Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) Review

"My philosophy is if you worry, you suffer twice" - Newt Scamander.

We've had Star Wars prequels, Lord of the Rings prequels, and now that other massive fantasy franchise has its own prequel. Yes, the immensely popular Harry Potter series has finally returned in the guise of a new prequel series: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. Having already made an absolute killing at the box-office, it would appear that audiences were craving a new entry in the series, despite all seven Harry Potter books being adapted for the screen over the course of eight films between 2001 and 2011. So now that we have a new series of prequels to lead us into the story of Harry Potter, can the first entry match the imagination and wonder of the series' other films?

Set seventy years before Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001), Fantastic Beasts takes place in New York City. British wizard Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) arrives in America and quickly runs into trouble. His suitcase, home to many magical creatures, is accidentally swapped with "No-Maj" (non-magical person) Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler). Not long after, many of the creatures escape into the city, and it's up to Newt, along with Jacob and fellow wizards Tina (Katherine Waterston) and Queenie (Alison Sudol) to retrieve them. However, the wizarding world is about to be thrown into greater chaos, as dark wizard Gellert Grindelwald is on the loose, and the Ministry of Magic are quick to accuse Newt's magical creatures as accomplices to his crimes...

Despite being full of all manner of creatures and special effects, Fantastic Beasts knows that the winning formula lies with its characters. Like the Harry Potter films, we have a very likeable core cast here, each playing really well off one-another but also being developed throughout. Eddie Redmayne's boundless energy and quirkiness is a winning combination in the role of Newt, effortlessly creating an engaging lead. He and the hapless Jacob make for a great comedy duo, with Jacob being the character the audience can connect with the most due to his non-magic background. We are thrown into this magical world as Jacob is, and so we discover things along with him, with Newt as our guide to all the film's wonder. As one would most likely guess, there is a romantic element to the film, as Tina and Queenie are obviously attracted to Newt and Jacob, receptively. Thankfully, the romance is downplayed, which allows the sisters to actually aid the group rather than having a less significant role of simply being being attracted to the male heroes. Tina keeps the team focused and Queenie is more compassionate and cunning, allowing for a good dynamic between the four principal heroes.

But every hero needs a good villain, and our primary villain is Colin Farrell as Percival Graves. I was initially apprehensive of seeing Farrell as the villain, having witnessed just how hammy he can be in 2003's Daredevil. I was pleased to see him take a very different approach here, focusing on being a menacing, manipulative presence. He is charged with tracking down Newt, and his verbal confrontation with him during the film's third act is one of the film's highlights. Acting as interrogator, Graves and Newt are clearly exact opposites, with Newt's caring demeanour being no match for Graves' intense, cold-hearted approach. There is a lesser villain in the guise of Mary Lou Barebone (Samantha Morton), a No-Maj with a strong hatred for witches and wizards. Her side of the story includes the film's darkest themes, such as domestic violence against her adopted son Credence (Ezra Miller). Like the romance, this is downplayed, which I thought was a very appropriate choice, as too much focus on this wouldn't have helped advance the plot further and would no doubt be a concern for parents taking children to see the film. The dark subject matter is handled with maturity by director David Yates, and so Fantastic Beasts succeeds in having a sinister edge without ever straying too far from being a primarily fun adventure.

As one might expect, the film is jam-packed with special effects. Everything from creatures to wands to teleportation happens throughout Fantastic Beasts. However, I felt that the sheer volume of effects in such a short period of time was too much to handle, and so it felt as if the film was being crushed under the weight of some of them. In the opening half hour, almost every single shot had some sort of digital effect, and a lot of times the CGI creatures where acting directly at the camera lens. Clearly, these moments where made with 3D in mind, but it still felt like too much of it was going on so early. I don't think I've seen so many digital effects at once since Star Wars: The Phantom Menace (1999). The climatic battle, involving a great many more digital effects, drags on a bit too long, almost as if there were several ideas on how the film should end and the filmmakers just decided to include all of them. That being said, the effects are well done and the finale has a good amount of drama, all that was needed was perhaps a bit more discipline as to the volume of effects and the length of the climax.


Overall, Fantastic Beasts is probably the most fun blockbuster released this year. It is made with so much love for the material that you can't help but smile whilst you watch it. Having enjoyed the earlier Harry Potter films more than the later ones, I found myself greatly enjoying this film as it has the feel of entries like The Philosopher's Stone and The Chamber of Secrets.  There are some darker moments in Fantastic Beasts, but the focus is always on the characters and their fun interactions, meaning that younger audiences should come away feeling thrilled rather than frightened. It's nice to see such a high-profile film have such a sensible approach as to how far it should go with "heavier" material, and Fantastic Beasts gets the balance just right. I look forward to seeing more of these characters in the next entry, and will no doubt revisit this magical world when released for home viewing. If you haven't done so already, get to your nearest cinema to experience the magic of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them! 

