When news of a new franchise set in the Harry Potter universe surfaced, I have to admit I was underwhelmed. Like anyone else, I craved more Harry Potter movies (or at least movies set in that universe). I felt that there was still so much to explore in J.K. Rowling's world. That said, one of my least favourite actors in an Americanised wizarding world chasing down creatures accidentally set free was not my idea of something that needed to be explored. I wouldn't say I had zero interest, but I certainly wasn't hyped for it. But as the release date started to near, new details started to appear. The one that intrigued me most was the presence of Gellert Grindelwald, who was undoubtedly one of the most short-changed characters in the last couple of Harry Potter movies. Now this was some history that I could get behind. This is more like what I wanted for a Harry Potter spin-off franchise.

This is, unfortunately, where my biggest problem with Fantastic Beasts lies. How do you connect the story of Newt Scamander finishing up his famous textbook on magical beasts with the reign of Voldemort's predecessor? The answer is you don't. Fantastic Beasts felt like a movie with two unconnected narratives that are strenuously linked by coincidence and right-place-right-time. I went in apprehensive of how important the Grindelwald plot line would actually be, but the opening scene gave me a glimmer of hope that he would be instrumental. By the time the credits rolled, it was apparent that he's included for little more than reference and franchise building in future sequels. In truth, that's all Fantastic Beasts really is, at least narratively. It's an introduction to a larger tapestry. It gets us accustomed to all the major players, embroils them in a scatty, underdeveloped story, and then pretty much says '...until next time'.

But what about the world building? I'll admit that with the initial announcement, the only thing that particularly intrigued me was the exploration of the American wizarding world; seeing how this hidden society acted and behaved across the pond, nearly a century ago. In this respect I felt a little disappointed as we don't really get a whole lot in this department. It's a two hour movie that has to squeeze in introductions, Scamander's escaped beasts, Grindelwald references, and a plot about a suppressed young wizard, leaving little room for any kind of look into this new world. We see the MACUSA headquarters, and a shady little club run by a goblin gangster, and we get some exposition about the relationship between witches and wizards, and nomaj's (American muggles), but we get little more than a brief mention of Ilvermorny, the American school of wizarding, and the supposed references to Native American culture were so small and insignificant that I must've completely missed them.

What we do get though is an intimate look at some fantastic beasts. This is the film's biggest strength, and probably rightly so considering it's title. While only a handful actually escape, and each are rounded up surprisingly easily and quickly, we do get a look inside Scamander's briefcase (which is basically a wildlife preserve version of the TARDIS) and all of the other creatures he keeps in there. The sheer amount of creativity and imagination put into the creation of these creatures is nothing short of staggering. As Kowalski remarks "I can't be dreaming. There's no way I'm smart enough to imagine all of this." There's an invisible primate that can see potential immediate futures, bird-snakes that grow and shrink to fill their surroundings, a rhinoceros-type creature that injects magma from it's horn, and the star of the show is a little marsupial whose pouch can house an infinite amount of shiny things.

Finally the acting and character work. Eddie Redmayne, as much as I dislike him, was at least tolerable doing his best Eleventh Doctor impression. He was clumsy and a bit haphazard, but remarkably likable, and certainly knew what he was talking about. Dan Fogler was pretty great with his wide-eyed expressions at almost everything, and hogged the movie's most emotional moments. He's undoubtedly the stand-in character for the audience to latch onto as we're introduced to new beasts and thrust through this world that we're not readily equipped for. Alison Sudol is quite entertaining as the mind-reading, flirtatious Queenie, but her sister, played by Katherine Waterston, I just found annoying. Tina is meant to be an ex-auror, but I did not, at any point, believe she could hold any kind of authority or power over anyone, let alone magical criminals.

For Fantastic Beasts itself, it's splintered, unconnected narratives will surely get tied together a little more in later instalments, but for now it just felt a bit like throwing things at the wall and seeing what stuck. While the menagerie of beasts befitting of their title was certainly entertaining, and I'd love to see more of them, I felt Fantastic Beasts just lacked a little bit of the magic that made the Potter franchise so solid. We'll see where the franchise takes us, because I feel it's a little hard to judge one fifth of the sprawling narrative we're yet to see. I give Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them and enjoyable 7/10.

http://qyrosmovies.blogspot.co.uk/