A Fantastic Bore. A failure in the storytelling dept. Disappointing.

Rating: 3/10 (17 December 2016)

"Fantastic Beasts" is a fantastic bore. I harbor no grudges against J.K. Rowling; I mean, I enjoyed the Harry Potter film series as much as most Muggles. But man, her first post-Potter film is just a mess.
The film plays out in what seems like a series of trailers for itself. There are suggestions of excitement, and suggestions of drama, and suggestions of a film that I'd actually like to see! Unfortunately, the film has given itself far too much ground to cover, and so it can't spend any time delving very deeply into anything. Every scene has been reduced to the shortest possible version of itself, no beat is allowed to develop naturally; the film whisks us from one half-baked scenario to another, never pausing to develop its characters or its world into anything more than the most skeletal versions of themselves. Which is all a shame, really, because there was quite a bit of potential here, and this film needn't have been half the mess that it is.
Positive notes first: The casting is good. Eddie Redmayne has the right kind of nervousness and dry wit to inhabit the character of Newt Scamander, the film's protagonist, who keeps a magical bestiary in his briefcase. Katherine Waterston puts just the right amount of tomboy into the character of Porpetina 'Tina' Goldstein, a witch who becomes Newt's friend and accomplice. However, the characters of Newt and Tina are kind of boring, as they're not very well developed and all they talk about is the plot.
More fun is Dan Fogler as Kowalski, a "No Maj" who works at a canning- factory, but who dreams of opening a bakery. As a non- magical person who gets caught-up in the film's events, Kowalski is essentially the audience's voice or perspective in the film; his sense of wonder is, at least theoretically, our sense of wonder. Also entertaining is Alison Sudol as Queenie, Tina's flirty, telepathic sister, whose developing crush on Kowalski provides at least a shred of genuine humor and warmth to this overstuffed film.
Also good is the production-design. The digitally-recreated version of 1920's New York looks handsome (if decidedly unreal, in that way that any film which uses too much CGI looks overtly dreamlike), the costumes are spot-on, and the digitally-created "fantastic beasts" of the title are nicely realized (even if they, too, suffer a bit from the "unreal" effect imparted by the use of CGI).
The problems with this film are many, but the biggest one is that it tries to do too much. It wants to launch a new franchise, so it needs to introduce us to a world full of new wonders (and characters). It wants to satisfy fans of the Potter universe, so it needs to include plenty of special-effects wizardry, plenty of action, and plenty of intrigue. It wants to make a direct appeal to Brits and Americans alike, so we get a Brit transplanted to the USA, and a lot of early-film jokes about the differences between the way Brits and Americans say things.
The film also wants to be a bigger spectacle than any individual Harry Potter film -- and so, it's been crammed with enough plot and action for about 5 "normal" movies.
All of this has the effect of leaving almost no room for character development, or good dialogue, or good foreshadowing, or any of the mechanics of good storytelling, or anything close to a sense of wonder. Instead, the film proceeds from scene to scene, with threats being explained just as they materialize. The characters deliver nonstop exposition. "Here is what is happening right now!" they say. "And here are four new terms you need to know! And here are their definitions!"
It's understandable when a film has moments along these lines, especially if it's a film which requires some worldbuilding (as this one clearly does). But "Fantastic Beasts" is made up of practically nothing but these kinds of moments. It's always introducing us to something new, instructing us about its intricacies, and assuring us that this will all be important later. Rarely does the film slow down enough to present anything like a single satisfying scene.
Another problem I had with this film is that, apart from the nice production-design, it's fairly ugly. I mean, good sets, good costumes, and nice creatures only get you so far. These elements have to be filmed and edited effectively in order for the film to have an effective visual aspect.
Unfortunately, the cinematography and editing of "Fantastic Beasts" are competent at best, "covering" the action without commenting on it or doing anything to enhance the visual aspect of the film. To top that off, the film has been given a desaturated, wintry color-palette of sepia-tones, deep blacks, frosty whites and burnt umbers. The color- scheme might have worked, if the team behind the camera had framed-up some interesting shots and tried to present the action in a cohesive way. But nah, visually, the film has no rhythm or logic or anything, and the murky color-palette only adds to the problem.
There are numerous ways in which this material could have been crafted into a better film: Find a better beginning. Dump at least 5 major plot- points from the middle. Spend more time letting the characters get to know each other. Have them talk about stuff that isn't directly related to the plot. Shave a few beats off of the end; the ending here is egregious, it just goes on and on forever and actually gets worse the longer it lingers.
Watching "Fantastic Beasts," I had hoped to enjoy a good tale. Instead, the experience was more like listening to a kid excitedly list an inventory of his toybox. Hints of a tale emerged, in a disorganized fashion, with little storytelling prowess. But gosh, look at those toys!