Given my recent article on Fantastic Beasts, it’s easy to think that I was absolutely dreading this film. However, I was looking forward to it – I enjoy the Harry Potter films, and I do love the universe. I wanted it to be good. It was my rational expectations and what I know about Hollywood that tempered my enthusiasm. So, does Fantastic Beasts suck? No.
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is set in 1926 and follows shy animal-loving wizard Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) as he travels to New York City with a suitcase full of magical creatures. Tensions in the city are already high after some spooky occurrences. When a no-maj (the American term for muggle) accidentally releases Newt’s beasts, they must hunt them down before they expose the magical world.
Eddie Redmayne shines as Newt. The character is a welcome reprieve from prophecy and a protagonist who was literally born to be the hero. Newt is simply a nerd who likes animals and wants to protect them. Redmayne is really likeable in this role, being awkward around people and at home with his creatures, and passionate about his work.
The secondary characters are mostly fine, too, with one exception. Early on we meet a member of the Magical Congress (USA’s ministry of magic, a.k.a. MACUSA) who’s fighting to earn an Auror position. While I got her motivation, she was a total wet lettuce who existed to nudge our characters from location to location.
Speaking of MACUSA, the worldbuilding is one of the great aspects of Fantastic Beasts. Their building, complete with their own DEFCON clock, is wonderfully realised and our first visit there is one of those moments of cinematic awe. It’s familiarly magical, with impossible rooms and gold-clad structures, but it has a kind of steampunk aesthetic that I really appreciated. This is also the case when we first see where Newt’s beasts are hidden – an area of impossibly numerous biomes where a great variety of creatures can live and thrive.
However, I must say that much of the worldbuilding is a bit shallow. I hate to say it, but I’m simply not very excited about floating teapots anymore. Yet, Fantastic Beasts pushes us through an entire dinner scene where the drinks pour themselves while clothes hover in front of a fire to dry. You might think I’m being petty, but it’s a symptom of something worse – indulgence. I get it, we’re back in the Wizarding World again, and everything’s magical and great and nostalgic, but these scenes come at the cost of slamming the brakes on the pace of the story.
The pacing suffers because of the editing, too. We hop too frequently between different people without getting enough time with any of them. As I feared, Rowling isn’t sure how to plot a film, cramming a book’s worth of characters on screen with no idea how to develop them. Over half – and this is no exaggeration – have nearly nothing to do with the film’s conclusion.
This is because, and I really don’t want to spoil anything here, there’s much more than Newt’s mishaps going on in Fantastic Beasts. Often, his story takes a backseat to some other stuff, which, I have to say, is much more interesting in my opinion. I kept finding myself wondering: why isn’t this the story? Instead, two mostly disjointed stories are going on at once that makes it all feel a bit contrived.
And yes, yes, I get it, it’s film number one, it has to set things up. But does it? I’m going to say this loud and clear: NO. Think of your favourite trilogies. I bet they fit into one of two categories. Either it’s a complete story and the writers knew exactly where they were going in each instalment (like Lord of the Rings). Or, there’s one amazing standalone film that was so good they decided to revisit it (like Star Wars or Toy Story). Even the phase one Marvel films are fairly restrained in what they’re setting up for future phases. Never do you get one messy first film muddled with setup that blossoms into a great trilogy later. It’s time we stop letting films off the hook for this shit.
As for the story itself, I’m in the middle. As Mr. Plinkett said: Hollywood only knows how to do two stories now – villain wants revenge, or villain builds a doomsday weapon. Fantastic Beasts is neither of these, and most of its story neatly gels with the world it creates. At the same time, because there’s really two stories going on, I only feel like one of them really works. Certainly, of the two messages it tries to push, only one hits home.
I feel the same way about the tone. I don’t feel like much of the humour lands, and there isn’t as much joy as can be found in Harry Potter. On the other hand, there are a lot of moody and mature moments that I thought were gritty as well as respectful. This was definitely true with some of the choices they made with the finale.
So, in the end, does Fantastic Beasts utterly fail? No. Does it set up the universe? Pretty much. Is it a good film in its own right? I don’t think so. It’s messy, tries to do too much, and doesn’t succeed in selling the messages it wants to. A lot of people are going to claim this film is smarter than it actually is. That said, the performances and action are good, with some terrific worldbuilding, too. So, meh, here’s my grade and stay tuned for my spoiler-filled review next week because there’s much more I want to say on this!
THERE’S MORE! Follow me @MagoosReviews for updates.
Love Star Wars but hate the prequels? That’s how I feel about The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. These trilogies are much more similar than you ever realised!
Need your Game of Thrones fix now that season 6 has ended? Read my breakdown of what went right and wrong with season 5.
Film lover? Want some recommendations? Read my picks for the best films of 2015. Or maybe you’d rather share in my hatred of the worst of 2015.
Check out my weekly film reviews, and find out more about me as a reviewer.
Magoo's Reviews 