[4Freedom]

My problem with "Harry Potter" is that, even though it so blatantly rips-off "Star Wars", somehow the rip-off is such a stinker of a movie. It's almost as if they were so guilt ridden they were compelled to make another "Water World".

I guess it's not as easy as remove "Darth Vader", "Obi Wan Kenobi", "Luke Skywalker" and "Princess Lea", etc. and insert "Lord Voldemort", Headmaster Dumbledore", "Harry Potter" and "Hermione Grainger". "Jedi" out, "Wizards" in.

The lack of character development in this 2 1/2 hour debacle of a movie was ghastly.

Harry Potter critics have no fear. No magic here, at all. No talent either.

[Ward Smythe]

My problem with "Harry Potter" is that, even though it so blatantly rips-off "Star Wars", somehow the rip-off is such a stinker of a movie.

Beyond the fact that Harry lives with an aunt and uncle who didn't think a lot of Harry's parents (Uncle Owen wasn't too fond of what happened to Anakin...) where do you make your comparisons?

Sorry you didn't like the movie. I was enthralled. Everyone I know who has seen it also loved it. If there's a shortcoming it's simply that, in a 2 1/2 hour movie, you can only include so much of the book. Which is why I would recommend anyone read the book before seeing the movie.

I'll bet we say the same thing about The Lord of the Rings.

[better_dead_then_red]

The lack of character development in this 2 1/2 hour debacle of a movie was ghastly.

And that is why big chunks of the middle of the movie are such a yawn. The child "stars" are less then stellar as well. A lot of it is flat and seems to just be going through the motions of the book,

But hey, my kids thought it was the greatest. I had a few laughs and really enjoyed the first 20 minutes.