Fantastic Beasts and where to find them - a review

In the year 1926 Newt Scamander comes of the boat in New York-city carrying a suitcase full of magical creatures he collected over the years. Not only do these beings escape; but there is a dark power brewing in the city that never sleeps. It’s up to Newt and his (new) friends to put an end to all this chaos.

When you get right down to it the Harry Potter movie adaptations were all pretty much filtered down to the most basics of story just to make room for all the effects. This is a logical choice because we ‘muggles’ in the theater need a moment to get accustomed to all the magical marvel at display. But, alas, that does mean that all those little insights into characters and side-quests –though lovely in the books- had to be abandoned for the movies. So the idea of the writer of the original books to pen the screenplay for this one is, in this sense, a perfect choice. Yes; the screenplay for this movie was written by miss. Griffindor herself: J.K. Rowling.

Screenplay

However -as you might have noticed from my above hesitation- the screenplay of this movie has one or two faults. To start with the lesser first. A lot of the explanations happen a bit too fast. J.K. Rowling takes no prisoners and dives headfirst into the magical realm. But this does create certain issues; especially noticeable around the various characters who are penned down instantly and then hardly change. So for instance the wizard president being rather two dimensional in her thinking and therefore coming across as a bit of a cut-out character. The same goes for the baddie who lacks motivation for his actions -not a singular moment does he truly utter a speech as to 'why' he's doing this. Because J.K. Rowling has so much information to give some elements of a good story (in this example character development) suffer a bit.

But then, this is very forgivable. What did. 'bug' me -staying with the creature theme of things- is that this movie is basically two storylines that happen side by side. Now this is a bold move for any film but only if, in the end, they tie up perfectly (take Heat for example). It’s like two trains on different tracks travelling in the same direction. But instead of the trains clashing in the finale the main character just gently hops onto the next once his magical beasts are collected. It's not bad or anything but rather something I’d have liked to see streamlined some more. Stress the finale of one story strand to feed the upcoming obstacles in the second. It's like a magic trick it all rests on the 'prestige'

Who said movies don't teach me anything?

In fantastic beasts (…), however, it doesn’t quite work. In the end there is no reason why Newt 'hops' onto the second storyline. It's not his problem, nor his responsibility. Nor is there any reason given why Colin Farrell's character would hate Newt and even want him dead 

SPOILER - there are, of course, the hidden ones (I do hope Potheads have been paying attention). I'll spoil what I noticed here:

The deadly hallows pendant he gives to Credence.

The fact that Dumbledore (Grindlewalds former lover) tried to help Newt from being expelled as said in the interrogation scene.

And, continuing on that - The homosexual tension between Graves and Credence (this wasn’t master/apprentice stuff – this was a slash fan-fiction wildfire).

And, finally, the simple fact that Graves was far more powerful then he let on throughout the movie (doing things without his wand for instance).

As a final note: I must admit I love the cameo in the end (hated his hairdo though).

By the way; is it just me or are there a lot of sexual allegories running throughout this movie? The boy is being punished as boys who ‘fondled’ with themselves were punished in the old days. And then the whole idea of abstinence from magic? In real life abstinence does tend cause boys to have the occasional –er- ‘physical outburst’.

This, unfortunately unbalances the story a bit. On the one hand it is a happy tale about a guy who lost his pets. On the other it's a rather dark political story ridden with discrimination. And, in the end, they don’t mix as well as I hoped.

But if the next few movies delve deeper into the darker strands of the story (my personal preference) it would automatically sort things out for this part. The animal-capture then as a sort of introduction of the Newt character.

The effects

The effects then - they are brilliant. And I must admit I was a bit wary whether effects would ruin the underlining story. But it didn't. The menagerie parts were a bit long. And yes the story didn't really need the mobster storyline (or the death sentence storyline -talk about harsh politics; but understandable in the end).

But I liked this goblin run nightclub. I liked the menagerie. It was a nice little break the story needed. And the effects used in those parts are the heart of the movie. A real-life view of the wizarding world and its creatures –as it were.

