I began the Harry Potter books as a young lad and became enthralled by them. I wanted to be a wizard myself, I wanted to go to Hogwarts, I wanted to be besties with Ron, and I wanted to eat a chocolate frog. I read the first four books of the series in the span of just a few weeks and then I had to wait for the fifth. This was between middle school and high school. By the time I got to high school, Harry Potter wasn't cool anymore, so I stopped wanting the magic in favor of wanting not to be ridiculed. They had started producing the movies, so I decided to just watch them instead. Fast forward to just a few months ago, when I realized that Harry Potter wasn't just for kids, but actually one of the best book series ever written. I picked up the fifth book and, once again, in just a few weeks I sped through the last three books and thoroughly enjoyed them. (I'm an idiot for not reading them first and already knowing how they ended. I wish I could go back and read them fresh for the first time). So, consider me a Potter fan and, I guess, excited for anything in the extended universe. This is why I became interested in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. Though it isn't as strong as any of the Potter books, the film does capture a lot of that JK Rowling magic we've seen from her time and time again.
Instead of mid-90s to current day England, we're in 1920s New York City. A young lad by the name of Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) has arrived with a suitcase full of fantastic beasts. Once in the city, there becomes a mix-up with his case and the case of a budding baker, Kowalski (Dan Fogler)... who is also a No-Maj (American word for Muggle-- aren't we creative)... and a few of Newt's beasts escape. An ex-auror (Katherine Waterston), trying to get in better standing with the MACUSA (American equivalent of the Ministry of Magic) arrests Newt and tries to bring him before the President of Wizards, but is interrupted by an ongoing investigation of an invisible beast attacking No-Majes by Graves (Colin Farrell). Finally, there's another sub-plot of the evil head of a foster home and founder of a group called the New Salemers out to prove witchcraft is real and bring all witches and wizards to death. Beside her is her awkward, quiet, Kylo Ren-y foster son Credence (Ezra Miller). If it sounds like there's a lot going on and it's a bit exhausting, then you're right. But that doesn't mean it's not quite a bit of fun.
Fantastic Beasts does have its faults. There is a bit too much going on at times and too little going on at times. The first half of the movie is essentially just Eddie Redmayne and Dan Fogler chasing beasts and trying to get them back into the suitcase. What we aren't getting is much character building and development. There is certainly a lot of world building going on (if there's going to be five more movies, there has to be a significant amount of built up), but it seemed to focus less on our hero. By the middle of the movie, I felt like I still didn't really know Newt and that was a problem for me. Rowling is so good at character, that I felt he wasn't being given his due. By the end of the film, I knew him much better, but still not as much as I'd like. By the end of the movie there were a few characters (two large parts of the story) that didn't seem to really matter in the grand scheme of THIS story (who knows about the future). However, the second half of the movie is really where the film shines. Every story arc and side plot comes together perfectly to form a very entertaining, and surprisingly very dark, magical story.
David Yates, director of the last four Potter movies is at the helm once more, and it's clear he has a passion for the world. The movie is gorgeous to watch (though we ended up seeing it in 3D and that was a terrible choice) and the beasts themselves are, indeed, fantastic. There is one 'beast' that looks a bit like a duck-billed platypus, with a penchant for stealing shiny coins that will really melt your heart. The end of the film is a great payoff to set up a very nice sequel (as for five... who knows). Redmayne, along with Rowling's writing, have set up a very fun character with just enough quirkiness and weirdness and goo-goo eyes and bravado to make the audience want to adventure with him a second time. Dan Fogler (yes, the dude from Balls of Fury and Good Luck Chuck) shines as the No-Maj with the heart of gold. We're so used to Fogler hamming it up that it was nice to see him play the character as reserved and sweet (even as the comic relief). Finally, Waterston's character, Tina, is a bit of a toss up for me as far as effectiveness. She's a very by-the-book-no-nonesense character to a fault, but some of her choices seem to contradict others and it doesn't end up making a whole lot of sense. This, unfortunately, leads you to dislike the character for much of the movie, knowing full well her moment of redemption will come. The question is, does it come too late for you? It might've for me. It's on the cusp. We'll see how it turns out in the next movie.
The one thing that does kind of suck about Fantastic Beasts is that it's not Harry Potter. Those of us who have read the books (yes, I can now lump myself into this) and watched the movies and dove head first into the world... have a lightning bolt-shaped hole in our hearts because we're not getting anymore stories. And while it is nice to get back into the world... it's not Harry Potter. And while Newt Scamander is a worthy protagonist for a new world of American wizardry... it's not Harry Potter. Fantastic Beasts is a lot like watching Better Call Saul. It's very good for what it is... but it's no Breaking Bad. It does, however, look like Warner Bros. has their first glimpse of a new, very successful future franchise. If Yates and Rowling continue to produce quality like this... then we may very well fall in love with Scamander nearly as much as we did with the Potter gang. Nearly.
Finally, don't see this movie in 3D. In fact, don't see any movie in 3D. It's just the worst.
B
No comments:
Post a Comment