I was hoping that the first 2 films were just bad cause they were directed by the auteur who brought you Bicentennial Man and Home Alone 2. The Prisoner of Azkaban was actually entertaining - particularly the moment when Alan Rickman, Gary Oldman, and Devid Thewlis were facing off. I was thinking that perhaps the source material was no interpreted well in the first films, that the last film showed the true potential of J.K Rowling.
Well, after seeing the Goblet of Fire, I think the whole Harry Potter phenomenon is a fraud. All the hype and hoo-hah were for naught. The latest films is as boring as the first two films, but hey, the effects are nicer. Even Ralph Fiennes with no nose can't resucitate this dead horse. The scene with Harry and Voldemort tries to play out like Luke's first confrontation with Vader in Empire, but it falls so flat. The mystery of Mad-Eye Moody - so anticlimactic and devoid of any intrigue.
Moments that amused me some:
1. the Chinese girl with the Scottish brogue
2. the very uncomfortable scene where the annoying ghost keeps trying to look at Harry Potter's dong - no lie here, she tries to look at his dong
3. Jarvis Cocker singing and Warwick "leprechaun" Davis crowd surfing
4. fake giant hands of the weird french headmistress
5. trying to look for the french girl's cameltoe in her swimsuit
6. the progressive ugliness of Rupert Grint - a no soul ginger
7. the dancing leprechaun fireworks
8. harry swimming underwater with his glasses still on - i do it all the time
The poor generation of kids who don't know shit about what constitutes a genuinely good film - they think these films are classics and these books are literary events. Boo