“Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them” not quite fantastic, but still worth a watch

By Claire Alongi,
BlueDevilHUB.com Staff–

“Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them” is not Harry Potter. Repeat this a few times and when you think you believe it, do it a few more. Then proceed with cautious expectations because, although it is enjoyable, “Beasts” doesn’t quite fill the giant proverbial shoes left before it.

To speak too much of the plot would spoil the fun. Though sizable chunks of the film fall victim to the formulaic nature of Hollywood, there are swaths of the story that delve into largely unexplored aspects of J. K. Rowling’s magical universe. She did, after all, write the script. But those pieces are best left for viewers to discover themselves.

In brief, the main plot of “Beasts” follows magizoologist Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) as he hops across the pond to 1920s New York City with a case of various fantastical beasts. Not surprisingly, even a magically enchanted suitcase cannot quite contain the beasts inside. What ensues is a wild scramble across The Big Apple to capture what has escaped. A parallel story follows a group of Second Salemers, those who believe witches are out there and need to be exterminated.

Simply put, “Beasts” is not a bad movie. It is also not a great movie, and not just because, despite even the first warning, it is still pretty hard to separate the film from the story that started it all. Despite being a fine film overall, “Beasts” stumbles in its own unique ways.

But before we go into that, it’s only fair to praise “Beasts” where it is deserving.

Redmayne as Newt is spot on, but then again nothing would less be expected from the Academy Award winning actor. Slightly less expected, however, is pleasantly surprising standout Dan Fogler as the comic, and all-around good guy, Jacob Kowalski. Ezra Miller also shines as the hauntingly conflicted Second Salemer named Credence.

And of course, the actual beasts themselves are wonderful characters. With a bit of modern movie magic, also known as CGI, “Beasts” brings to life everything from the kleptomaniac Niffler to the shy and clingy Bowtruckle, and much more.

Less fantastically, “Beasts” is trying too hard. And while audiences may be attempting to distance it from Harry Potter, the film itself seems to be working too hard to simultaneously be something new, while also packing in everything that was so successful about the original franchise.

The story of Newt and the Second Salemers, though both interesting, seem like they belong in two different movies.

When childlike Newt, bumbling Kowalski and sisters Tina (Katherine Waterston) and Queenie (Alison Sudol) share the screen, there is banter and levity. It is almost like a magical buddy comedy with giant rhinoceros looking creatures and Thunderbirds.

The Second Salemers, on the other hand, provide an unsettlingly dark window into the collision between wizards and no-majs. So different are these two aspects of the film that, when they inevitably combine in the climax (though not in the way one might think) it feels a bit like mixing oil and water. And by sharing a time slot with each other, both stories feel like they didn’t quite dig as deep as they could have.

“Beasts” also suffers from what I call the “Australia Complex” (see the 2008 film starring Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman). That is, the film seems like it has about five different endings so that by the time the actual ending comes the viewer is somewhat fatigued by the continuous rise and fall of action.

That might all seem discouraging, but do not be completely deterred. Remember the good before the bad. “Beasts” still has a magical spark present in the rich world of magical America and the entirely wonderful character of Newt.

Bottom line, “Beasts” is worth the watch, if only to graze the surface of that magical world which seems to always hover so tantalizingly outside of reality. Just adjust your expectations appropriately, and enjoy it for the “B” movie fantasy extravaganza that it is.