Harry's A Pothead

Rating: 5/10 (29 November 2005)

I just saw the latest installment of the Harry Potter saga on the big screen yesterday, and much as I want to give a good review for you Potter-heads out there, I just can't. Why? Well, let me put it this way...
The story - after three tries, it gets to be too boring already. I haven't read the book - but remember, we're talking about the film here. Harry goes back for another year at Hogwarts, gets embroiled in a spectacular snafu of some sort, comes out victorious in the end, all the while adding another chapter to his ultimate showdown with the evil Voldemort. Yes, you can actually use that as a summary for all four films. To just give a proper perspective, here's what actually transpired: I was more excited at the minute-or-so-length trailer of the new Superman movie than the whole three-hour length of the featured film.
The cinematography - Well, it's just probably again because I haven't read the book (but then again, what's the point in making the movie?), but I can't shake the feeling that they were cramming too much into one movie. A scene abruptly ends and shifts into another scene, creating too many whys and whoas. An example, in the opening scenes, they were in some sort of a Quidditch Super owl, and then suddenly they were back at their magical tent (who won?), and then suddenly there's bad guys blasting the whole place up (why?), and then Harry Pothead (I swear he looks like he's into marijuana or something, with his sunken eyes and unwashed hair) gets knocked out (he miraculously remains unscathed even as the whole place burns) and then the bad guys are all gone (what the...?) and then suddenly they were on a train for Hogwarts with all these new chicks (I didn't even know that the Chinese girl's character was named Cho Chang, I just read it in the papers) with them.
To top it off, there's always this flaw that most writers commit when writing an unplanned series, there's always a new character introduced in a new sequel who would turn out to be pivotal to the sequel's story. In this one, there's that bug-eyed "new professor" and the magistrate's son, who became the major psycho villain in this story (shades of Sorcerer's Stone?). This happens because J.K. Rowling hadn't banked on his first book making it that big, and hadn't therefore planned ahead on making the entire series a seamless plot.
And seriously, how could they have stayed in Hogwarts for four years (more for some) and not have heard of such a thing as the Tri-Wizards Tournament? That is certainly an inexcusable major plot flaw by Rowling. Ditto for them not knowing about the Yule Ball. What, it's just held every four years, like the Olympics maybe? Ridiculous.
Casting was also suspect, especially after they were forced to replace the original Dumbledore (who has since died) with the latest version (since part 3), who not only pales in comparison with the original guy, but acts like a juiced-up, excitable version of the supposedly "stern" and "esteemed" head wizard. Now he's acting like a wacky witch, complete with high-pitched squeals even! And I'm not the only one who has noticed this. Even the prim Professor Mc-something (played by the usually straight-faced Maggie Smith) was unusually (and most likely unintentionally) comical in this one.
And there's always a limit to how you can put the blame on "not reading the book." I read the full LOTR series at least ten years before the film and I still enjoyed the film. I didn't read the Bourne series but I also enjoyed the films. I think the Narnia book sucked, but I think I would like the film. And so on.
Thus, I was again ripped off of my hard-earned money to watch this embarrassment. I guess anything that has witchcraft and magic in it (watch out, Narnia) doesn't always come out LOTR-caliber.