Skip to main content

Is Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them Truly Fantastic?


          In 2001, J.K. Rowling published a book called Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them for Comic Relief. A companion to her Harry Potter series, the short guide is based on one of the textbooks studied by the students at Hogwarts. It’s referenced only a small handful of times in the books and barely at all in the movies; but Warner Brothers, desperate to continue to milk a successful franchise after the final Harry Potter movie, chose to turn that book into a film.
          So it’s clear Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them was made for no other reason than to make money. However, cash grabs can sometimes turn into good movies, and with a lot of creative avenues to explore in the world of Harry Potter, there’s plenty of opportunities.
          Set in the late 1920’s, Newt Scamander, a magical zoologist arrives in New York for research on a field guide he’s writing about magical creatures. But the case containing these creatures winds up in the hands of a muggle (or “No-maj”) called Jacob Kowalski, and expectedly a number of them get loose causing havoc in New York. And so Newt must round up his lost creatures before they do too much damage or are killed by wizards who don’t understand them, aided by Jacob as a witness and a magical government inspector.
          Fantastic Beasts is directed by David Yates who directed the last four Potter films. The movie contains a number of references and easter eggs to aspects of the Harry Potter universe, but relies maybe a bit too much on the audience knowing Harry Potter. At least in the mechanics of the world. That being said, the world presented in this film is fittingly, fantastic. One of my criticisms of the Harry Potter series is that for such an intriguing world that was created, J.K. Rowling explored relatively little of it. But this film which she wrote, is full of world expansion. We see the wizarding community in America, how it functions in contrast to Britain, and how they interact with the muggle society. There’s creativity to the ideas and even some of the designs like at the American Ministry. And the 1920s setting gives the film a nice visual identity, proving a very welcome contrast to the modern era of the Potter films.
          Eddie Redmayne is really good most of the time. There are moments where he dips into that socially awkward genius cliché, but I think his genuine love for his work is carried through. You want to know more about this guy and his adventures. Colin Farrell is pretty good as a shady Ministry executive pursuing him. Katherine Waterston plays Tina, a shunned Ministry employee who’s desperate for respect which Waterston plays quite well. Her sister Queenie (Alison Sudol) is a very typical 1920’s flapper girl with the ability to read minds. Despite this, she doesn’t come off as annoying as she could have. Perhaps the show-stealer though is Dan Fogler as Jacob, who conveys terrifically that wide-eyed wonder of a man being exposed to magic for the first time. His immediate love of this world and good-natured attitude makes him quite likeable. And Newt and Jake have terrific chemistry; every moment they’re on-screen it’s a good time. The one cast member who’s not so good is Ezra Miller who seems to be playing the teenage version of Lurch from The Addams Family.
          He’s connected with a whole subplot that ties into heavy-handed themes of abuse and repression. If they were explored more subtly with less distraction I wouldn’t mind, and I understand what Rowling’s trying to say, but the integration is clumsy and wastes Samantha Morton on a one dimensional character. Also the humour doesn’t always work and there’s a disappointing climax that in addition to only being there to set up a sequel, ever so slightly shrinks the world again.
          Though the creatures are creative enough in design, the CGI in this film is for the most part pretty bad. You can practically see the air that Redmayne’s petting half the time. The Harry Potter films were a mixed bag when it came to the creature effects: the Basilisk was incredible, the house elves were atrocious (a number of them appear in this movie and still look awful). But when magical creatures are key components of the story, there should be more effort to make them look at least somewhat tangible.
          As far as movies based on fictional textbooks go, this one’s okay. Despite a bunch of problems, it’s still cool to see a story set in this wizarding world that you couldn’t read beforehand. You care about the characters, one of the romances is surprisingly endearing, and the world expansion is superb. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is nowhere near as good as Prisoner of Azkaban for example, but it is better than half the Potter films. And criticisms aside, I do want to see more.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Disney's Mulan, Cultural Appropriation, and Exploitation

I’m late on this one I know. I wasn’t willing to spend thirty bucks back in September for a movie experience I knew was going to be far poorer than if I had paid half that at a theatre. So I waited for it to hit streaming for free to give it a shot. In the meantime I heard that it wasn’t very good, but I remained determined not to skip it entirely, partly out of sympathy for director Niki Caro and partly out of morbid curiosity. Disney’s live-action Mulan  I was actually mildly looking forward to early in the year in spite of my well-documented distaste for this series of creative dead zones by the most powerful media conglomerate on earth. Mulan  was never one of Disney’s classics, a movie extremely of its time in its “girl power” gender politics and with a decidedly American take on ancient Chinese mythology. It got by on a couple good songs and a strong lead, but it was a movie that could be improved upon, and this new version looked like it had the potential to do that, em...

The Wizard of Oz: Birth of Imagination

“Somewhere over the rainbow, skies are blue; and the dreams that you dare to dream really do come true.” I don’t think I’ve sat down and watched The Wizard of Oz  in more than fifteen years. Among the first things I noticed doing so now in 2019, nearly eighty years to the day of its original release on August 25th, 1939, was the amount of obvious foreshadowing in the first twenty minutes. The farmhands are each equated with their later analogues through blatant metaphors and personality quirks (Huck’s “head made out of straw” comment), Professor Marvel is clearly a fraud in spite of his good nature, Dorothy at one point straight up calls Miss Gulch a “wicked old witch”. We don’t notice these things watching the film as children, or maybe we do and reason that it doesn’t matter. It still doesn’t matter. Despite being the part of the movie we’re not supposed to care about, the portrait of a dreary Kansas bedighted by one instant icon of a song, those opening sce...

So I Guess Comics Kingdom Sucks Now...

So, I guess Comics Kingdom sucks now. The website run by King Features Syndicate hosting a bunch of their licensed comic strips from classics like Beetle Bailey , Blondie , and Dennis the Menace  to great new strips like Retail , The Pajama Diaries , and Edison Lee  (as well as Sherman’s Lagoon , Zits , On the Fastrack , etc.) underwent a major relaunch early last week that is in just about every way a massive downgrade. The problems are numerous. The layout is distracting and cheap, far more space is allocated for ads so the strips themselves are displayed too small, the banner from which you could formerly browse for other strips is gone (meaning you have to go to the homepage to find other comics you like or discover new ones), the comments section is a joke –not refreshing itself daily so that every comment made on an individual strip remains attached to ALL strips, there’s no more blog or special features on individual comics pages which effectively barricades the ...