In the process, he inadvertently reveals the magical universe to a No-Maj (the American term for Muggle, the film teaches us) Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler), a factory worker seeking a loan to open a bakery. Another mix-up further pulls Kowalski into the fray and causes the release of more fantastic beasts into the city. Both he and Scamander are arrested and brought into The Magical Congress of the United States by disgraced, hard-luck Auror Tina Goldstein (Katherine Waterston); Scamander for violating secrecy laws, and Kowalski for obliviation.
Right away, the film seizes upon two elements the “Harry Potter” series was never able to give us: the wizarding world and its institutions outside of Britain, and a non-magical character playing a central role. They give “Fantastic Beasts” a fresh perspective to work with, and nothing the film offers can be considered a retread of what we’ve already seen.
The story develops further with the involvement of a group called The Second-Salemers, who seek to convince the No-Maj population that witches (wizards didn’t occur to them) are controlling their world right under their noses; and they’re technically not wrong. They are led by Mary Lou Barebone (Samantha Morton), and consist entirely of the mercilessly abused orphans in their care. The most prominent of whom is Credence (Ezra Miller), who inevitably ends up playing a pivotal role in the grand scheme. What that is will probably surprise you, unless you saw Miller’s work in “We Need To Talk About Kevin,” which I presume landed him this role.
Once our heroes go on the lamb from the Magical Congress, represented throughout by President Seraphina Picquery (Carmen Ejogo) and Security Chief Percival Graves (Colin Farrell), they seek the help of Goldstein’s sultry and mind-reading sister Queenie (Alison Sudol), a character that would have been right at home in “The Great Gatsby.” US Senator Henry Shaw (Josh Cowdery) and his newspaper-mogul father (Jon Voight) also come into play. And all of this looms in the shadow of Gellert Grindelwald, a.k.a. wizard Hitler, whose rise to power is depicted through newspaper articles in the opening scene.
It seems at first that “Fantastic Beasts” is overloading itself with story, especially when it could have satisfied its audience with a joyride. But all of the pieces neatly converge in the second half, in a weightier and more ambitious plot than anybody was expecting. And I didn’t realize this until the third act came around and the story veered in an unexpected direction, but unlike all the “Harry Potter” films, I had no idea how it was going to end; and not just because I read the book. There’s no formula here, and with all the different stakeholders, I’d be skeptical of anyone who said they were able to map out the conclusion as the movie went along.
The thematic messages, which were always vague in “Harry Potter,” good over evil, love over hate, are sharper and more defined here. Knowing that their core demographic now drive themselves to the theatre rather than begging their parents to take them, the filmmakers don’t pull any punches. Without giving too much away, the climax has a moment more poignant than perhaps any in all eight “Harry Potter” films. If Dobby’s death made you cry at the end “Deathly Hallows, Part 1,” my guess is you’ll be wiping your face at the end of this one too.
At first I was surprised at how effectively the story pulled me in, but then I remembered it was J.K. Rowling herself who penned the screenplay, and she’s the only writer whose work I ever devoted 14 consecutive hours to. Her reputation isn’t as immaculate as it was when “Deathly Hallows” was first released, but “Fantastic Beasts” is a reminder that’s she is a brilliant storyteller, with a knack for characters that are well-defined, likable and memorable.
All of that being said, don’t get the idea that “Fantastic Beasts” is a labyrinthine melodrama. This is the “Harry Potter” universe, magic is real dammit, let’s have some fun! The magic at play allows us to watch a strudel roll itself together and go from raw to finished in seconds, and two pieces of paper take the form of origami birds and shred each other. It’s all a delight. The film also makes clever use of its temporal setting. We get to see a Goblin as an elevator operator, and a House-Elf as a bartender in an underground speakeasy. It seems prohibition had its time in the wizarding world as well. The whimsical peak is when Scamander takes us into his briefcase, which turns out to be multi-climate biome, and gives us a tour of his life’s work. The feelings of awe and envy I felt the first time I saw the Quidditch match in “The Sorcerer’s Stone,” came roaring back. All of the different magical animals are excellently brought to life and everyone will be able to pick a favorite. But in the end, despite the title, it’s not about them, it’s about the people.
The film isn’t perfect, but its flaws are trivial. There are a few head-scratching ‘how did we get here from there’ moments, and the animation on the creatures, while good, isn’t seamless. They are drawn with a pastel color scheme, and it clashes with the more drab exterior backgrounds. But for the most part, “Fantastic Beasts” deliver a well-rounded package of story, characters, performances, and effects.
Is “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them” better than the “Harry Potter” films? I’d say it’s certainly tops a few of them. It’s likely that it will never escape being seen as the well-groomed stepchild of J.K. Rowling’s masterwork, but it deserves to. “Fantastic Beasts” isn’t just a good “Harry Potter” film, it’s an excellent work of fantasy that stands tall on its own merits. When “The Sorcerer’s Stone” first hit theaters and “The Goblet of Fire” was still the most recent entry in the book series, everybody knew that The Boy Who Lived was about to become the next big thing. There’s a good chance “Fantastic Beasts” will see the same fate.
Because I'm Unemployed 
It’s a fun movie when it’s not all about its odd story. Nice review.
LikeLike