Good, memorable parts - innovative love story - a bit disjointed, lots of subplots that didn't fit together well

Rating: Null/10 (13 May 2017)

I was going to avoid this film because it starred Eddie Redmayne. He must be one of the most annoying character actors these days. I think he should stick to modeling - I believe he was a Burberry model before he hit it big in Theory of Everything. But an "adult" film by JK Rowling just seemed too tantalizing for me. The public transit ads for the film made it seem really appealing, too. I like fantasy, in general, and this film seemed like a perfect fantasy for women who like fun, imaginative films.
This film didn't totally disappoint, like so many films lately. There was plenty to praise about it. It was really innovative in some ways. We all thought Kowalski (Dan Fogler) was going to be yet another fat, ugly, short comic relief who suffered in life as a troll that no one wanted. But instead, the filmmakers creatively made him a believable love interest in the film. The odd and unexpected romance between him and the conventionally-beautiful Queenie was surprisingly pleasant and believable. You just wanted to root for those two characters, and you wanted them to get together and live happily ever after.
It was nice that they thought of making the underdog the star, and of busting stereotypes in that way. The surprising love element in the film reminds me of how Frozen stressed sisterly love instead of the conventional love between a guy and a girl. But Frozen did it far more successfully.
The film suffers from being disjointed - too many subplots scattered around. It didn't feel like a tidy film that went from point A to B. There was a sad and serious part about the physically-abused teenager, played by a 20-something American actor. There was something about the grand, fantastical warehouse-like place led by Carmen Ejogo's character. There was something about Colin Farrell's character, and how he related to the abused boy. There was something about everything in the film, and we're just not sure what's happening, or what's the significance, or how it related to the main story or point of the film.
The costumes in the film were beautiful. I was awed by the metallic, chic flapper-girl-inspired outfits that Queenie and Tina wore to the speakeasy or whatever that was. This film had a lot of it - beautiful, inspiring, memorable bits and pieces here and there, but doesn't work out to an overall fantastic film.
I like Katherine Waterston (Tina) in the film, and it's a shame that she's not better-known and doesn't get more work. It's like she's forgotten because her look is pleasant and pretty but not spectacular or special, and she's still D-list despite being not that young (late 30s). Queenie (Alison Sudol) was surprisingly likable, and I thought it was interesting that she is the singer/songwriter from A Fine Frenzy.
There were parts that reminded me of children's fantasies - like when Redmayne's character went to see/greet the menagerie-like magical creatures. That part was pleasant and fantastical, like children's fantasies of 2016 such as the BFG.
Apparently, this film, as well as the HP films, were shot in Warner Bros. Studios in Leavesden, England. Just a fun fact. When we think of UK, we think of Big Ben and royalty, and not Hollywood films or major film studios.
And speaking of US vs. UK - the mild, teasing "conflict" between Americans and British in the film was very odd, and slightly off-putting to me. I didn't know there was such a "conflict." I didn't know Americans and British ever competed against each other. Americans and Canadians don't even do that. We're all friends. Americans are Anglophiles. It's very weird from a British perspective that they feel they need to make fun of Americans. Really weird. The film was obviously an American/UK collaboration, with an equal number of American and UK lead actors. So many major films these days can't be neatly linked to one country. Actors may have originated somewhere, but now live in LA or NYC. Directors live and go everywhere. There are studios somewhere, and film score composers elsewhere, and special effects offices elsewhere. Big films are all international and multi-national these days.
The ending was extremely pleasant, surprising, and feel-good. It seems like they're leading way for a sequel or trilogy, but I don't know if that's going to happen.
I just don't think this film had the "charisma" factor that the Harry Potter films had. It's a nice film to watch, but you're not going to build a fandom out of it. Maybe you're not supposed to, though, because it's a fun, summery "adult" film, and it's not already tied to a spectacularly-bestselling YA novel series. Maybe it just can't be compared to the HP films or franchise.
I think this film would've been more successful if it had a better name. "Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them" is a very hard-to-remember name. You keep thinking, "How does that go again?" Maybe they should've just called it "Fantastic Beasts" or "Eddie Redmayne's Fantasy" or "Adult HP."