A dissapointing journal into boredom

Rating: 3/10 (17 November 2001)

Harry Potter is a long, dry crawl through a thirsty desert. in the distance, dimly, you think you see a giant glass of water in the shape of Alan Rickman - only, when you get there, its not.
Where was the mystery and darkness everyone had told me would be there? From minute one I knew that he would overcome *every challenge* with panache and energy to spare. From minute one I knew that the evil wasn't any more sinister than my high-school economics professor: Valdemort is a tame and pale shadow of the evils of Darth Vader or Sauron; even Dennis the Menace's foil of Mr. Wilson had more depth of character and motivation.
At the movie's half-way point, I found myself eagerly awaiting the end of the film - not because it was keeping me on the edge of the seat, but because I wanted to go home. Obviously, this story was meant to be a book as it certainly doesn't flow well as a film (I could see several place where there was supposed to be the word "Chapter Five" or somesuch).
Of course, boring the audience could be a favorite trick added by the director, who also made the horrible attempt at a tear-jerker that was "Bicentennial Man", a yawn factory that is *also* a long, dry crawl through a thirsty desert, only you don't even get to *see* a glass of water.
Cinematically, so many of the scenes and filming styles were stolen directly from "Star Wars" (such as the chess game in the dining hall ["I suggest a *new* strategy, Artoo - let the wookie win"] to the Luke vs. Speederbike filming of Harry and enemy Slytherin Quidditch players). The editing was choppy and amateurish, and in this day of Jar Jar Binks, the 1997 quality of the special effects is criminal.
Stay in and play "Tony Hawk" instead.