Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

In the Harry Potter book series, this fictional textbook is mentioned in the first ever novel. "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" was then published as what's known in literature as a "false document" in 2001 to raise money for charity. The Harry Potter film series is the second highest grossing film franchise in history after the Marvel Cinematic Universe and Warner Brothers obviously doesn't want the income to end. Without any Harry Potter books left to adapt, WB has turned to this book. I went in ready to accept whatever came because I am only an average fan of the franchise. I wasn't expecting it to be better than Harry Potter but I wasn't prepared for how monotonous the final product would be. The movie wasn't very funny and the plot was hard to follow or to connect with emotionally. This is because more attention was given to the special effects than its story and I find that hard to believe considering that J.K. Rowling wrote the screenplay. I do not care for movies that value its visual aspects over its narrative aspects. This film is defiantly crafted for "Potterheads" instead of for everybody.

I always admired the Harry Potter films for putting the story before any other cinematic aspects. "The Sorcerer's Stone" is what made me a fan because of its respect for the source material. That movie got me reading the rest of the books. For this spin-off, the visuals took center stage but it is my mistakes for not expecting that. The film isn't called "Newt Scamander and his Fantastic Beasts" after all. The actual title doesn't even mention him so obviously the focus on the movie is on the fantasy angle. An audience needs something to relate to or pity while watching a film. They must become emotionally invested. Harry Potter was a great hero who was discovering everything about the Wizarding World along with us. Newt is less like Harry Potter and more like Forrest Gump. The reason why Gump was a great story is because of its realism. For a fantasy adventure, you need a piece of the real world to relate to. The main character unfortunately doesn't serve this purpose in this case but instead Jacob becomes our surrogate in "Fantastic Beasts". He is my favorite character in the movie but the point is that Newt was not a strong enough protagonist to carry the film. I was happy about the story decisions made concerning Jacob towards the end of the show and how things turned out for him. I was also interested in the introduction of Gellert Grindelwald and the role he will play in upcoming films. Most fans are betting that a famous duel will be portrayed and that excites me. Most of the climax of "Fantastic Beasts" was poorly crafted. I felt the use of the venom as rain was a "cop out" or a "deus ex machina". It is true that the venom was established earlier in the story but it seemed too easy of a solution for all the destruction that happens courtesy of the Obscurus. The filmmakers went big and too far with its climax, creating a plot hole that they couldn't easily get out of. The destruction of the Obscurus also seemed really effortless considering its power. A lot of these same criticisms could also be given for the endings of many Harry Potter films but those examples take place at the start of the franchise when the target audience was younger. The films/books were also crafted in such a way that we didn't care about the plot holes or easy solutions for them. The best storytellers are able to provide entertainment and suspend your skepticism at the same time. A big reason why the filmmakers failed at doing this after succeeding so well a few years earlier is the use of 3D in "Fantastic Beasts".

This movie featured an impressive but distracting use of 3D in IMAX. In traditional 3D, the filmmakers appear to have omitted the gimmicks they reserved for IMAX 3D so this piece of criticism I have may only apply to the premium format. In my opinion, 3D should capture the depth of an image instead of acting like a digital pop-up book. I am so thankful that director David Yates didn't do anything like this with the last Harry Potter film. They even stopped converting "The Deathly Hallows: Part 1" into 3D because it was taking too long. The 3D of "Fantastic Beasts" bothered me in the same way that the 3D for "Life of Pi" did. When you are telling a dramatic story on film, a director will almost always desire the audience to passively view the film as they follow the narrative unless they want the audience to actively interpret a message. As mentioned earlier, the filmmakers should be able to shelve your disbelief for maximum entertainment. The director is the master controller of this film but his guiding hand should invisible to the audience. The opening titles forfeited any passive viewing experience for me because I suddenly became aware that I was watching a 3D film and my ability to accept the world I was watching was destroyed. I was able to accept what I saw in "The Deathly Hallows: Part 2" for example because the 3D wasn't gimmicky. The aspect ratio for "Fantastic Beasts" appears to be 1:85:1 but it is actually 1:43:1, which is the full IMAX format. This is done to create the phony illusion that the special effects are spilling out of the frame and into the theater. Sometimes a movie viewed in an IMAX theater has only some scenes that are filmed with IMAX cameras and so the occasional change in the aspect ratio can also be a distraction. If done right however, the change in ratio can serve to make the shot more potent in importance. Otherwise, if the story is good enough (like with "The Dark Knight"), you don't notice the change or can forgive it. None of this would even need to be discussed concerning "Fantastic Beasts" if the filmmakers behind put the story ahead of visual eye candy.

Oscar night in 2017 was memorable for many unfortunate reasons and here's one of them. I can't understand how an amazing eight-film franchise can garnish fourteen Academy Award nominations without a win while its substandard spinoff wins for Best Costume Design. That is a crime in my book. "Fantastic Beasts" was also nominated for Best Production Design by the way. Despite the existence of eight predecessors, this is Rowling's first attempt at screenwriting. Another questions that fries my brain is how could something written directly by Rowling turn out so unremarkable. I have a few presumptions as to how this happened. Rowling may be better with books than screenplays and the two hour running time could be limiting her. Another factor could be that she had to base this script on a false-document book of hers from fifteen years ago, which has no plot. A more plausible reason for the story problems could be the alterations by the other filmmakers. I didn't find any problems with the casting and acting. While his character wasn't ideal as a protagonist, Oscar-winner Eddie Redmayne did his job very well because you believed his performance. The voice he chose for Newt combined with his British accent however made it hard to understand what his character was saying all the time. I haven't seen Samantha Morton in a movie since "Minority Report" and I also liked seeing Jon Voight and Ron Perlman in this show. Another flaw of this movie was the lack of chemistry between the actors, something else I admire the Harry Potter franchise for. I was surprised to see who was cast as Grindelwald and I hope he reprises his role. The musical score by James Newton Howard was pretty good and the color scheme of the whole film really helped to sell 1920's New York City.

Some may ask why I am critical of "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" for the same reasons that others despise the Star Wars prequels. Am I being hypocritical because I like those three films? I would argue that I am not because George Lucas had a better story to tell. You can read my full analysis for Episodes I, II and III where I articulate why the movies were rejected by some fans. It is also hard to compare the entire story of a prequel trilogy to the plot of one spin-off so I feel that is an unfair comparison. I would like to judge "Fantastic Beasts" on its own terms without comparing it to its predecessors but Harry Potter unfortunately casts a big shadow. The same can be said for the "Ghostbusters" reboot. I wanted to connect emotionally with Newt but it was hard to do so. The film was also not all that funny. This spin-off may be a financial and critical success but one of two things could happen with the sequels. The story could get better now that the characters and relationships in this spin-off have been established, allowing for the plot to thicken. There is potential for that to happen with the inclusion of Gellert Grindelwald but more likely, the sequels will fall short because the filmmakers might not feel the need to take story risks to earn money. Star Wars for example took risks with "The Empire Strikes Back" and look at its legacy today. Even the Harry Potter books took risks beginning with "The Goblet of Fire". You would think that filmmakers who collaborated on that franchise would have followed suit with "Fantastic Beasts". I understand that this film is in a different era of the Wizarding World but that doesn't mean the filmmakers had to sacrifice story for visual splendor.

3 Stars