Mostly
magical reviews for 'Fantastic Beasts' but is it too
dark?
Send a link to a friend
[November 14, 2016]
By Jill Serjeant
NEW YORK (Reuters) -
British author J.K. Rowling has conjured up her "Harry
Potter" magic in the spin-off film "Fantastic Beasts and
Where to Find Them," but some early reviews wondered if
it may be too dark for a family audience and whether the
story can sustain four more movies.
|
The Warner Bros. movie, to be released worldwide on Nov. 18,
got mixed reviews, with critics in Britain generally proving
more enthusiastic than their U.S. counterparts.
"That entertainment enchanter J.K. Rowling has come storming
back to the world of magic in a shower of supernatural sparks
and created a glorious fantasy-romance adventure," wrote Peter
Bradshaw in Britain's Guardian newspaper.
"Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them" takes place 70 years
before the first "Harry Potter" books and features a cast of new
characters with magical powers. Set in 1926, it centers on Newt
Scamander, a "magizoologist" who arrives in New York with a case
full of strange creatures that quickly escape.
It marks Rowling's debut as a screenplay writer and is the first
of five movies based on the Scamander character that seek to
build on a wizarding franchise that has made $7 billion at the
global box office.
The Hollywood Reporter's John DeFore said "Fantastic Beasts"
would appeal both to Potter fans and to newcomers, praising its
invention and special effects. "This world invites us in as
effectively as the best of the Potter episodes," he wrote.
But DeFore said casual audiences "may be less convinced that
this spin-off demands the five feature-length installments
Warner and Rowling have planned."
Variety noted the movie's themes of intolerance and xenophobia
beneath the wands and the cute beasts.
[to top of second column] |
"Just when you thought the world of Harry Potter couldn't get
any darker, along comes a bleak-as-soot spin-off that makes the
earlier series look like kids' stuff," wrote Variety's Peter
DeBruge.
Britain's Telegraph, however, welcomed the bleak undercurrent,
saying the film's vision of Depression-era America "caught in the
jaws of fear and paranoia has the stony-grim ring of the here and
now."
Others were less impressed. Entertainment Weekly's Chris Nashawaty
called the film "oddly lifeless."
"If it plans on replicating Potter’s success, its sequels will have
to step it up," Nashawaty added.
Several critics found the plot and its multiple characters
overstuffed, with The Wrap's Jason Solomons writing that "Despite
immaculate design and splashes of wonder, a touch of magic is
missing in this 'Harry Potter' prequel."
(Reporting by Jill Serjeant; Editing by James Dalgleish)
[© 2016 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2016 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
|