Lacked an authentic plot

Rating: 3/10 (13 December 2016)

I loved Harry Potter. It was a great series for all ages. But, sadly, J.K. Rowling's road to success relied much too heavily on plagiarism, when it came to the acclaim of the Harry Potter series. I watched this movie with a grain of salt, my expectations cautiously optimistic after the whole plagiarism scandal. I went into this thinking I would see some captivating fantasy fiction, and mythical beasts which have at least some connection to fantasy lore. Unfortunately, the movie could not produce any such effect.
The story attempted to use a wizard named Newt as a conduit for an audiences fascination and infatuation with some odd-looking beasts, probably in an attempt to copy the effect that Hagrid's lovable, down-to-earth character had on Potter audiences, as well as his genuine love for some of the most horrific, un-comely, and sometimes nearly uncontrollable creatures, which in my opinion, was really what was captivating, especially when surrounded by characters - witches, even - whose disgust and fear often put them at odds with his creatures. But Redmayne's eccentric character didn't seem to form any real attachment to the beasts. Instead, the movie seemed to slowly drag me through a disingenuous, political-handed animal rights campaign led by a guilt-riddled social justice warrior - one whose complexes detached him from the animal beneficiaries of his crusade, as he seemed to lack any real emotional connection on a personal level with the beasts he carried.
My family and I could find no emotional connection to - and quite frankly wasn't all that impressed with - Newt's menagerie. The movie lacked any creatures which my family and I could find noble, fearful, stunning, or even cuddly, with the exception of maybe a brief focus on a Griffon. While a couple of the beasts' idiosyncrasies and abilities were mildly entertaining at first, again, it was nothing to write home about. The comedy-relief plot - something which these beasts started to seem solely intended for - seemed to rely much to heavily on much of the same, and became stale rather quickly. Most of the beasts frankly were just damn annoying, and had zero captivation value for the story.
The actual plot had little to do with any loose beasts at all, but rather, a villain searching for, and trying to ally himself with a powerful witch with uncontrollable anger issues - probably an attempt to build some of the fearful notoriety which Voldermordt carried. But again, this was a flop. The story's build-up of the audiences consternation of villains relied too much on political caricatures which only die-hard leftists would find entertaining; nothing terrifying or even fascinating could be found in any of it's villains. The movie also unfortunately lacked any real connection to the series, aside from a mention of Hogwartz. And sadly, political overtones were much too obvious. Seriously, when a 8-year-old daughter tells a father who never speaks to her of politics that the villain is Trump, and the leader of the 'righteous' witches is Hillary, you know the movie has a political agenda that will pervade, at the cost of any genuine entertainment.
In sum, the movie lacks any impressive originalism, and doesn't deliver any attempted copy of any of the mystique, fantasy, or originalism found in Potter. Quite frankly, if it wasn't for the genius acting Eddie Redmayne put into his eccentric character, (outside of his paltry, smarmy animal rights crusade) I would have fallen asleep. But Newt's odd irreverence for authority in a country not his own does make him an interesting character with some reckless unpredictability.