Rowling Disregards the Age-Old Maxim That Even a "Great Writer of Fiction" Rarely Translates Into a "Great Writer of Screenplays"----

Rating: 6/10 (23 September 2017)

---Operating on the assumption that a "winning team" is always a winning team, the leading creative talent responsible for the Harry Potter films reassembled to produce this Potter-affiliated prequel---but with one major change: JK Rowling, herself, wrote the screenplay (rather than the very talented "Potter" films screenwriter, Steve Kloves). The result---for those aware of the maxim that a "Good (even great) writer of fiction rarely makes a good writer of screenplays"---is as predictable, as it was avoidable: a meandering mess of a screenplay, with poor characterization, a too- broad storyline, and superfluous characters galore...
---The fact that Rowling's screenplay made it --intact--past individuals (such as Mr. Kloves, credited as a producer on Beasts), who surely were aware of its serious shortcomings, speaks more, I believe, to the clout and power of JK Rowling (and collaborators' fears of offending her) than on anything else. Indeed, Rowling has, unfortunately, morphed over the years, from a serious writer of excellent fantasy...into a Twitter-addicted "celebrity," with a serious interest in (and opinions, on) politics.... As we have seen (too many times) with actors who buy into their own self-importance, their talent usually suffers in the process....
----Examples of poor (even absent) character development in the film abound: from the almost totally nonexistent "backstory" of the chief protagonist, Newt, to the overly-broad depiction of "typical" Americans---to (seemingly integral) characters who are introduced--- only to inexplicably disappear completely....
Our introduction to Newtreveals to the viewer a largely self-centered and one-track individual,who is oblivious to those around himself--- to the point of treating the likable Kowalski character with contemptuous indifference (handling him roughly, for example, and showing not the least concern toward him for injuries he may have suffered). Absent are any discernible "lovable," Asperger's-type traits--such as self-consciousness or a studied effort to please. Plot devices---such as flashbacks--that could have introduced more of Newt's history to the audience (and provided some emotional connection) are absent. Nor are we provided with any compelling reason for Newt's "mission" to the US (other than the lame explanation that one of his animals needed to be released "in Arizona").....It is thus very difficult to empathize with (or even like) the character--or become involved in his nonexistent "mission"...
----The other main protagonist in "Beasts" is Tina--who is introduced to us as a nosy, authoritarian-like, snooper, with an almost pathological need to be deemed "in charge." It almost boggles the mind that Rowling would have had her barge into the PRESIDENT'S office--after she "arrested" Newt for bringing unauthorized magical creatures into New York (having recently had her clearances for making arrests "REVOKED" by that same President)...In addition, the low-level nature of the offense, itself-- makes the character appear not only insufferably self-important---but utterly clueless..Boh the character (and actress who portrayed her) are stiff and wooden in Beasts (and not very likable ).....
---I do not know how many Americans Ms. Rowling personally knows--or how much time she has spent in the US--but, judging by her portrayals of Americans in the film, I would say that her exposure to both have been minimal....Depictions of most of the characters are overly-broad and loud (with Brooklyn accents and slang in liberal usage). For her secondary protagonists, Rowling uses cardboard, 1930's-era film staples, such as the"Dumb-Blonde-With-Big-Heart-and-Hot-Body-Falling-For-The-Homely- Joe"(Queenie), and the "Honest-Working-Stiff-With-A-Dream," (Kowalski). Despite the hackneyed characters, it speaks volumes that these two are the emotional "stand-outs" in the film (due both to the excellent portrayals by the actors---but, especially due to the fact that the character of Kowalski is the only one in the entire film whose backstory has been at least minimally flushed out; we both KNOW his dreams and motivations---and his inherent decency)....
---One of the most glaring deficiencies in the story, however (and utterly incomprehensible) are the "disappearing" characters. Take, for example, the "editor" of the NY Daily and his sons : quite a bit of screen time is used in introducing us to the editor (with the stereotypical "underperforming second son" attempting to be noticed by a father only interested in his super-star, Senatorial "elder brother"). And WHERE, exactly, does Rowling TAKE these characters--or us? Not ANWHERE....After a bizarre and unnecessary, newsroom visit by the editor's younger son--who drags a family of anti- witchcraft activists in his wake, hoping to interest his father in covering their story in his paper--the editor's elder son, a senator, makes an exceedingly unlikely, non-senatorial put- down to one of the anti-witchcraft zealots (who is a repressed wizard), causing him to seek vengeance, by killing the Senator during a speech later that evening....And the younger son? After his relatively involved introduction as a very angry, sleighted, younger son, who believes that witches have infiltrated NY---he simply VANISHES FROM THE REST OF THE FILM. Other than a millisecond's brief shot of his face at the very end of the film---not a PEEP is heard from him again...WTH was the POINT of even wasting the celluloid on this character? ....Glaring script errors such as this are rarely seen in big studio films---even more rarely, in super-big-budget films...Again, a simply inconceivable--and elementary--basic storytelling error...
----The musical score to the picture is lovely---as are the special effects. The "magical creatures" are...somewhat magical...although, perhaps not quite as inventive as they could have been. The depiction of different time zones and regions--only yards apart--within Newt's "suitcase" is a very visually appealing concept, as are the majority of lesser magical creatures in the speakeasy Newt and his three protagonists attend midway through the film....Together with the quintessential "happy ending" that audiences prefer, and fairly decent acting (especially by secondary players Logan and Sudol), the film is worth a viewing....However, if one is expecting Beasts to rise to the level of the HP films, you are bound to be disappointed, as the WRITING has failed this film---quite unnecessarily...