Bored. Not a word I would have ever associated with a story from the magical world created by J.K. Rowling. But that is what I felt watching Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.

I was ready to hate it or love it but I did not expect to be bored. And that is really insulting for a Potterhead like me. Here’s why the first film (of what will be a five-part series!) of the Fantastic Beasts series didn’t work for me, and why I’ll only watch the second one if they cast Tom Hiddleston as young Dumbledore.

♦ I felt cheated. While the film is called Fantastic Beasts, and the beasts that we do see are rather fantastic, there is very little of them in the film. At the end of the film, you understand that the filmmakers used the film title and the character of Newt Scamander to get the Potterheads to the hall. And that brings me to the next point of contention.

l Scamander and his beasts become a sub-plot in the film as soon as his beasts serve their purpose of exposing magic to Muggles or No-Majs, and all for the greater good. Yep, you’ve guessed it. This film is just a build-up to the next few films about a new dark wizard — Gellert Grindelwald. And Scamander seems incidental to the politics of power.

♦ There is zero chemistry between the so-called lead pair of Eddie Redmayne (Newt) and Katherine Waterston (Porpentina). There is better chemistry between Redmayne and Dan Fogler, who plays the bumbling No-Maj Jacob Kowalski. The inter-personal relationships of the Potter films — not just between Harry, Ron and Hermione but also between other characters — are almost absent in Fantastic Beasts.

♦ I could not connect to any of the characters in the film, except Picket the Bowtruckle. You know how you hated Snape from the first film and loved Dumbledore and adored Hagrid? Well, you feel none of it for anyone in this film. Hence you couldn’t be bothered that people you somewhat liked have to have their memories wiped or that the lead pair have a happy ending.

The only time you feel emotional is when Scamander tries to peddle Picket for information and when he finally says goodbye to Frank, the Thunderbird.

♦ The subtle and often sarcastic humour is missing from the film which gets its few laughs from slapstick moments that come from Fogler and Redmayne.

♦ The whole big-spectacle destruction of a city is so done and dusted, what with four or five Marvel and DC movies in a year, that I’d rather see a horny rhino-like Erumpent doing the mating dance with Scamander again.

♦ There are so many questions that remain unanswered. Why is Mary Lou Barebone so anti-witch or wizard? Why does Graves seek out Credence? Does he make Credence’s wounds disappear by the wave of his hands? Why haven’t we seen that kind of magic before? The exception to Gamp’s Law of Elemental Transfiguration is that you cannot make food by magic, then how does Queenie Goldstein bake the strudel? And why then does Molly Weasley need to use a stove years later? If Redmayne was expelled from Hogwarts, how does he have a wand and be employed by the Ministry of Magic when Hagrid’s wand was broken?

♦ Another thing that leaves me baffled is why — when you had the sexy, sinister Colin Farrell — would you choose to give his character such a twist that he would never resurface in the course of the next films?

I’d rather have seen a film that was just about the beasts and Scamander. As a Potterhead who has read the “Hogwarts’ textbook”, it is the beasts I want to see, given how wonderful Redmayne’s chemistry is with them. At least it would ensure that I would go back to the cinemas for the second one. I’m waiting to see who’ll be starring as Dumbledore because Scamander will have to be busy writing his book (he has just about a year at most to meet the publishing date) to be at the centre of all the action and I am definitely not going to go to see Johnny Depp as Grindelwald!

I am not saying that everything about the film is bad — then I would have hated it. The film does have its moments:

⇒ Most of them have to do with Redmayne’s interactions with the magical beasts and the beasts themselves, whether it is the Niffler who pretends to be a statue at a jewellery store display window while Scamander looks for him, or Picket, who has attachment issues with Scamander.

⇒ Dan Fogler is a lot of fun as the hapless No-Maj who gets drawn into a magical world he cannot believe exists.

⇒ Those scenes inside the suitcase! I would have willingly spent an entire hour inside that suitcase with its wonderfully bizzare creatures.

⇒ Ezra Miller is good as the creepy Credence as is Colin Farrell as Graves and it is a shame that neither of them will probably be back for more.

Chandreyee Chatterjee
Do you have a Fantastic Beasts peeve point to add? Tell t2@abp.in