I thought it would suck. In the end, I didn’t hate it. I kind of liked it. And I really mean that – I’m not here to dump on Fantastic Beasts. I want to go in depth about what I liked as well as disliked, before concluding by addressing some of the deeper themes that some reviewers are praising the film for. And, sorry, but I rant about J.K. Rowling, too.
—SPOILER WARNING—
First, the film delivers on its title. The beasts it introduces really are fantastic. I love the variety of creatures and the distinct magical attributes they display. What I didn’t want was a film about toads and cats. I was surprised by the creativity of some of them – from the snake that grows to fill whatever container it’s in (though I do wonder what happens when it goes outside) to the E.T. creature that can predict the probable future. Wonderful stuff!
What’s more is that they serve some practical use in the end. This is the message of the film that lands. Not only do we grow to care about some of the creatures, we see that they have a place in the world. In the end, MACUSA says they can’t obliviate so many people, and Newt’s bird saves the day. This was really nice – animals in our own world aren’t just beautiful, fascinating, and richly varied, they’re essential for our continued existence. It’s a relevant message given that our own ecosystems are in danger, threatening to upset the balance of nature that we humans depend on whether we realise it.
In typical me fashion, I think I liked the darker elements of the story the most. I felt the finale, in particular, was pretty ballsy. For a start, it could have been so easy for them to chicken out of erasing Kowalski’s memory. I was waiting for that telepath to leap forward at the last second to stop him from stepping into the rain. But she didn’t, and I appreciated that they went all the way.
Not only that but the Wizards straight-up murder a child. Normally when you go into these films, you know what you’re getting. Most blockbusters follow the same structure: After rising tension, the hero fights through their lowest point and overcomes their adversaries. Except that doesn’t happen, and it caught me off-guard. They literally just kill Credence. Fantastic Beasts gets a lot of props from me for that.
It was risky in a good way – they’re using the security of the franchise to take chances. I talked about this in my discussion of 10 Cloverfield Lane. What a good franchise should do is use its name as a safety net – they can take chances because they know they’ll get their money back. This was the story of Mad Max: Fury Road, and also what irks me most about Marvel. Instead of using their guaranteed financial success to tell some daring stories, they churn out bland, safe-choice films again and again.
In fact, I liked all of Credence’s story. Again, I liked the darker aspects like the beatings and Colin Farrell’s bullying character. The obscurus was an interesting new addition to the universe. It tries to teach us not to suppress who we really are – another great and worthy message – but more on that later.
My problems begin here because I liked Credence’s story so much that I groaned whenever we cut back to Newt. I liked Newt, but he didn’t have anything interesting going on. A good protagonist should start in one place and finish in another. What was Newt’s arc? He met that idiot auror wannabe, sort of fell in love, and that was it. I’m not sure he learned anything or overcame any emotional conflict. This is the first symptom of trying to cram too much into one film.
Think about what he actually does. He accidentally loses some animals, puts them back in his case, and otherwise just exists to tell the audience things. In the end, it seemed like his only involvement in the story was to tell the community that an obscurus isn’t necessarily dangerous, and he fails, demonstrably. We get hints about his troubled past, but they never amount to anything. I know, I know, they’re setting up. But Philosopher’s Stone delivers a ton of setup while giving us a satisfying, contained story.
If it were me, I’d have cut everything to do with Credence and put Newt’s grief front and centre. Have his voyage to America be something to do with trying to get over his lost love. Amidst all his hijinks, he not only helps his creatures but meets new people and, perhaps, he lets go of the one he’ll never get back. You know, something like that? Instead, he experiences nearly no development whatsoever.
Speaking of lacking development, Fantastic Beasts wastes a lot of time on things that either make no sense or amount to nothing. Who the heck was that politician? What was Jon Voight’s character up to? Why are we supposed to root for Tina to become an Auror when she demonstrates no skills appropriate for the job? I’m serious! She freezes up in scary situations, she’s awkward during confrontations, and apart from a little sleuthing early in the story doesn’t seem to display any aptitude for solving crimes.
One final bugbear: The film establishes early that all the wizards and witches can teleport – or apparate – at will, and that it seems like an easy task for them. They hop around all over the place. So easily, in fact, that it left me wondering why Newt risked going through customs when he could have teleported to the other side. Why does anyone walk anywhere? Why doesn’t anyone teleport during combat? I know I’m being picky here, but the problem will be in future instalments when we watch every conflict wondering why the characters don’t teleport away. My solution would simply be less apparition on the whole.
Let’s get into major spoiler territory, then. Grindelwald appears at the end. Surprised? Meh. The studio already announced that Grindelwald is in it. Also, they deliberately gave Colin Farrell’s character, Percival Graves, the exact same haircut as Grindelwald – were we supposed to be surprised that he turned out to be evil? His name is Graves! Okay, I didn’t expect him to literally be Grindelwald, but does that even make sense? I presume Grindelwald was just using polyjuice potion to infiltrate MACUSA as Graves. For how long? Is Graves alive? Why did he keep his hair the same? You may call them mysteries, but I smell last minute studio interference.
I have a nagging feeling that poor old J.K. Rowling was forced to insert Johnny Depp for the sake of that horrible word I keep using: setup. I want you to really think about what an earlier draft of the film might have looked like. Imagine that the name Gellert Grindelwald wasn’t mentioned at all during Fantastic Beasts. Imagine that Percival Graves was a crooked cop who was into all sorts of dodgy deals but with an antihero vibe. He’s happy to manipulate kids for information and kill obscurials to protect his city. Notice how everything central to the story remains unchanged? Fits, doesn’t it?
Then the studio comes along and demands that it all be about Grindelwald. How do you shoehorn that in? I suspect this took place during or after filming à la Fant4stic. Quick, add a newspaper sequence at the start! Add in a couple of off-hand comments about Grindelwald throughout the film! Then reshoot just part of that metro scene to have two seconds of Johnny Depp! Brilliant! I don’t know if this actually happened, but it’s plausible.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on the film itself. Other things I enjoyed were the performances, especially those of Colin Farrell and Ezra Miller, and the production design. Newt’s zoo of creatures is beautiful, and I loved the steampunk vibe of the MACUSA headquarters. Other nitpicks were the overindulgent ending and the Marvel-esque finale of chasing a giant CGI monster around New York City. It all balanced out into an average film for me.
And if you’ve read some of those articles that try to pull some deeper meaning out of Fantastic Beasts, I’ve got something to say about that on the next page. It feels like everyone loves J.K. Rowling and wants to worship all of her creations. I know this might sound blasphemous but I actually kind of hate her at the moment. A good writer, but nowhere near deserving of some of the praise we try to give her…
Magoo's Reviews 