This will be one of my simplest film reviews on IMDB, as it is pretty clear to me along what lines this film will be split. Casual fans of the Harry Potter universe? They'll probably leave a bit disappointed or mystified. The true Potterheads (who know every nook and cranny of that universe)? My bet is that they'll come away with a much greater sense of enjoyment.

For a basic plot summary, "Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them" tells the story of Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne), a young wizard with a penchant for studying odd creatures. While just trying to conduct his studies, he gets mixed up in a power struggle between the muggles (or "no-mags" as they are referred to here) and the wizarding community. His only ally seems to be Tina (Katherine Waterston). In a separate subplot, a wizard named Graves (Colin Farrell) is fixated on a boy named Credence Barebone (Ezra Miller), who seems to be more key to this storyline than his meek appearance would suggest.

I consider myself a very casual fan of the Harry Potter franchise. I've read all the books, watched all the movies...and that's it. No multiple readings/viewings, no obsession over all the little details and names. To me, the Potter universe is more shallow than deep (my own experience here...I know that universe is indeed quite rich if one chooses to do a deep-dive). I enjoyed watching Harry and Co. grow up in their journey together, but that is about where "Harry Potter" ends for me.

As a result, there are two reasons why I found this movie to be just middle-of-the-road:

1. Put plainly, the story of Newt Scamander just isn't as engrossing as the other previous material. Whether this was meant to be the case (more of a "side quest" mentality) or whether the execution was flawed I can't say for sure, but to me this was a tale that just kind of meandered in terms of narrative. For a movie that is supposed to be the launching point for main character Scamander, it sure spends a lot of time elsewhere. One wonders, then, if Scamander was used more as an "excuse" to re-enter the wizarding world than being fleshed out as a great character within it. Even the charming acting of Redmayne couldn't quite make me believe that I was seeing anything special in this case.

2. This is the kind of movie that obviously is building off fragments of the Potter universe. Because most fans are of the obsessive variety, I think, there isn't all that much context given. The film just assumes that a base layer of knowledge is already present in viewers...a base layer that I did not posess. A good example of this: the reveal of the name Grindewald in the opening minutes of the film. That name did nothing for me, and nothing was ever really done to hammer the significance home. The film just assume viewers know the significance of his place in the wizard world.

So, I think this is one of those reviews that leans more towards my subjectivity than perhaps the overall quality of the film. This isn't a bad film by any stretch of the imagination. Based on filmmaking alone, it is probably more of a 7-star film. However, in terms of its appeal to me personally, it gets dropped down a few pegs. I'm just not a big enough Potter fan to understand all the little inside winks-and-nods or "easter eggs", and those are things that must be understood to truly be enveloped in the experience.