Better than Potter?

Rating: 8/10 (22 November 2016)

Whisper it quietly, but I might just have enjoyed this more than any of the Harry Potter series. Not that any of them were bad. The first 2 were a bit ropy but still set out the world beautifully, our first view of Diagon Alley was a wonder to behold, and they generally improved each after the other, though 3 may still be the best. But maybe the fact that this could just be a movie without beholding to the books, which the original series had to, gave this much more freedom. It was always impossible to completely be faithful to the complexity of the books story lines in the time restraints of a films runtime. Plus not knowing how it was going to turn out before even entering the cinema was a bonus. I also appreciated the fact that the wizarding world could be expanded beyond Hogwarts and its grounds, and the New York of 1920's was beautifully realised and the ways in which the magical world of America differed from that we had previously seen was cleverly done. The film is also improved by the fact that from the start it has better acting talent in the main leads as with the best will in the world the original child cast, with exception of Emma Watson and Tom Felton, were lacking a touch, though they improved a bit as time went on. This does suffer from the problems of the first couple of Potters in that it has to set up the world, and maybe tries to squeeze a bit too much in to pave the way for the sequels, and also Newts story and the forewarning of Grindelwald seem a bit squashed unnaturally together. But despite a few faults I really enjoyed this and am looking forward with impatience for the rest of the story.