Following up on ‘Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them’

As I wrote in my most recent column, I was determined to see “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them,” the newest installment in the “Harry Potter” franchise, with cautious optimism. Thankfully, when I saw it opening weekend, my greatest concern—the fact that it was a prequel—was immediately dashed. The good news is that the movie’s status as a prequel, and the total control held by its screenwriter J.K. Rowling, is pretty inconsequential to the events of the film and the franchise as a whole. The bad news is—well, stop me if the premise sounds a little familiar:

A mild-mannered and unconventional foreigner, armed with superior intelligence, wit, and a device that is larger on the inside than it appears on the outside, goes to a new place. Once there, he is accompanied by grounded companions who know little to nothing about him, and he shows them a world they didn’t know existed. When he is blamed by the local government for a plot to cause the deaths of many civilians, he must hurry to stop the mysterious evildoers in his own kooky way.

Why, yes! Now that you mention it, it does sound like the beloved British science fiction program “Doctor Who.” In fact, if you replace that show’s use of science with magic, you’d have the plot of the movie!

Right there—that’s the biggest issue.

“Fantastic Beasts” isn’t disappointing, but it is derivative of a property with way more history and a fan-base spanning several generations. Admittedly, this similarity isn’t a bad thing. “Doctor Who” has been around for over 50 years, and is bound to have inspired other works. If you like the show, then you’ll have no problem with this movie.

Outside of this comparison, I have very few difficulties with “Beasts.” The cast and characters are at the top of their game: American Auror Tina Goldstein (Katherine Waterston) is a fitting introduction to American magical society, as is her sister Queenie (Alison Sudol). Ezra Miller is well-utilized as nervous No-Maj (non-magical person) Credence. Even Eddie Redmayne, whom I usually have mixed feelings about, is convincing as magizoologist and conservationist Newt Scamander. He brings an appealing mix of the altogether eccentricity (and bowtie) of Matt Smith’s Eleventh Doctor and the physical affectations of Peter Falk’s Lieutenant Columbo. Speaking of which, the hard-edged “Noo Yawk” accent the latter character made famous is utilized here by Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler), another No-Maj who gets caught up in Scamander’s race to find creatures missing from his magical suitcase. Jacob is the audience’s stand-in, a wide-eyed newcomer who wants to know more about this new world, and because of it, he is the best character in the movie.

Sure, the human characters pull off their parts very well, but more importantly, the film delivers on its title: The magical beasts we’re introduced to are indeed fantastic. Among the creatures in this feature are the Niffler, a platypus-looking animal that loves to hoard shiny things, the Occamy, a serpent/bird hybrid that can expand to fit its space, and the Thunderbird, a majestic eagle-like being that creates thunderstorms when its wings flap.

It all sounds like a grand adventure—and it is. With this in mind, though, it’s important to note that “Fantastic Beasts” takes on a different tone than the other films in the Potter franchise. Those that focused on Harry told a coming-of-age story, and explained all the things that have to change when one matures. “Beasts” doesn’t offer any such lesson, at least not one that I can see. It’s a fantasy-adventure romp/prelude to war; nothing less and nothing more.

All things considered, if you can get past the imitative qualities and the fact that it’s not like the other Potter films, and be open to taking in a new world, then “Beasts” is worth seeing. I certainly enjoyed it more than I thought I would.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to see if it’s possible to buy a Niffler online.