The FIRST Harry Potter movie, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, was good because it brought the characters to life, and brought everything that was put into our imagination from the books onto the screen. I think we all know that. But, as you've probably heard from other famous negativists (if that's a word), this one is just more of the same thing, and therefore, it's not really that entertaining.

It starts out pretty cool, though. In the opening scene, there is a brilliant, meaningful shot of an endless field of homes that is literally ENDLESS- and they all look the same. I picked up right there that this shot was to explain the ordinary and boring life of the muggles, compared to the unique one of a wizard. I hope I'm not ruining anything by saying that to you- but that shot is really a work of art.

Then, after the brilliant shot, the camera flies down and focuses in on the ordinary Muggle family, the Dursleys, with the overweight father, mother, and son, and then, of course, little old wizard Harry Potter, who, at the moment, is being instructed by Mr. Dursley, who has a very important business meeting that will change his future forever, to stay inside his room, very quiet, and without moving. So, knowing that if he DOESN'T keep quiet, he will lose his permission to go to Hogwarts School of Wizardry or something like that, he decides to keep quiet.

What happens after this I'll keep a secret to anyone who hasn't seen the movie, but I know all of you who have read the books know what happens, and logic should tell anyone who hasn't seen or read that something does get Harry in trouble, and prevents him from going to Hogwarts, and then logic should also tell everyone that a fascinating series of events finally gets him to the school. It involves little weird creatures, "floo powder," and a flying car, and it's not really all that exciting, sadly.

So yes, Harry is back at Hogwarts, and right after we meet "Moaning Myrtle," some chick who died in a bathroom about 50 years ago, the movie started to lose my interest.

I don't know exactly what it was- lately when I've been watching films, I examine their flaws, but I can pick out a few flaws in a film and still enjoy it very much. I picked out about two direction flaws and three acting flaws in this one, and that's not really that much, but I just didn't find myself enjoying it.

The acting flaws were not really anything I should care about- Daniel Radcliffe, who played Harry, had a bad scene in the beginning, and Rupert Grint, the ladies' man who played Ron, just wasn't that good of an actor through and through, but at least he was 'charming' and could evoke a few laughs out of us. These are kids, though- I can accept bad acting in kids (and Ron wasn't THAT bad).

And the direction wasn't even bad- in fact, there were some seriously GREAT angles, and only about two bad ones that I can recall- one of the scenes in the end wasn't directed too well, but that one bad scene was made up by about 50 good ones. So what made this movie cause me a lack of enjoyment? It beats the hell out of me. But I guess for now, all I can say is that the movie doesn't spice up the excitement at all- it is, as I said, just more of the same thing.

And that sucks too, because the casting is awesome. Radcliffe makes Potter look just he did on the cover of the book, except the scar isn't in the right place (a small flaw). Rupert and Hermione do the same- and Hermione is going to grow up to be a very beautiful girl (no, it's not sick, I'm not saying she's hot, I'm saying she will be). And Richard Harris as Dumbledore- that couldn't be more perfect. Plus he plays the part so well, that it's really sad to see him gone like that- they better get someone great to replace him. Alan Rickman's place as Severus Snape is also well-placed. And let's not forget the excellent casting for that hateful Draco Malfoy.

And the set design is awesome too. Diagon Alley, the "mall for wizards," is a LOT different than I imagined, shows a better vision than mine and director Chris Columbus does a good job of displaying what he saw when he read the book. A Hogwarts castle itself- now that's just beautiful- all of the scenery, awesome.

But alas, the film just doesn't manage to bring out any new, more entertaining material, and doesn't even seem that interested in itself, and because of that, it's just plain not worth seeing. If I felt as if the movie liked itself more, then it might gain more points with me. Yes, I think that's it... not interested in itself enough... yes...

Rating: C

Recommended: No