Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them

JK Rowling invites us back into her magical world with the long-anticipated Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them, named after her charity book of the same name. Here, Rowling expands that mock textbook, said to be written by former Hogwarts student Newt Scamander, into a fully-fledged feature showing Scamander's exploits in the 1920's.

We start with Eddie Redmayne's Newt arriving in New York in the midst of some magical disturbances and the ongoing hunt for dark wizard Grindelwald (a lovely touch for fans.) His briefcase of titular beasts gets mixed up and, long story short, they escape and need to be found.

With no text or set story to be based on, Rowling and returning Director David Yates can really stretch the exposition and introduce us to this new world. We see the New York version of the Ministry (the fantastic acronym MACUSA) and get introduced to some characters who I'm sure will become big favourites in the overall canon but, unfortunately, not too much else. For a film set in the Potter-verse there's a surprising lack of witches and wizards here and no glimpse at any magical schools.

Redmayne grows into the role as Scamander, at first awkward and flippant but growing to become more heroic and complicated. As such, it's left to Dan Fogler's Muggle (or No-Maj) Jacob Kowalski to steer us through this new world. The different magical vernacular used by the American counterparts are explained through him, as are the numerous fantastic beasts. He's wonderful in the role, hilarious at times and suitably acceptable as a conduit for us to enjoy the period setting.

The titular creatures are where the film really shines; Scamander's Mary-Poppins-on-steroids magic briefcase allowing the CGI team to stretch their creative muscles and show where all of Warner Bro's' money has gone. They really are as fantastic as the title suggests and, although some are completely new to the franchise, already feel like part of the canon.

Running alongside the beast-hunting is the real crux of the story; concerning the head of a witch-hunting Salem-type cult and her peculiarly scary children (who look too 'in the past' for this era.) Whilst the ending to this particular plot thread is satisfactory (dig that twist!) it does seem a little odd and perfunctory, using a random type of magic conveniently thought up to be original but, to an extent, irrelevant so that people wouldn't think 'why didn't Voldemort use that?' It seems a suitably convenient plot line to start a long running series and introduce its villain, whilst also offering a low level of threat all too common to this type of 'origin story.'

It all zips along but, to this viewer and a few others I've spoken to, it lacks a little shall I say: magic, ironically enough. Not in the action sense (we get a couple of wand battles and a lovely 'put the city back together scene' but it just doesn't quite leave you with goosebumps like the Potter films do.

Perhaps it's the American setting, perhaps it's the lack of familiar characters (although we do get a tantalising Lestrange namedrop and a perfunctory mention of Dumbledore) or perhaps it's just the lack of any real threat.

It sets up the next films beautifully though (there's going to be some great things to come: Dumbledore vs. Grindelwald anyone?) and perhaps, in time, we'll come to think of this as a lovingly slow paced introduction to this brave new world (much rather that than a cobbled together mess that rushes through story; here's looking at you Batman v. Superman).

It's comparable to Deathly Hallows Pt. 1 in that sense; slow and reliant on character development but a film that will split people into groups. Don't go into the cinema expecting an action-fest.

3 stars ***