‘Beasts’ is made with style, skill to spare

When it was announced that author J.K. Rowling was working on a screenplay of her “textbook” (written under the pseudonym Newt Scamander), it immediately filled that muggle-sized hole left behind by the last “Harry Potter” installment. The franchise remains consistently engaging, and quite frequently ventured into cinematic perfection throughout its six installments.

While this film, “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them,” may not specifically deal with any of the main characters of the original, it shares much of the same DNA (Hogwarts is mentioned more than once as well as the beloved Dumbledore). But the book itself on which the film is based is actually constructed as a textbook used by the students in Potter’s wizarding class, and it was written as more of a field guide than a narrative tale of its “author.”

But Rowling herself penned the screenplay and director David Yates (who helmed the majority of the “Potter” franchise) returns for yet another rousing round of wands and wizardry, and the results may not perhaps reach the levels of prime “Potter,” but it sure is a damn fine place to start.

Eddie Redmayne plays author/zoologist Scamander whose suitcase is like a Noah’s ark of magical beasts. During a trip to the USA, his suitcase gets mixed up with a working-class no-maj (Americans’ name for Muggles), and inevitably some beasts escape, leading to a destructive Pokémon Go game through NYC circa 1920.The man who accidently unleashes the beasts is Jakob Kowalski (played by Dan Fogler), a factory worker with dreams of opening a bakery in a time in which banks are not all too keen on lending out money. He is brought along for the ride, presumably to give the film its more comedic moments.

We get a glimpse of how very differently the U.S. handles its magic, with a more militaristic MACUSA (pronounced “macouza,” it’s the States’ equivalent to the Ministry of Magic) run by President Seraphina Picquery (played by Carmen Ejogo) and enforced by a prestidigitation G-man squad, with characters such as Percival Graves (played by Colin Farrell) and Tina Goldstein (played by Katherine Waterston).

Also, there is a powerful faction of the no-maj community that seeks to banish all sorcery and sentence soothsayers to a Salem Witch-era form of justice. Its loudest voice is Mary Lou Barebone (played by Samantha Morton), a zealot who runs an orphanage filled with children of those she has exposed as practitioners of the Black Arts. One of her “children,” Credence (a hauntingly tortured performance from Ezra Miller), struggles among the Muggles and is on the business end of the Ms. Barebone’s slinging belt, and helps the MACUSA on the side. There are at least two other subplots that are crammed into the film’s under-two-hour runtime, but for the sake of space (and relevance to the overall story), I shall refrain from elaborating on them here.

As you may have noted, there are perhaps an equal number of narratives as there are otherworldly creatures to be found in “Beasts.” And where the original “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” film had a dearth of text from which to mine its cinematic version, “Beasts” has been essentially crafted specifically for the screen by Rowling herself, and she seems interested in laying out as many storylines as possible to carry the franchise through the next four (!) films that are slated for release.

That said, there will be a rich lineage that stalwart “Potter” fans will have fun connecting when certain names and locations are uttered, and the film is never short on spectacle. For his role in the lead, Redmayne would seem like a spot-on choice. With his slight frame and tuft of unkempt hair atop his head, he seems to be perfect to play a man who can talk to the animals far better than any human. That said, he chooses some rather odd tics throughout that don’t ingratiate him as a hero.

Perhaps that is a long-term plan, but in this first installment, he has yet to establish himself as one whose exploits we wish to follow.

As mentioned before, there are also a few side stories that really serve no purpose in this film and perhaps are in to lay foundation for  future conflict, but seem to really land with a dramatic thud. For instance, the son of a wealthy newspaper publisher seeks public office (in a rather Kane-like fashion), only to be cut short by a magical visit from an angry entity. It is a scene that looks as though it should have much more profound impact than it does, but is left behind when the action changes.

Still, “Beasts” is made with style and skill to spare, and it does provide us with a world that is both comfortable and new and does not once feel as though it is merely cashing in on the “Potter” goodwill. If anything, “Beasts” only suffers from attempting to outline an even larger landscape for what is to come. And as long as the same players are on board for the next installments of “Beasts,” there will be many of us who will want to seek them out.