Review proof, to be honest.

Rating: 7/10 (1 January 2017)

J.K.Rowling has such a strong fan base that any movie based in her magical world is essentially a licence to print money. After eight films from seven books we've also had a sequel of sorts (The Cursed Child) and now a prequel of sorts.
Written by Rowling herself in her first screenplay, the film concerns Newt Scamander, a minor figure in the original novels.
The movie clearly has a huge budget ($180m) and it shows on the screen. Beautifully detailed settings and costumes (1920's Manhattan) and excellent special effects don't come cheap and yet here they are.
Of course it would be nice to report that the thing is a triumph, but there are a few problems.
To start with - the script. There seems to be at least three or four different movies going on at once here. Newt and his chums seem to be in one of those animal adventure movies where people capture wild beasts and then deal with them back at the compound - sort of like "Hatari!", but with wands. There's the heroic Newt, the no-nonsense girl sidekick, her sister with the heart of gold and, in the Gabby Hayes comic relief role, the would be Baker who is non magical and so, conveniently needs to have everything explained to him, which makes him extra popular in the exposition scenes.
Then we have the doings back at the Mission House where a religious fanatic mother has to discipline (read "abuse") her wayward charges until one who has hidden dark powers gets their own back with fatal consequences. It plays a bit like "Carrie", although there's no bucket of pig's blood involved.
Then there's a really quite undeveloped bit about a family of a wealthy Newspaper Proprietor whose has two sons, one running for the Senate (in scenes that suggest he's running against Boss Jim W Gettys) and one who appears to be a wastrel and a disgrace to the family name. (I kept thinking of Groucho in "Horse Feathers": "You're a disgrace to our family name of Wagstaff, if such a thing is possible.")
And then there's the Magic stuff which seems to lack the charm that was found in Hogwarts. This movie is set in America and American Magic just seems nastier than the English kind. There's segregation to the point of apartheid, the death penalty used without a blink of an eye, registration of immigrants, black market animal trading... it all seems a bit dark and vicious. Colin Farrell gets to look all brooding and glowering as "Mr Graves" and rushes about waving his wand dramatically and threatening durance vile and a fate worse than death to our heroes.
These four different films keep rubbing up against each other in a variety of ways, seemingly in the hope that sooner or later the resultant friction might ignite something that passes for a plot.
It probably doesn't, but there's certainly a lot of sound and fury and CGI and people do things that are intended as excitement and at the end everyone realises what fools they've been not to listen to our hero all along and the sensible no nonsense girl surprises us and herself when she realises that she really can't live without him and Johnny Depp shows up and the movie ends.
There are, apparently, four more to come.
And then there's the gender politics of it all. Was I the only one who found the scenes where Mr Graves takes Credence out into the back alley to share "their secret" a bit dodgy? There's so much hugging and face stroking and whispered "I just want what's best for you" going on between a powerful middle aged man and a vulnerable teenager that it gets to be a bit.... well... dubious.
I've read that Graves is acting in "a fatherly way", but then comes the genuinely shocking moment (perhaps the only genuine shock in the film) where Graves slaps the boy across the face. Presumably "in a fatherly way".
Potterworld is, let's face it, resolutely heterosexual. Hogwarts must be the only boarding school in the known Universe where no teen aged student has ever developed a crush on another same sex student. There's not even a flamboyant art teacher. Dumbledore, we are told, is gay, but since there's no actual indication of this in either book or film that hardly counts. And he needn't have been played by Kenneth Williams ("Hello, I'm Dumbledore and this is my friend Sandy.") to get the point across.
Sure, the strong women role models are all there in spades. Hermione, Mrs Weasley, Professor McGonagall, Ginny are all strong, independent role models for girls. The President in this new film is a powerful woman - and a powerful woman of colour at that.
Rowling gives all sorts of kids who read the books someone to relate to. A bit nerdy and getting picked on? You could grow up to be a hero like Neville. A high achieving girl who gets pressure to be "more feminine"? Say hello to Hermione. Asian or black and trying to fit in? The Patels and Cho Chang are just what you need. Gay and worried about coming out? Well, there's...... well...... sorry, you're on your own.
And now there is a relationship on screen that could be seen as homosexual and it's age inappropriate, abusive and manipulative. Really?