Left an odd taste in my mouth!

Rating: 3/10 (26 November 2016)

This movie left an odd taste in my mouth. It took a little while to process what I had just seen but one thing became blaringly obvious:Underdeveloped. The story had no point. It delivered visually and emotionally, which left nothing of any real meaning behind except lethargy. Any coherent dialogue was delivered by the female cast. Which was just enough to help one understand anything of the story. The mind-reading sister had to give words to what the men enacted couldn't be expressed. Leaving the men to blunder through their reactions. Newt did perform some function of story shift. Still the character left you wondering who he was, a good hook for any movie goer, what he was thinking and how he was functioning. The latter two neutralizing any curiosity to learn more about the character. Overall making the watcher just as confused as Newt seemed to be.
J.K. Rowling was a good storyteller. Sorcerer's Stone through to the Goblet of Fire has a logical progression of storytelling. Development of characters interacting with each other and their environment. Arguably adolescents propels the three main characters into a whirlwind of emotional outbursts and irrational behavior. And steadily the male characters of the story begin to take a backseat to a higher reasoning of women, especially in the movies. Umbridge, Hermoine, Le Fleur, Ginny, Cho, Beatrixetc. All become characters of interest over persons such as Dumbledore, Potter or Voldemort.
The younger characters flaunt a flagrant disregard to authority as opposed to the first few books. Snapping and demanding much from what were mature composed adults. Instead of adventuresome, her stories become more philosophical, specifically of death. Death is glorified. Especially in sight of Potters return not being as critical or impactful as his death. (Side note: to kill death with death? Isn't that an oxymoron?) Then with the latest story many of her characters become mindless debutants operating more from feeling than from any rationale.
Take the workers escorting Porpentina to the death chamber, could you make them more brainless than have them smiling and leading them along like some brainwashed drone? All which left this story lover with spitting out the bad taste. The only three positive attributes of the movie were the creative visuals, adult magic users, as opposed to children who haven't a clue of what they are doing, and Jacob Kowalski. (Thank you Dan Fogler for being the one redeeming factor of the film: laughter.)
Thus, making me wonder does Rowling know what she is doing anymore. Is she just banking on a guaranteed product? Of what significance does any of the latest stories impart on the reader? Unlike classical works this pop fiction will likely fade and with it a story line unbecoming of any respectable piece of literature. A clear perspective of life rather than a jumble of pointless emotions and imagery.
This movie may tickle the senses but lacks substance leaving me saying: No seconds please!