The “Harry Potter” film series is arguably the best series to ever grace the cinema screens. Critics will attempt to argue that such series as “The Godfather” films or “The Lord of the Rings” saga are far superior – yet these series both have prominent failures from at least a quality perspective, if not in the form of monetary gain.
The third “Godfather” film was a particularly messy affair and “The Lord of the Rings,” while undoubtedly an astounding feat (and well deserving of all the Oscars it was awarded), was at times a bit too self-indulgent when it came to length and unnecessary elements.
Additionally, “The Lord of the Rings” series was tainted with the release of the prequels in the form of “The Hobbit” series. They join the “Star Wars” saga as alumni of the “let’s make more money with middling quality” school of film.
“The Hobbit” series could have a potential record-tainting counterpart in the form of the film “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them,” a “Harry Potter” spinoff slated for a Nov. 18 release.
The film is set in New York City in the year 1926 and follows Newt Scamander, a wizard who plays a role in releasing magical creatures across the city. The plot will follow his journey to recapture them, while simultaneously evading wizard authorities.
The trailers for the film have instilled a somewhat dubious anxiety as to whether or not this film will live up to the bar set by its superb predecessors.
The final trailer released on Sept. 28 has done little to quell fears. One notable issue I see in the footage is that the CGI looks nothing short of dreadful. It echoes a “Transformers: Age of Extinction” feel, which is a “film” I would have never expected (or hoped) to mention in the same breathe as a Potter entry.
The special effects look unnatural, half-finished and are a far-cry from the polished work done in entries such as “Goblet of Fire” with the dragons, or “Prisoner of Azkaban” with the hippogriff.
Additionally, the absence of a compelling villain – other than an odious vibe emitting from Colin Farrell’s character Percival Graves – is unsettling.
A large part of the intrigue that came from the original films was Ralph Fiennes’ Voldemort. The actor was virtually unrecognizable and played the role with such a glorious menace and slow burn that he dominated the frame whenever he graced the audience with his presence.
The other villains were also fascinating, with Helena Bonham Carter’s haunting Bellatrix Lestrange and Tom Felton’s internally conflicted Draco Malfoy serving as satisfying character studies.
Perhaps when the film does hit cinemas, the giant reveal will be the identity of the villain, perhaps an old face that will make us tip over our popcorn and spill our drinks in exuberant, childish glee.
Time will tell whether or not this film will join the other Potter entries in the hall of fame. Perhaps it will be better than expected, and I hope to look back on my anxiety and chuckle at my lack of faith in the brand.
One can only hope that the goal is not to replicate the $7 billion adjusted worldwide gross of the original series. Hopefully, for our sake, it exists for the same reason as the originals: to tell a compelling story.