Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them Review

Starring: Eddie Redmayne, Katherine Waterston, Dan Fogler, Alison Sudol, Colin Farrell, Carmen Ejogo, Ezra Miller, Samantha Morton, Ron Perlman, Jon Voight

Full Disclosure: I'm a Harry Potter superfan. I first saw Fantastic Beasts on opening night (two weeks ago) and have seen it again since. Why wait for this review? I needed to get all my excitement and bias out. Now that I have seen it twice and had some time, I think I can attack this without any sort of bias. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is an expertly-crafted movie. With this brand, you expect nothing but greatness at this point. J.K. Rowling and co. spend so much time and money, and you know their attention to detail is spectacular. For people expecting a sequel to Harry's adventures, or a story based off of Rowling's new eighth book, this is a completely original story. It's based off of the book of the same name (which was really just a gimmicky "textbook") and is written by Rowling herself. So it is canon, and falls into the Harry Potter universe, set 90 years ago. So essentially she's trying to bridge the gap between then and the first book. Following Newt Schmander, a British wizard in New York, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is a magical tale that will capture the imagination and attention of the viewer. J.K. Rowling is the screenwriter here, and she seamlessly adapts to the craft. This is simply just a really well-written film, even if it's not perfect.

To be honest, I didn't love Eddie Redmayne in the lead role. I don't doubt his acting ability. He did a really good job in the role that was given to him. Newt Schmander just isn't a character I'm dying to see in a sequel. He doesn't really have any interesting facets to his character other than a mysterious old flame. I much preferred the female characters. Tina, played by Waterston, is a great voice of reason. I really liked her character. The same goes for Queenie, played by Sudol. She doesn't have a lot of character development, but just like Jacob, I was drawn to her allure, and that's just due to some great casting. Jacob was by far my favorite. I really liked the idea of exploring a Muggle (No-Maj is not catching on) and his perspective of the Wizarding World. Colin Farrell is also a really great villain. He acts effortlessly, and proves that he is such an underrated talent. I could go into more detail, but I'm trying to avoid spoiling for anyone who may not have seen the film yet.

As far as the Beasts go, they are all incredibly well-realized. From the adorable Niffler (my favorite), to the gigantic Erumpent, to the deadly Swooping Evil, all of them capture the imagination. Also well-realized was the theme of persecution. There is a group called the "Second Salem-ers", group of religious nuts who want to bring forth another purge against magic in America. The cult leader is depicted as a ruthless human mother who beats her children into submission, and in doing so creates a horrendous danger. The theme of repressing your true self, and how this repression can create a monster is a powerful theme. While the Harry Potter series had many themes about life and death, I've never seen the franchise tap into this sort of imagery. Plus, Harry Potter took place in a Wizarding community, so the types of bigotry against them was nonexistent. It's interesting to see the other side, where the Wizarding world is the minority. I also found it fascinating to see the American version of magic, where everything is regulated by rules and everyone wants to be secret. You even have to register for a wand permit. I laughed at that, because it's such an American thing.

Here is where my criticism lies, and I'll try to avoid spoiling. Aside from not being very interested in Eddie Redmayne's Newt Scmander, I really did not like the President of the American Wizarding community. I thought she was so incompetent, but I don't think she was meant to be. The thing she just allows to happen at the end of the film is so irresponsible. Colin Farrell literally looks at her and says "Do you realized what you've just done?" She was such an unlikable character to me. I also felt like the film dragged a little bit in the middle. Somewhere in between beasts, where they were just explaining what an Obscurus was and taking 30 minutes on Newt and Tina's death sentence. Honestly, if it was a proper execution, that would be much cleaner and quicker. That was just ridiculous. In an "American Harry Potter" film, I expected to see the American Hogwarts, but instead was introduced to an American Ministry that was really quite boring. None of the characters aside from Farrell's captivated me, and I found those scenes seemed to waste time. I also personally didn't like Newt doing the mating dance. Loved the Erumpent, but thought his crude dance was unneeded and played for laughs, which it did not bring in my theater.

So here's my verdict. Fantastic Beasts is a great movie. It's of a quality better than some of the lower-level Harry Potter films (I'm looking at you, Chamber of Secrets and Deathly Hallows- Part 1) and craft-wise, it's astounding. The 3D was some of the best I've seen, and it transported me back to a world I haven't been to in a long time. As far as a sequel, I personally don't want to see Newt Schmander. I think a sequel should examine some of the other "loose ends" of the movie's end (if you've seen the film, you probably know what I'm talking about) and just disregard Schamander. It's not without it's flaws, but it's overall a really magical experience.

Rating: