In 1926âin the pre-Harry, Harry Potter worldâNewt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) comes to a terribly quaint New York with his suitcase full of magical creatures. That probably wasnât a good move on his part as magical creatures are illegal there. An accidental run-in with Kowalski (Dan Fogler) a âno-magâ allows several of his beasts to escape. Heâs soon captured by Tina Goldstein (Katherine Waterston) of the American Congress of Magic, but she has such a poor reputation that no one pays her any attention and Newt and Kowalski end up back at her apartment where she lives with her mind reading sister, Queenie (Alison Sudol).
Elsewhere in the city, things arenât going well. The senator and son of newspaper tycoon Henry Shaw (Jon Voight) is killed very publicly by magic. Something sinister is going on within a group of religious zealots that claims witches are all around. And Percival Graves (Colin Farrell), a bigwig in the Magic Congress, has some evil plans.
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is a colorful, fanciful, beautiful, meandering, bloated semi-movie thatâs far more interested in starting a new Harry Potter franchise than telling a story or developing characters. The other eight movies set in this universe were based on books, so their occasionally being over-stuffed and at other times letting plots or characters dangle is not surprising. Itâs what happens with a less-than-perfect novel-to-screen transfer. But there was no novel here. The title comes from a playful encyclopedia of creatures first mentioned in a Harry Potter novel. It had no characters and no story. Everything was created for the screen and somewhere director David Yates and screenwriter J.K. Rowling got lost in the setting.
Partly the issue is the number of characters. Some, like Voightâs newspaper owner donât belong in the film. They serve no purpose. He and his sons could have been written out with a single line: âAnd now no-mags are being killed by the invisible force.â Done. These characters take up time, but not enough time for them to mean anything or for them to have personalities.
Then there are the leads. The film needed to settle on a lead. It couldnât find one. So we have Newt, of whom we know nothing more at the end of the film than we did at the beginning. Heâs not so much a character as the words âTo be filled-in laterâ in the script. Is he the protagonist? No. He and his animals have nothing to do with what I loosely call the main plot (magical events threaten to expose the witches and wizards and an evil wizard who wants to start a war is somehow connected). He is a side story.
What about Tina? Well, if they’d read screen writing 101, then yes, she should have been the lead as she is connected to the Magic Congress, the zealots, and the evil wizard. But she is no protagonist as she simply reacts to situations. Worse, she isnât even a non-protagonist lead because she has only a bit more personality than the empty Newt, and what she has is dull. She meekly goes along with whatever comes up and looks apologetic a lot. We learn she is emotional in a vague, general way (that is her one character trait), but otherwise, thereâs nothing to her.
Things look up with the sidekicks. Both Kowalski and Queenie are delightful. Both are given some depth. They have concerns, motivations, and are the romantic duo of the film. Yes theyâd be great, except they arenât the leads. Kowalski could be written out with ease. And Queenie is fully a sidekick. They are not a part of the plot enough to be our protagonists. But they are given twice the time normally allotted to sidekicks, time desperately needed to flesh out Newt and Tina.
Which leaves us with no protagonists and no direction. Half the runtime is spent catching or looking after the animals. Itâs cute, but also irrelevant, and starts to drag when it is clear it doesnât matter, particularly when we get to an embarrassing scene in central park.
For the plot(s) to move at all, everyone has to act stupidly. The Harry Potter franchise had already established that governing organizations (or maybe just adults) all function on a combination of ignorance and incompetence. Thatâs back again as no one in authority ever makes a smart move. But now add in that our villains take actions that are not to their own advantage. Why? So that the story can progress. And then there is Newt, the expert with magical animals, who gives bold new expression to the word âirresponsible.â This man isnât capable of taking care of a goldfish. Heâd have lost every critter long ago, and probably gotten most of them killed. That could have worked in a zany, slapstick comedy, which Fantastic Beasts approaches on several occasions, but not for a family-friendly fantasy epic.
The theme is as murky as the plot strands and characters. Is this about child abuse? Kinda. Is it about institutionalized bigotry? Sorta. Is it about religious foolishness? A bit. Is it about political failure and corruption? Maybe. Is it about animals rights? Partly. All of these pop up but none of it goes anywhere.
Which should give rise to the question: Whyâd you give such a mess 3 Reels? It is a mess, but as mentioned in my first line, it is a beautiful and fanciful one. It is as dumb as they come, but the creatures do have a bit of magic about them. And the sidekicks are worthy of their own film. Plus, it is a very low 3 Reels.
My Harry Potter reviews Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.