It’s finally here, the movie we’ve all been waiting for. J.K. Rowling’s latest installment was released on November 18, 2016. "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" is, as J.K. Rowling has repeatedly stated, not a prequel to the Harry Potter series, but it is related. There are many connected characters and Newt Scamander, the protagonist himself, is the author of one of the textbooks used at Hogwarts. The story takes place in a world starkly contrasted to the world of magic we thought we knew, as Newt’s story takes place in 1920s New York City, at the peak of Gellert Grindelwald’s power. This wizarding community, introduced to us on Pottermore earlier this year, appears to be influenced by the non-magical struggles of the time. With the Great Depression, prohibition, and other oppression running rampant, it’s no surprise that the wizarding community has been pushed even deeper into hiding than it’s European counterparts. As Rowling told us on her website, the law in America makes it illegal for wizards to even befriend Muggles, or No-Majs, let alone marry them. All magic has to be done in secret and if there are any non-magic witnesses, they have to be Obliviated. There is a movement entitled the Second Salem movement, headed by a rather heretical woman, Mary Lou Barebone, who believes witches are among us and calls for a revival of the Salem Witch Trials (a detail I thought needed to be better explained). This suppression and fear of revealing magic creates a very different environment and wizarding community than we are used to. There was less of the magic and wonder we saw with Harry Potter, which was, in a way, to be expected. In the Potter series, we were discovering magic right alongside Harry as he grew up. Newt Scamander was already an adult, having been kicked out of Hogwarts, experienced war, and traveled the world learning about and rescuing his magical creatures. The lack of magic in the historical New York context, as well as the violence and abuse presented by the Second Salem group and the fear of Grindelwald’s power and disappearance led to an altogether darker tone than any Potter film we’ve seen.

Much of the opening of the film was spent with me trying to adjust to the differences in culture. It seemed unnatural for me to call non-wizards “No-Majs” and to try to figure out the workings of MACUSA compared to the Ministry of Magic. While J.K. Rowling did introduce the American wizarding community on Pottermore, I was left fairly unsatisfied with the information I was given in the film. We never saw Ilvermorny, we didn’t see where the wizards and witches shop and live. I found myself waiting to see the New York version of London’s Diagon Alley. Yes, we saw a speak-easy, the inside of the main MACUSA building and Newt’s case was pretty magical, but I think in the entirety of the movie only three spells were actually verbalized. There was so much less, well, magic. I can understand it, though, because how does a filmmaker alter a reality so well known, both historically and in a modern sense, to it’s audience? But I needed more, I needed more Diagon Alley and Hogsmeade and enchanted castles and forests.

As well as lack of introduction and background to the U.S. wizarding world, I felt a serious lack of introduction to the characters. I saw the movie twice this past weekend and honestly, consider me uninformed or accuse me of not doing enough pre-movie research, but I didn’t even know some of the characters’ names the first time I watched it. Not just that, but I didn’t feel like I knew Newt’s story well enough. Now, I know that we only knew so many details about Harry and Co. because we had seven books plus a lot of supplementary literature, and that there are going to be four more movies, but I was yearning for more information on Newt. All we were really given was that he’s not exactly a people person, he had some sort of connection with Leta Lestrange, he was a Hufflepuff taught by Dumbledore, and he has a rather well known war-hero brother. At this point, I’m not convinced Newt Scamander is going to be my next hero. I don’t know his redeeming qualities. Right now, he’s just a guy with a knack for animals and a cool case. Eddie Redmayne did do an excellent job portraying his mannerisms though. His ability to not make eye contact, the comfort and ease he expressed around his creatures, even his gait, all screamed “Newt Scamander” to me. The characters were, overall, not well developed. There was no background story yet, no context. Not to mention that the romance between Queenie and Jacob Kowalski seemed very forced and is something I hope doesn’t continue on through the next four films. Also, I know it’s only the beginning, but I would have liked to see more characters. I liked that I could name the entire student body of Hogwarts and their parents. I liked that I could successfully complete a Buzzfeed quiz where I could name 250+ Harry Potter characters. However, if there were more characters with the same lack of introduction as the ones we were given, I think I’d be very confused. I just expected a little more complexity from J.K. Rowling.

