Excellent production design is not enough to save convoluted plot involving ho-hum magic world derring-do

Rating: 5/10 (16 September 2017)

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is J.K. Rowling's first screenplay. Rowling's tale is a prequel to her Harry Potter franchise neatly set in a Roaring Twenties New York City. The production design is probably the best thing about the film and for those (like myself) who yearn for such nostalgic enterprises, one can remain glued to the screen until the film's climax, despite the limitations of a paltry script.
In truth, Fantastic Beasts probably could have used a better appellation such as "Much Ado about Nothing." Until the convoluted plot kicks in, Rowling serves up a decent enough protagonist in the form of author/researcher/ magizoologist Newt Scamander (winningly played by Eddie Redmayne). He carries around a beat up briefcase which is a portal to a magical world filled with the aforementioned beasts.
When the so-called fantastic creatures start escaping, Newt falls afoul of the Magic Congress of the United States (aka MACUSA), who have strict rules about non-magic people knowing about their secret world. A defrocked enforcer, a witch by the name of Tina Goldstein (played by Katherine Waterson, in a part where there's little to do) tries to rehabilitate her position by bringing Newt in to answer to the Congress for violating their rules. Only problem is that his briefcase was inadvertently switched in an encounter with an ex-factory worker, the "No-Maj" Jacob Kowalski and Newt is unceremoniously released.
Kowalski is the comic relief here and Rowling has some fun in contrasting the sophisticated Newt with the unkempt American. There is a rather good scene where Kowalski interacts with Newt's beasts after falling into the briefcase and emerging inside the magizoologist's world of wonders.
Rowling gets into trouble by introducing too many antagonists and by the denouement we're thoroughly confused as to who we should be mainly rooting against. First there's Mary Lou Barebone, a no-Maj crusader against the magic world, who is reminiscent of the Temperance League fanatics from the Prohibition era. Barebone's main claim to fame is she's the abusive mother of Credence, a problematic teen who we'll get to in a minute.
Worse is MACUSA's Director of Magical Security, Percival Graves, who blames one of Newt's creatures for killing prominent senator Henry Shaw Jr. Before you know it, Graves accuses Newt and Tina of conspiring with the dark wizard Gellert Grindelwald (another one of Rowling's antagonists who shows up much later), and the unlikely couple are sentenced to death. I'm not sure why Graves is so sinister but I suppose Rowling needs such a character to root against as a representative of rabid intolerance. No need to explain how Tina and Newt escape but suffice it to say, they do!
Things get more convoluted when we find out that Credence is the host of an Obscurus, some kind destructive energy creature that wreaks havoc on New York City. When the MACUSA enforcers show up, they're forced to kill Credence as he's the host of the uncontrollable Obscurus. Newt somehow reveals that Graves is actually Grindelwald, who ends up arrested by MAGUSA, not before surprisingly objecting to their non- fraternization policy between Maj and Non-Majers.
I couldn't help being reminded of the scene in the Wizard of Oz when the Good Witch Glenda puts everyone to sleep in the poppy field and a similar sequence of events happens here. With the Obscurus revealing its power to ordinary folk, Newt enlists one of his creatures to fly throughout the city, dropping a magic potion on all the inhabitants, erasing their memories and ensuring that the secret magical world will continue to remain incognito.
Fantastic Beasts features some whimsical, romantic scenes between Tina's sister, Queenie, a telepath who falls for Kowalski, who ends up (with Newt's help) in opening up his own bakery store. Much more disappointing are the fantastic beasts themselves--seen in similar incarnations, in fantasy films, of the last few decades.
Maybe it's a question of a lack of true stakes here or simply Rowling's inability to bring her tale to a fitful and truly exciting conclusion. See the 'Beasts' for the visuals and don't focus too much on the plot.