Review - Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016)

Beginning of another magical adventure

Stuart Craig once again creates outstanding sets for the Potter franchise

In 2013, Warner Bros. announced that a film series is under production, first one called "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them", based on a wee-textbook written by J.K. Rowling. This book, about some assorted magical creatures, had only 128 pages - and the planned series was to roll out in five installments. No doubt, even the most non-skeptical muggle saw it as a cash-grab opportunity - another prequel/spinoff to just milk dollars from a famous, successful franchise. 

Cash grab it is, and by extension, every film made over 100 million dollars is a cash grab. What bifurcates a good film from a mere cash grab is the intention. And J.K. Rowling's intention is clear and simple - she wants to cast a spell, give us a thrill ride in her wondrous world and at the same time, enlighten us with real-world parallels. To put in retrospect, many of the attempts to revive or recreate a franchise have fallen flat. The prime example being The Hobbit film series, where Peter Jackson's overindulgence lead to production of second-rate works. He over-expanded it, laid way too many references with the original series and even played with Tolkein's canon. But with Fantastic Beasts, the things have been laid out with much care and balance, you immediately know that this series will work. Best part is, the film stands on its own with minimal references to the main series.

This time our hero is not a boy-under-the-stairs, but a shy, reclusive man called Newt Scamander (apt Eddie Redmayne), who travels to New York City in 1920s, with a case full of magic beasts. His suitcase gets swapped with a non-magical (no-maj) guy called Jacob (outstanding Dan Fogler) - his beasts escape and mayhem ensues. In the mean time, a mysterious dark force sweeps across the New York, killing no-majs and destroying buildings. The blame is put on Newt, so he must recapture all his beasts, with the help from a no-nonsense ex-auror Tina, along with her charming, mind reading sister Queenie, and Jacob.

Along with this main plot, there is another thread about the wizarding society in the New York, how the wizards keep a low profile and avoid being seen. One another thread is about Mary Barebone (outstanding Samantha Morton), a wizard hating woman, and her adopted kids (one of them played by brilliant Ezra Miller). And there is another one, something dealing with a newspaper mogul and his son's political campaign. That's indeed way too many things to cram into one film. But Rowling gets away with all her lose threads by a nifty climax, which though conveniently but effectively, ties up them with a conclusive narrative arc. Her first screenplay suffers from way too much of meandering subplots, which generally work with novels but not with films as the film is a much strict format with constraints. However, it is full of her trademark imagination, vivid detailing and lovable characters which keep the things moving on. The titular beasts too, are wondrous to behold and brimming with personalities. I'm sure many of you would love to have a pet Niffler.

The film is meticulously staged, the production designer Stuart Craig has worked wonders with creation of 1920s New York and with the design of Newt's remarkable suitcase. The special effects team have surpassed their works on Potter too, there is not even a single false-note in terms of CGI. And what's icing on the cake, the film looks the best 3D I have seen this year.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is not with its flaws - the crammed screenplay, disjointed tones (overly dark moments intercut with whimsical beasts), loose editing and a disappointing score by James Newton Howard. But the film works, because the many moments are so powerful and moving that these flaws become an after-note. The film is exciting, funny, wondrous, and yes, magical. And when the next film's focus will shift towards Grindelwald and Dumbledore, who wouldn't call it fantastic? 

4/5