Overrated much?

Rating: 1/10 (6 December 2001)

I don't read Harry Potter and never intend to. I wasn't even going to see the movie but my conniving and manipulative friend tricked me into seeing it (long story; you wouldn't want to hear it). Needless to say, I did not like the movie, although my 11-year-old brother loved it to death.
First of all, let me state a few things. I do have an imagination. I grew up reading Roald Dahl and have seen "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" at least twice. I thought "Alice in Wonderland" was really cool. I have also seen "James and the Giant Peach", among many other adaptations of Roald Dahl's books, and I loved it. I'm looking forward to "Lord of the Rings", even though I wouldn't read the books. As for the "E.T." thing: My mom recommended "E.T." to me when one fine night I was at a loss of what to rent at the rental shop. I was reluctant at first, as I thought it was just another kid movie, and I don't usually watch kid movies anymore. I wasn't expecting anything from it but boredom. When the film concluded though, I was in near-tears. In my opinion, by comparing "Harry Potter" to such classics like "E.T." is a tad insulting to the said film. "E.T." was something fresh, even in the year 2001; "Harry Potter" was just trite and recycled.
"Harry Potter" struck me as a mix of "The Wizard of Oz" and "Hercules" (you know, the TV show starring Kevin Sorbo?) and just about every other fairy tale you've heard. First, there were the cliches. Of COURSE Harry's a poor, abused boy who lives with wicked foster parents! He simply HAS to be, or there wouldn't be a reason why he's such a supposed expert with wizardry. The opening sequences with Harry's foster family totally reeked of the story of "Cinderella" (sp?). The mean uncle in "Potter" is the mean stepmother in "Cinderella", and the obnoxious cousin in "Potter" is the obnoxious stepsisters in "Cinderella". I really could've done without that whole sob-story designated to evoke pity in the audience; I have heard it before, and I have heard it told better.
Another thing that made me squirm in my seat was its length. Unlike another equally hyped movie, "Titanic", 30 minutes of "Harry Potter" felt like an hour. When I saw "Titanic" though, I was surprised to find that 3 hours had passed in the darkened theatre; it felt like an hour and a half. I didn't understand -- and still don't -- why they couldn't have just cut to the chase and dump Harry in the dungeon hole to face-off with the bad, evil guy. On second thoughts, I also don't understand why they took almost an hour in getting Harry's butt to his magical school, whatever it's called. It was a good one hour wasted, and if you add that hour to the time they took to unravel the very unexciting events that took place after that, like the Quiddich game or however you spell it, you get almost two hours. Two hours of oh-so-spectacular events that were mostly irrelevant to the actual finding of the socerer's stone. If you don't call that tediously slow-paced, then I'm not sure if we saw the same movie.
The boy who played Harry was a terrible mis-cast. I can't imagine how he got the gig in the first place; he has got to be one of the most uninspired child actors I've seen. Even little Anna Paquin in "Jane Eyre" (sp) shone in comparison to him, and I didn't think she was all that wonderful in it. His acting was flat, dry and at times, laughable (his portrayal of fear towards the end made me laugh out loud), and even more so when he appeared in scenes with Emma Watson (I think that's her name, she played Hermonie, however one spells it) and Draco, whom I deemed as little Count Dracula. I liked only a few things about the movie, and Draco was among them (another person I liked was Oliver Wood, simply because he's a cute Brit). Emma Watson did well, as did the boy who played Ron and Draco. Child actors are capable of doing their jobs right; it all depends on who we're talking about.
The other thing I liked was its visual effects. I can hate the rest of it, but if I ever want to see it for a second time (probably due to permanent insanity), then it'd be for the effects. The school was pretty, and the floating spirits thingy inside was kind of cute, if not funny, though I don't know if that was the intention of the film-makers. The scene in the woods was also done pretty well; the entire look of the place gave the scene an almost creepy feeling. But it was destroyed when **spoiler** the half-human half-horse character (I forgot what you call them) came out to save Harry. I was just so reminded of the likes of "Hercules" that I started laughing. Beside me, my friend went, "What the hell?" In fact, she did it quite a lot throughout the whole picture.
I would definitely not recommend it to anyone I love. But judging from the amount of positive comments on this site, I guess a lot of people are going to like it. One advice though: if you're sick of the whole Harry Potter hype, avoid this film like the plague, which was what I intended to do. Trust me, you wouldn't want to see it. It'll just make you want to set fire to its many merchandises even more.