Charms and moves ... but often in ways unintended

Rating: 8/10 (10 March 2018)

British Harry Potter-directing veteran David Yates now teams up with J.K. Rowling with the ostensible key aim of taking Harry Potter fans back in time (to the 1920s) and across the ocean to New York. This would seem like major wish-fulfilment for aficionados interested in how the wizard world integrated (or failed to integrate) with that of the muggles (then and there referred to as No-Majs - abbreviated "no magics") in another place in a former time.
This leaves us largely free of cross-references to Britain's wizarding world already well known to us, except for single mentions of Hogwarts and Dumbledore, a brief appearance of "our" Minister of Magic in America, a brief if important reference to a member of the LeStrange family, and development of information on magical species that did appear or were mentioned in the Potter novels and films.
Obviously add to that the key importance attached to wizards Grindelwald and star-of-this-story Newt Scamander, as here played somewhat idiosyncratically (if of course ultra-Britishly) by Eddie Redmayne. In Redmayne's hands, Scamander is a slightly uneasy mix of absent-minded and capable, clever and inexperienced, attractive and oafish. The perfomance is OK, but looks a bit uneven. Certainly, his character needs to be reined in by someone, as indeed it is - very beneficially, by 3 characters - as the film develops (see below).
The huge question here, then - and actually a very significant one from the point of view of enjoying the movie - is how one approaches "Fantastic Beasts". Just what kind of mindset should the viewer adopt as he or she gets comfortable in the armchair?
For me, this does not fully work as "another Potter-like wizard movie", and I'll say that straight out, for any benefit to others that statement may have.
Given that the main storyline here (magicked up from no real basis in Rowling's book) does NOT actually hinge upon Scamander's attempts to recapture animals of varying degrees of wackiness or cuteness that have escaped from his suitcase, I did - I must admit - let much of this (relatively time-consuming and centre-stage) aspect of the film wash over me. Surprising, given that the Rowling book was about that, but naturally you can't make a film out of an encylopaedic bestiary...!
At some level the film work with the magical creatures is of course beautifully done, but it integrates with the NY surroundings better in some cases (as when an Erumpent goes to the Central Park Zoo looking for potential mates among rhinos and hippos), worse in others (as a "Niffler" grabs jewels and coins from stores and banks). Presumably, it is a kind of kiddy-fare, though it must be said that Fantastic Beasts is NOT especially a child's film other than in this aspect. One thing I did like about these chunks of the film was the Redmayne-Scamander conservation message, which is not overdone, but done...
As ever in the Potter universe, an intriguing aspect is the co-existence of the magical and normal worlds, and the Big Apple take on this is quite spectacular. However, it must be said that the recreation of 1920s NY is magic in and of itself - something to be absolutely lapped up and appreciated by anyone willing to distance themselves a little from the "Potter" content of the movie.
Likewise, an effortless and yet tour-de-force performance as an ordinary (if perhaps atypically kind, decent, patient and well-meaning) New Yorker is put in by Dan Fogler as Jacob Kowalski. In portraying this Polish-origin would-be baker of Polish-style paczki donuts. Fogler does not put a foot wrong in a performance as someone who accepts and then comes to relish the magic he is suddenly exposed to in his hitherto tough and humdrum life. It's a pleasure to watch him, and only magnified when he rather quickly becomes a subject of love interest for the overwhelmingly kind, mind-reading witch Queenie Goldstein, as played with absolutely aplomb by Alison Sudol, who looks a pretty picture in her 1920s outfits. Queenie is way out of Jacob's league in terms of looks, but she grows to love him anyway, and this sweet pairing is a highlight of the film.
Since Queenie's older and more serious sister Tina (played nicely if with restraint by British actress Katherine Waterston) rather rapidly forms a pair - of sorts - with Redmayne's Scamander, we have the 2 pairings that are the strength of the film, one might even say irrespective of various other more or less-relevant scenes and plots that come along.
At some level, this is then a two-charming-couples-in-New-York-in-the-Twenties movie, which provided this viewer with considerable satisfaction in and of itself, and - while that was most likely not the makers' intention - it works, so why knock it?
Jon Voight is in there but doesn't do much, in a section of plotting that scarcely gels with the rest of the film. Colin Farrell does play a key role and does pretty well, as does Ezra Miller as a disturbed young wizard suppressing his wizard-uality (yes, it's that kind of reference) and causing death and destruction as a result.
The closing scenes of the wizards' repair and restoration by magic of all that destruction brings the old city and lives of its inhabitants back to centre stage, and it was for me a profoundly and surprisingly moving experience to see things put to rights, in the company of stirring and touching music from the ever-reliable James Newton Howard.
Overall, I enjoyed "Fantastic Beasts...", but seemingly for various eclectic reasons that won't necessarily appeal to those seeking to take this "next JK Rowling adapation" straight, at completely face value.