In many ways, the duties borne by a spin-off are far too hazardous to be considered realistic. They are supposed to invigorate watchers with a non-archetypal storyline and indelible characters, while simultaneously staying true to the original’s sensibilities. In short, there’s a good reason why readers of this article will have to Google ‘The Scorpion King’ to remember its existence.
Harry Potter represents a childhood where receiving a letter signed by Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore was far superior to anything a blasted Muggle could conjure up, and getting your pack of Bertie Bott’s Every Flavor Beans stolen was far too horrific (although ‘The Scorpion King’ isn’t too far off).
It would be tough, then, to have expectations from ‘Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.’ It’d be a rather tough ask for the spinoff to the Harry Potter franchise to do anything but flop quicker than Paul Pierce (Google ‘Wheelchair Moment.’ You’re very welcome).
It doesn’t. Instead, ‘Fantastic Beasts,’ J.K. Rowling’s first screenwriting credit, introduces viewers to a 1926 New York where a non-wizard is called a No-Maj and wizards are expressly forbidden to interact with No-Majs.
Enter Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne), a self-proclaimed magizoologist expelled from Hogwarts who arrives in New York with a remarkably unremarkable case of magical creatures.
A series of unfortunate events results in the opening of the case and the release of said creatures, further playing into the already-existing wizard versus No-Maj trope.
Scamander, along with an assortment of characters that include Tina Goldstein (Katherine Waterston), Queenie (Alison Sudol) and Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler), tasks himself with retrieving his creatures, the implications of which are far larger than any viewer thinks possible (no spoilers. You’re very welcome).
The movie is as close to the Harry Potter films in inducing as much childlike wonder of magic as possible, without including Daniel Radcliffe. It entertains in varying spells of action, mystery, comedy and charm while ensuring every scene adds to the plot and feel.
The storyline is grandiose yet extremely feasible, and delights in its unpredictability. The movie is extraordinarily engrossing in the many scenes where it combines genuine shock value with emotional bombs and enthralling character interaction. For the nostalgic (and perhaps perceptive), rejoice — Easter eggs are five months early.
Here’s why the movie is different. Here’s why the next four ‘Fantastic Beasts’ films will be different. There is a whole generation of college students and young professionals who grew up entrenched within the walls of Hogwarts. As such, ‘Fantastic Beasts’ is adult in its temperament.
It is far darker than the whimsicalities of Hermione’s spell pronunciation lessons (“It’s leviOsa, not leviosA”). Nonchalant cruelty is disturbingly acceptable while matters of death are dealt with in a cuttingly realistic manner.
The comedy is witty and natural, but there is always some threat lurking outside, ready to curl its fingers around the door and scar the protagonists.
‘Fantastic Beasts’ is a thoroughly new take on a world that should feel as old as Keith Richards, but never will. It is steeped in the lore of Harry Potter, but is new. The characters are new. The storyline is new. The revelations are new. The new, to paraphrase ‘Ratatouille’, needs friends. ‘Fantastic Beasts,’ however, will face no obstacles in obtaining friends.
It feels realistic to the core and there is no higher praise that can be bestowed upon a movie so fantastical.