The movie was also very predictable. With such dark undertones, I was surprised the storyline seemed to be targeted for a much younger audience. Maybe I’m too big of a Potter fan and figured the ending out more quickly than most, but there were two major “plot twists” and character reveals that I saw coming from the start. But, along with that predictability, J.K. Rowling left us with so many questions. How could Newt have been kicked out of Hogwarts but still have a wand? How is he financing his worldwide expeditions? Why did it seem like Scamander knew Grindelwald well? Is Credence still alive? Was he really only in America to release a Thunderbird? That is a question that haunts me because, for someone so seemingly devoted to the protection of these animals and dedicated to releasing Frank in Arizona, Newt was pretty quick to say goodbye and let him loose over New York City. How long was Grindelwald disguised as Graves? Obviously long enough to build up a pretty good reputation, the President’s trust, and to rise to power in MACUSA. Was Graves a real person that Grindelwald is imitating or a complete pseudonym? Why is that only some of the times Newt’s case is opened beasts get out and not all of the time? I also have a lot of questions about the efficiency of the Obliviating rain. To what extent does that venom work and why didn’t it affect wizards? Does Jacob really not remember magic? And, the biggest question on my mind is, if the battle between Dumbledore and Grindelwald, which occurred in 1945, is likely going to be the plot of the last film, what are the other three in between going to be about? Is Newt still going to be our main character or is he going to be less important in these next movies? How related to "Fantastic Beasts" are the next four films going to be?

Something else very pressing is the lack of information on the Obscurus phenomenon. We know it is a dark, parasitical force that develops from a witch or wizard suppressing their magical ability. In Credence’s case, he was severely abused by his extremist adopted mother. We are told wizards who develop this Obscurus don’t usually live past childhood, but Credence was much older. We aren’t provided with a real explanation for this except for the fact that he is very powerful. I’m curious as to how suppressed magical ability has to be in order to develop this? Can’t someone argue Harry’s abilities were suppressed? Wouldn’t a lot of Muggle-borns be scared and ashamed of their power? Does it depend on a person’s moral and inherent character, or just their environment (excuse me for bringing in the psychological nature versus nurture debate)?

I’m nervous about the next film taking place in Paris, supposedly years later, because I had just gotten used to the fact that this one would be taking place in America. Now I’m supposed to learn about yet another wizarding culture, something I am excited for but, I need a period to adjust. Also unsure of how I am going to cope with a time frame of nearly twenty years. Harry Potter set a very formulaic precedent: one book and one movie per one year of Hogwarts. I didn’t picture Johnny Depp as Grindelwald, mostly because my mental image of Grindelwald is based mostly on what I was given in the Deathly Hallows films, that fleeting glimpse of the mischievous blonde boy jumping out the window. I was expecting more of a connection between Porpentina and Credence, rather than an arbitrary desire to help him. I wasn’t given a satisfying answer for why Graves picked Credence to help him, either, or how, if he had such powerful visions about the Obscurus, he failed to realize it was Credence all along.

My first thought and final takeaway from this long-awaited movie is that it was better than the "Cursed Child" screenplay released earlier this summer. That was one of the biggest disappointments to me. While I wasn’t necessarily disappointed with "Fantastic Beasts," seeing as I had no expectations going into it, I definitely wasn’t satisfied. One thing is for sure, though, J.K. Rowling has me hooked again. She has four films left to answer my questions, four films to get me to fall in love with Newt, Queenie, and the other’s as much as I love Harry, Ron, Hermione, and friends. This was a world completely distinct from what we Potterheads know and are used to. For now, all I can do is look forward to J.K. Rowling building up the complexities of a new story, intertwining characters, and hopefully connecting them to ones we already know, and bringing us many more years of magic.