To add to this I can’t stress the well-thought-out-ness of the creature development enough (and the effects of ruin and mayhem that accompanies them). Like Disney animators ordered a real-life model for Snowwhite or a lion for the Lion King it is fun to notice that, in this movie, these fantastical beasts are biologically thought out. Every limb, tooth and wing has a purpose as it were.

The acting

When it comes to the acting the movie comes to a bit of a standstill. None of the magical characters develop much throughout the movie. This has nothing to do with the top-notch acting. But rather with the way these characters are, or the main character was, written.

Eddy Redmayne's character (being the main character) kind of serves like a sieve on this one. His lack of character development makes all the other characters look ‘bad’.

Now, as I said above, a lot of secondary characters come across a bit two-dimensional, and I think that has to do with the Newt character. Newt doesn't really become another person at the end of the movie. He's awkward at the start and equally awkward at the end. But –I must stress- that's also a bit of the point. The minute he interacts with his creatures you see another side of the character. Then you see a loving, caring man. But with human interaction he is confided. And that’s a little problem; because Newt’s ‘awkwardness’ (being the main character and all) highlights the other character’ s lack of development.

Katherine Waterston’s character, therefore, doesn’t really get much of a development (this also has to do with her particular quest not having a satisfying finale). But the actress does her best to express her persona with all the nice little habits that accompany it (it’s especially fun to see her interact with her sister, just doing household stuff). And she’s a blast, even if her character is a bit uninteresting.

Then there’s Colin Farell as the villain. In one word, he’s having a: blast (again). True, his character also suffers from any development (see the spoiler above if you really want to know why). But then again we don’t always have to understand the villain.

Dan Fogler’s Jacob then is the most rounded of all the characters.

I always liked the actor since his turn in Fanboys (and later his cold death in Hannibal). So I was a bit biased to this character since I already liked the actor.

Unfortunately his role is pretty much the protagonist/identification for the audience. Which, to me, is something that the movie doesn’t really need. Now he does bring Newt out of his shell a bit. And he does –most certainly- serve other functions in the plot. But in the end, I do have to conclude that the best (humorous) character of the bunch is also the one less needed for the story.

Still, to repeat myself, they all bring their solid A-game to the movie no question.

One final thought though: I do wonder, though, about Jon Voight’s character. His part is almost a glorified cameo. Now, maybe he wanted to do it for his (many) grandkids – or maybe there’s something bigger going to happen with his character.

The directing

The directing is solid as expected. The sweeping shots the wizarding-world is now aligned with serve to increase the scope of the movie.  And David Yates is one director who knows how to appreciate the beauty of the sets he is on. There aren’t a lot of unnecessary close-ups and that is a good thing because I wanted to see the wizard world in action and this is exactly what the movie delivers (and the reason why I enjoyed the goblin nightclub).

I could even say (even though that would, probably, be dismissive of Yates’s skill set) that you have to be one tremendously inadequate director to mess this movie up. The art-direction, set design, costume and make-up are of the highest level. The admission fee, well worth it!

I have a deep reserved hatred for directors who don’t appreciate the mise-en-scene they are working with (I’m looking at Quantum of Solace for this one). But if you have a director that acknowledges what is in front of the camera I just sigh a breath of relieve and won’t bother writing about silly shots that suddenly break the most basic rules of the cinematographic note book (see if you’ll notice).

Conclusion:

J.K. Rowling already let slip that she's planning another two (three?) parts with this one. As far as I'm concerned the Harry Potter franchise can go on as long as the James Bond and Star Wars franchises. Fantastic Beasts and where to find them isn't a misfire per se. It's a solid entry in what we can now certainly call an ongoing series. But on the writing level there are some nuts and bolts J.K. Rowling needs to secure in the future. The directing and cinematographic style (and art directing of course) is utterly flawless.
 

I am left wondering now, though, whether there were witches at Woodstock?