Harry Potter? Couldn't Rowling have thought of a better name?

Rating: 1/10 (13 April 2011)

First off I'll start on the basics that others have mentioned. The acting is bad from the three child-actors. I thought this might be because they were so young but I've seen the fifth film and it still doesn't improve. Their acting is on a "school play" level with over-emphasised lines and facial expressions. Daniel Radcliffe was chosen for this film because he looks like the character but by the fifth film he no longer looks like him. The silly glasses make this slightly better but it's a cheap effect. The ginger kid was annoyance personified and I could write an essay on his irritating habits. I detest the way he uses soft swear words like bloody with that fake working class accent. The girl overdid the "goody goody girl" role.
The fact that they were friends from the start and stayed together the whole time was so unbelievable, by the fifth film they're still all together mainly. Rowling obviously copied this from other children's books but it doesn't make it any more believable. Those sort of "group" friendships never happen in school in real life.
"Harry Potter"? Couldn't she have thought of a better name. Only "John Smith" would have been more generic. A book or film in which the main character is called Harry Potter could be about anything. When I first heard about the books and the plot i.e. a boy who goes to wizard school, I immediately thought that it was just a copy of "The Worst Witch" by Jill Murphy. That book is more consistent, has better characters and is a true pleasure to read as a child. Regardless, Rowling's ideas have been done so many times before. I tried Harry Potter and I found it unreadable, how anyone could actually enjoy reading this pap is beyond me. The only explanation of why the books are so popular is because of media hype. The series came about just at the right time and was lucky in that the media and publishing companies were looking for something to hype so as to make a lot of money because the series is so generic and plagiarised it's not even funny.
Other characters were generic too. Robbie Coltrane's character is a standard in many children's books. He's the big, burly gentle giant grounds keeper or whatever who, although being big and strong, is actually very gentle, kind and becomes a friend to the children. The worst thing about this character though his his clichéd west-country accent. Arghhh! It's just so predictable! DumbleBORE is also generic: he's the wise old wizard who is both kind and tough but fair. He even has the big old white beard which practically every wizard in literature also has. There's also the supposed obvious "evil" character played by Alan Rickman who surprise surprise turns out not to be evil after all. Was that the big "twist" of the film/book? Good Lord, this must be aimed at the 50-90 IQ range. Harry's nemesis is a sort of young blonde Dracula lookalike who also can't act. His badness is never explained, it's obviously hoped by the producers that the watcher will not question why he's Harry's nemesis and just accept that he looks bad, does bad, says bad and that's that.
The story itself lacks imagination regarding the characters (see above), the setting and the plot. Rowling manages to incorporate a large number of overused mythical creatures and objects which causes the story to feel as though a child wrote it to include all her little fantasies. Everyone seems to ride brooms, even the men and boys despite that only witches traditionally rode them (she even gets that wrong); potions are brewed in cauldrons and it's never explained why potions are needed when wands seem able to do everything. I just don't get this "magic" thing (perhaps it be because I'm a "muggle", ugh horrid cutesy word makes me cringe). Magic seems in large to replace the need for modern technology. In fact, the whole setting at Hog-Farts seems to be a medieval castle where the children write using quills and flame torches hang on the walls. One would be forgiven for thinking that the need for magic would go if they had electricity. Just because magic is a fact of life why have all the other creatures and beasts of folklore to exist? Quidditch. What a ludicrous, pointless game. Despite the use of broomsticks (see above) Rowling still couldn't think up a better game. I had to pause the film to let the silliness of the game sink in: A whole team (yes a team!) of players goes against another in a sort of flying football/polo sort of game in which balls must go through goals to score points. It seems simple and unsilly enough albeit lacking imagination but the fact that each team possesses a player called a "seeker" who just flies after a golden ball with wings and if one of them catch it, their respective team wins immediately. What's the point of the rest of the game and players? A team could be winning easily and about to win and then the opposing team's seeker catches the golden ball in the last few seconds and wins! How utterly ridiculous! Why not just make the whole game about catching the golden ball and forget the other players and their task?! The plot of this film is incoherent and dull. The first three quarters are an ego trip for the special effects department and just show generic Harry exploring Hog-Farts with his new generic best buddies and gazing in awe at the wonderments inside. The last quarter is explaining some generic evil wizard who wants to come back from prison or something. Needless to say, generic Harry saves the day and is a hero and his "house" wins some cup or something. Big whoop. The old British actors they hired were just to legitimate the whole sordid affair.