For fans of the Harry Potter books and films, who have been practically inconsolable since the series officially came to an end in 2011, and would gobble up any excuse to return to Hogwarts or indeed the slightest opportunity for contact with the wizarding world as conceived by one JK Rowling, the new Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them couldn’t have come soon enough. Set in the 1920s, the film is technically a prequel to the Potter saga, presumably the start of a long trip down wizard-memory lane, and is blessed with an extremely likeable lead in Eddie Redmayne. And not only is this the first time Rowling has actually written the screenplay for a movie based on her work, but it also boasts a director experienced in all things magical—David Yates, who helmed the last four Potter films, and whose affection for the material has always been evident. But while the film is entertaining enough—with good lashings of the usual Rowling whimsy, high-paced action, extravagant special effects and solid performances—comparisons with the Series That Shall Not Be Named are inevitable, and let’s just say, the results are not flattering. Indeed, more often than not, Fantastic Beasts comes off as a diluted offshoot of the Potter universe—rather than giving us a long-overdue fill of what we’ve missed, it ends up making us miss it even more.

It’s 1926, and a mysterious non-human entity—described by some as a “dark wind with eyes”—is terrorising New York, wrecking buildings, uprooting entire streets and basically causing all-around havoc. The resident Magical Congress of the United States of America (America’s take on the Ministry of Magic) is in a right tizzy: not only has there been disturbing news coming in from Europe regarding theantics of the dark wizard Gellert Grindelwald, but extremist anti-magic “Second Salemer” groups are also on the rise stateside. And now, despiteall the Magical Congress has done to regulate magical activity in their jurisdiction and conceal their existence from the Non-Mags (American for Muggles)—including exterminating hundreds of magical creatures who might give them away—this new supernatural menace could very well lead to their long-feared exposure.

Blissfully unaware of all this, British-born and one-time Hogwarts student (apparently suspended from that institution), Newt Scamander (Redmayne) has just disembarked at Ellis Island, armed with a large suitcase and an unknown assignment. Too soon, our rather clumsy “Magizoologist” ends up losing his precious valise, which, turns out, is a touch roomier than suspected. Much like that purse of Hermione’s that could fit anything, the suitcase is actually a doorway to a gigantic laboratory of sorts, where Newt raises a litany of unconventional beasts, from the jewellery-stealing Nifflerto the Groot-like Bowtruckle, rescuing them from extinction. But several of these creatures have escaped and are now running amok in NYC, getting Newt into serious trouble with the Magical Congress. As he goes about trying to retrieve his pets—helped by newfound friends (Katherine Waterston, Dan Fogler, Alison Sudol)—his story is about to intertwine with that of the aforementioned dark entity, now grown in power, in a climax where the fates of both humanity and wizardkindhang in the balance.

Redmayneis at home here: that fragile, otherworldly quality about him comes in handy playing a man more comfortable interacting with multi-legged, horned and winged beings than with his own kind. He has the socially-awkward thing down pat, ever with the dartyeyes and sheepish smiles—he does occasionally mumble his way through lines, and hasn’t been given a great deal of backstory yet for us to really connect with him as a protagonist, but for what it’s worth, he’s still endearing enough to root for. And he is in capable company—Waterston has the air of a grown-up Hermione and comprises excellent grounded foil for Newt’s airy vulnerability; Fogler, the only Non-Mag in the gang, and perpetually shocked by everything, serves up most of the laughs; and Sudol, who plays Waterston’s sister, is great as the wispy, airheaded mind-reader. We also have Colin Farrell, Samantha Morton and Ezra Miller rounding off the second-tier cast, all making the most of their limited time onscreen, although a latter “surprise” cameo might make you cringe a little.

The visuals, though nothing groundbreaking considering the CGI exhibitionism apparent all around us these days, are impressive nonetheless: the detailed rendition of ‘20s New York streets and society, the dazzling displays of magic and of course, the titular beasts themselves. But it can get exhausting now and then, such as the action sequences towards the end that are a touch too prolonged, going by in a big, messy blur.

And while it might not seem fair to continually hold up this new film against its predecessors, you can’t help doing so—ormourning what has been lost in the change of setting. There was something so quintessentially British about the Potter series, everything from the landscape to the costumes to idiosyncrasies of language—and that distinctive brand of humour; “No-Maj”, for example, just doesn’t roll off the tongue the way “Muggle” does. And where Hogwarts represented a sealed-off unit that was largely unaffected by the comings and goings of normal humans and vice versa—a bubble of sorts where you could believe anything could happen—the fact that this new film unfolds in the human world itself, means it takes more of a stretch of the imagination to buy what you’re seeing, because it’s impossible not to wonder about the real-life consequences of, say, the damage caused by a rampaging (and very frisky) Erumpent. The fact that Fantastic Beasts is based in New York City, like every other blockbuster for the past decade or so, doesn’t help either, giving it a rather formulaic feel.

Settings aside, there are other issues. While one can appreciate that the subtext here is heavily influenced by happenings in the present-day political sphere, particularly the rise of intolerance and xenophobia—suggesting that it is the suppression of people’s true selves, and a distrust of diversity, that creates monsters—the message is generally drowned out by the expository noise that an origin story tends to make, sapping the film of urgency. Besides which, the story itself is based off of what was originally referenced as a textbook, supposedly written by Newt, used by Potter and his friends at school, and which was later published separately in 2001 by Rowling. But since the book was in report form, comprising a brief history of Magizoologyand an inventory of species, there wasn’t a “story” in there as such, and one therefore had to be made up. So unlike the author’s other works, the mythology simply isn’t dense and detailed enough to be too compelling. 

Fantastic Beasts does feel, in many ways, like a forced franchise extension: four more films have been announced. But in acknowledging its function as a cash grab, it’s also difficult to blame either Warner Bros. or Rowling for the move considering how desperate Potter fans have been for something, anything, new. And we do a lot worse than spend a little more time in this particular world. I can only hope that this first film, with the burden of establishing place and time and characters, is the most unwieldy of them all, and that there are better things to come.