Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) - (M) Tony Saad - Saturday, 19 January, 2019

(STAR), (STAR), (1/2 STAR)

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them aimed to capitalise on the enduring popularity of the Harry Potter series, being the first feature spin-off film of the famous stories. Directed by David Yates, who directed the last four Harry Potter feature films, collaborated with J.K. Rowling -the author of the books, in her screenwriting debut- to create a product stuffed with clever CGI tricks and lots of allusions to the original series. While it does try to live up to its original series, it still leaves quite a lot to be desired. Still, it is not a terrible movie, in fact; I enjoyed it very much, but it sadly does not introduce anything new or memorable to the franchise, and is littered with all sorts of plot-holes.

The film is set in 1926, some 60 years before Harry Potter rose. Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne), is a British wizard, who arrives in New York with his magical suitcase filled with... well, Fantastic Beasts! However, he bumps into Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler) a no-maj (or muggle in the states), who mixes up his suitcase for Newt's, and some of the beasts escape. They both end up in the company of Tina Goldstein (Katherine Waterston), a former Auror and grounded witch for the MACUSA (Magical Congress of the United States of America), and her sister Queenie (Alison Sudol, in her feature film debut). The race is on to find the beasts before they cause any trouble, while keeping the wizarding world away from the prying eyes of our world in the 20s. Yes, in 1920s New York, wizards and witches were persecuted by no-majs and lived in hiding from them.

Now, this should make for a thrilling epic magical adventure, but when the whole story revolves around some beasts escaping from a suitcase, you know you're off to a weak start. To up the ante and increase the already low stakes, Rowling and Yates also included a subplot; a destructive phenomenon known as a Obscurus is on the loose, and Grindlewald (Johnny Depp), a notorious criminal, is a suspect.

Personally, I do not see how this 'subplot' in anyway relates to finding Newt's beasts, as it never disturbs the flow of the main plot. What was Grindlewald's relationship with the Obscurus? What exactly was he trying to achieve? Was there something I must've overlooked -if there was, then I should know-? Or did Grindlewald like causing trouble for a hobby? He absolutely plays no real role in undermining Newt and his companions on their search for the beasts. And even then, why would Grindlewald even infiltrate MACUSA? Nobody knows. I don't know. J.K. Rowling doesn't know. Hey! Not even the man himself knows. It really was just a waste of Depp's unique talents.

And that's why I liked lord Voldemort more than Grindlewald. His intentions are clear, and he plays a direct role in Harry's adventures, yet remaining in the shadows in the first half of the series, only slowly revealing himself in the fourth instalment.

The award for the least necessary character in the film goes to (Drumroll please) ... Credence (Ezra Miller)! Yes. Credence is this abused and over-emotional kid who (Spoiler alert) ends up being the Obscurial that was terrorising New York. By the way, I do not mean harm to the actor; he did try hard. Still, like Grindlewald, Credence plays almost no role in Newt's search for his beasts, and somehow has got this strange link to the main antagonist that is too ambiguous for me to understand.

But the characters in Fantastic Beasts are not all terrible, and some are even enjoyable. Dan Fogler's role as Jabob Kowalski was a good comic relief in the film. That said, I think if Kowalski did not bump into Newt, then he would've been of no use. But what Kowalski lacks in purpose, he makes up with his warm and entertaining personality and ability to engage with the audience even in tough situations.

No film made in the last 20 years would be complete without some sort of romance. Enter Queenie, Tina's big-hearted legilimens sister who becomes attracted to Kowalski. Alison Sudol is a charming actress, and took off to a very good start in the feature film industry. Unfortunately, Queenie is just there for show, and that's a great shame. She had a lot of potential that could've been fulfilled in the film, but it never ends up being that way. When she senses that Tina and Newt are in mortal danger, she and Kowalski go searching for them. Except, Newt had a 'Pickett', a sort of mythical cricket that came out of the wizard's pockets to pick his cuffs and allow him to save Tina and himself, making Queenie and Kowalski panic for nothing.

Speaking of Newt and Tina, they are both very compelling characters, but I found Tina to be a little bit dry early on the film. This is the first time I see Eddie Redmayne and Katherine Waterston respectively on screen, and they have both impressed me. They may not be as memorable as Harry, Ron and Hermione, but their collected and complex personalities make them more exciting than most of the other characters.

The point was; there were too many characters and plot-holes for Fantastic Beasts to make sense. It is trying to be the new Harry Potter, going as far as to include the famous character's jingle at the very start. But what this film lacks in stakes, it makes up in sheer dazzling magic.

Fantastic Beasts is a visually satisfying film which manages to closely emulate the magic duels of the original Harry Potter series. Cinematographer Philippe Rousselot (Sherlock Holmes, 2009) presented the most tense and action-packed moments beautifully, almost reminding me of some scenes from Sherlock Holmes, which he filmed. His techniques are backed up through use of CGI that's so effective I was -I must admit- fooled into believing the beasts were actually real. Even then, projection alone does not make a film. If the story department had worked more closely with Rousselot, it would've been possible that the projection would be even more impressive.

The highlight of the entire feature is the brilliant costuming. Really, I was mesmerised by Newt's suit, as it helped reiterate the character's veteran personality searching for, and rescuing beasts around the world. I must admit that New York, along with every other location including Newt's amazing suitcase, look so real to me. Seriously, everything was well built and placed, and looked as though we were really living in 1926. The Model Ts, the small shops, the metro in New York etc. all appear like they're taken from their original locations and used on set. I can say that Fantastic Beasts looks and feels so much more aesthetically pleasing than the original Harry Potter series.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them tries to imitate its original, by adding fantastic wizard fights and focussing on the aesthetics. But it ultimately tries too hard at being another Harry Potter. The characters lack the complexity of their original counterparts. I think Rowling and Yates were focusing more on making sure here were hidden information for the next few instalments than actually making a product that clearly had something to say. But the film does excel in showcasing the artistic creativities of the decoration and costumes department, and has made the original Harry Potter series a bit of justice to be fair.

© Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them Film Review, 2019. This film review was produced for the purpose of copyrights in the Lebanese Republic and the Commonwealth of Australia. All Rights Reserved.