Monday 28 November 2016

"Are you a seeker of truths?"
"More of a chaser."

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016)


7.9/10 on IMDb
76% on Rotten Tomatoes

Chloe's thoughts: It's alright; Watch it in cinemas (maybe)
Watch it if you: Are a huge fan of the Harry Potter universe... like a really huge fan

The film takes place in the roaring 20s of New York City, where Newt Scamander, author of the Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them textbook, accidentally lets loose some of the beasts he carries in his briefcase. Meanwhile, animosity between muggles (or "No-majs") and wizards are brewing, all the while there being the Dark Wizard Grindelwald to be feared.

Okay, so I didn't really have huge expectations for this film. I was pretty keen for it at first, but once they announced that there would be FIVE in this series, I just dropped all my expectations. And you know what? The film was actually alright. It wasn't the best; far from it. I don't think it lived up to the franchise, and I think that if it wasn't part of the Harry Potter universe, and if there wasn't such a huge fanbase and capitalising on fan nostalgia, I think this film would be pretty forgettable. But it was still a decent watch, and was still enjoyable.


I really liked the idea of exploring wizards in an American setting, and I really wanted them to explore this a bit more. There's a few jarring moments where goblins and house elves talk with New York accents, and there's even the dropping of the term "No-maj" to reinforce how simplistic and slang-like the Americans name things, but apart from that, there wasn't much else to show how wizards acted differently in other countries. I suppose that's not really a fault though, since you can't expect them to be too different just because they are in a different (but still English-speaking) country.

I also liked some of the magical creatures that they showed, but I honestly felt a bit confused by some of them. When we are introduced to them, there just seemed like there was way too much going on, it was a bit overwhelming. Most of the creatures we see weren't even the focus of the film, and the ones that were a focus felt like they weren't explained that well, so I was a bit confused about what they could do, and what made them special (and Eddie Redmayne's socially-awkward way of saying things meant it was even harder to understand what he was saying). The beasts seemed a bit forgettable, which is quite sad because the film is named after them after all, and the trailers made it seem like they would be the main focus on this film.

There was one moment where there was a huge amount of wonder thrown into these beasts, but because we got all this information all at the same time, it just seemed like the information was really diluted. And I get that they will expand on these in future films, but it would have been nice to focus on these creatures a bit more. After all, they seem more like side quests and side stories, and they don't even really help in the end battle. I get that they are animals (rather than, say, X-Men or superheroes with their own special abilities), but it would have been great if we could see the greatness of some of them in battle (but then maybe it would be too much like Pokemon in that way).


So this film, to me at least, felt like it was trying to balance numerous side quests on trying to catch all these Pokemon fantastic beasts, that the main story felt pushed out of the way a bit. And as a result, the villain and the ending didn't seem as satisfying to me. Of course, they will have more sequels, but having five Fantastic Beasts movie in total is no excuse for having a watered down first installment. You can make this film a set up for the next four, but at least make it a decent set up.

A lot of this had to do with pacing of the film. I don't know what it is, like which particular scenes, but sometimes I just felt like they were spending too much time focusing on one thing, or they would end a scene abruptly and cut to another one. The pacing just felt off, and it made the film less enjoyable.

I think a really obvious example of this was the multiple endings this film had. Seriously, this film had a number of endings on par with The Return of the King, but without the epic 9 hour trilogy that preceded it. I kept thinking the current scene would be the last scene, and that I'd have to get ready to leave but then, nope! There's another scene coming on. Is that the end? Oh, nope! They're wrapping up that character again. Oh look, they're wrapping up that character AGAIN! (Not even exaggerating when I say they wrapped someone up like three times in that ending.)



I did say that this filmw as enjoyable, though. So while I sound like I'm hating on it, it wasn't all bad.

I think, despite all of this, the film still was pretty enjoyable, because it just took an established universe we all know about, and explored a different time period, a different country, and completely new characters we have never seen before. And I think that alone was enjoyable, even if it wasn't executed the best.

Another thing is the acting.

The directing may not have been the greatest, but the acting was seriously great.

I had no idea that Ezra Miller was going to be in this (was he even in the trailer?), and he was really good. I got some very We Need To Talk About Kevin reminiscent vibes from him, but more creepy and tragic, and he did a great job at this. His body language, his emotional performance; they were great.

Colin Farrell also did a fantastic job; I thought he was such a standout. He hasn't been in many things lately (I don't watch True Detective), so it was great to see him on the big screen again.


And then there's Eddie Redmayne. In real life he is such a loveable goof that I don't even think he was acting in this film. He was probably just being himself (seriously, have you seen his interviews?), and it completely worked as the introverted loves-beasts-more-than-people Newt Scamander (although phrased like that he sounds terrible, but you get what I mean). And I can't fault him for playing himself when we well and truly know that he can portray other types of characters (e.g. Les Miserables, The Theory of Everything, The Danish Girl).

I thought Dan Fogler was great as the No-maj that gets caught up in all of Newt's shenanigans. He was actually pretty funny (loved everytime he let out a laugh), and was quite a loveable character by the end. There is one surprisingly touching scene that revolves around him, so it's great to see a Harry Potter film where we care about a non-wizard.

I also loved loved loved the constant use of apparition throughout the film. It was really cool to see how they could so intuitively apparate in everyday life and in battle.


So in the end, I found this film enjoyable, but forgettable. I was looking forward to a film where the focus would be on these amazing new creatures, but instead we got some random side quests shoved into another plot, and it just didn't seem to work out. I also felt like the CGI was not the best in this film, with some of the background sets and even some of the beasts not looking the greatest at times.

Is this a decent film? Sure, it's alright. It's not terrible, but it's not... FANTASTIC (lol, I had to). Am I worried about there being four more movies? Of course I am. The film was enjoyable, and a decent watch, but it's not worth another 4 movies.

A few side notes:
  • I can only understand some things after reading up on them in the Harry Potter wikia; how do people pick up on these things? (for example, the article on Leta Lestrange; all that information went over my head in the film)
  • Can someone tell me what the villain says at the end, and what the heck it even means?
  • Loved the themes on the salem witch trials
  • Someone explain this to me: is it not possible to just use accio or reducio spell on these beasts (and one insect)?
  • I loved the costuming in this; the wizarding council looked like they were straight out of the card game Coup, and Redmayne and Farrell looked so cool in their coats

    Click for some notes on SPOILERS:
  • No comments:

    Post a Comment