Doctor Strange (2016) Review

"I learned to tap into powers I never knew existed" - Dr. Stephen Strange

"Less superpowers, more magic" declares 2016, as we move into the final phase of blockbusters for the year. With Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them serving as a prequel to the magical Harry Potter series and a new entry in the Star Wars universe set to dominate the box-office, Marvel Studios have decided to join in the fun with their most popular sorcerer making his big screen debut. Doctor Strange is the latest entry in the ever-growing Marvel Cinematic Universe, and is the first film since 2014's Guardians of the Galaxy to not be a sequel. 

The film follows renowned surgeon Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) living his ideal lifestyle, surrounded by wealth and awards. However, after a horrendous car accident, Stephen's body is damaged to the point where his hands will never be able to replicate his previous skills. Becoming a bitter and lonesome individual, he finally seeks aid in Nepal from a sorceress known as the Ancient One (Tilda Swinton). The Ancient One, along with sorcerers Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and Wong (Benedict Wong), teaches Stephen their magical ways, including travelling through various dimensions. This brings Stephen into contact with the sinister Kaecillius (Mads Mikkelsen) and his cohorts, former students of the Ancient One, who plan to conjure an entity known as Dormammu to engulf the Earth.

The film's greatest strength is Cumberbatch. As we witness Stephen's evolution of having everything, then nothing, and then more than he could possibly imagine, it is Cumberbatch who draws us in with his commanding performance. He manages to portray the many stages of Stephen's life with complete believably. Never once did I feel he wasn't the fantastic surgeon, the hateful loner, or the all powerful sorcerer. Despite being surrounded by special effects and other high-profile actors, Cumberbatch is the film. So the film boasts perhaps Marvel's most engaging hero to date, but it sadly continues their trend of utterly forgettable villains. Kaecillius is an ex student to the Ancient One who has turned evil (not the most original idea). He is given no personal connection to Stephen and actually says very little throughout the film. Like Christopher Eccleston before him, we have a fantastic actor in Mads Mikkelsen completely underused in a role that seems tailor-made for him. Eccleston's dramatic weight was perfect for the role of Malakith in 2013's Thor: The Dark World, and after playing Bond villain Le Chiffre in Casino Royale (2006) and Hannibal Lecter on television, Mikkelsen is exactly who you want to see be a villain in a superhero film. This is one aspect the MCU desperately needs to improve upon, especially when tackling more famous villains, such as the Vulture in next year's Spiderman film.

The other characters are OK, but nothing special. The Ancient One is certainly the next most important character behind Stephen, as she epitomises the supernatural elements of the story. Despite the Ancient One being older than the other characters can comprehend, she is given a well-grounded performance by Tilda Swinton, who works as a good opposite to Stephen as he begins to learn about magic and the other dimensions. Rachel McAdams plays former lover Christine Palmer, who at first appears as though she will play a main part in the story as she personally knows Stephen better than any other character. However, she is actually given very little to do, disappearing from the film as Stephen learns of his new powers only to show up again all of a sudden. Her reaction to Stephen's new abilities is also a little odd. She barely flinches at seeing him in his astro-form, and then later on doubts him when he mentions he gets around via creating portals. Wong and Mordo aren't given much character, and so I didn't find myself caring for them nearly as much as the film wanted me to. They're not bad characters by any means, but they don't leave much of an impression.

The film also appears to obviously borrow from other blockbusters in terms of plot and visuals. The special effects when the characters enter an alternate dimension which allows buildings to be moved are instantly recognisable from Christopher Nolan's Inception (2010). Whilst impressive, having almost the exact same look is a bit of a distraction and isn't as powerful as intended. The film's climax is exactly the same as another Marvel film: Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007), which I thought was a bit strange considering that film isn't generally held in high regard, and yet it is mirrored here in Doctor Strange. An ancient being attempts to consume the earth and the hero must enter the void of destruction and confront his gargantuan foe face to face in order to stop him. The character of Silver Surfer confronts Galactus this way, and so does Doctor Strange with Dormammu in this film. It's something we've seen done before, and with the film's license to be as wild and imaginative as possible, this seemed a pretty cheap climax.

Despite a few minor gripes, Doctor Strange is at least a consistently fun film. Less downbeat than Captain America: Civil War (2016) and taking a more humorous approach similar to Guardians of the Galaxy is a welcome choice. Cumberbatch is no doubt the highlight, but it does also have some cool action sequences and a decent pace to keep interest. It also knows not to over-stay its welcome, clocking in at around two hours, whereas every other MCU film seems to want to stretch itself over the two and half hour mark. It would be a lie to say that you'd really be missing out on something amazing if you chose not to see it, but for what it is, it achieves its goal of being a fun little adventure with a likeable cast. Not spectacular, but not bad either.