Describe your first experience with watching the Harry Potter films

>>79560240
8 years old. I remember it was my mom, my aunt, my brother and I. I really wanted to see Monsters Inc, but they all wanted to see Harry Potter and I was upset because I had never heard of it before.

However, when we left the theatre, my little 8 year old mind was completely blown away and I became a huge fan ever since.

>1-2
god-tier kid movies, from my experience as a kid
>3
didn't "get" it when I was little, it's probably really good though
everything from 4 onward is kinda shit

i can't even remember what i did yesterday
how do you expect me to remember garbage from years ago

>>79560240
>why is Harry so boring and Ron so useless
then I stopped watching
Now I picked up one month ago
>Why are they all so bland and one-dimensional? Why Ginny? Why isn't Dudley the MC? Why didn't he fuck Luna? Where is the magic aspect besides these colorful lights leaking out of their sticks? Why is it so dark? Why is Voldemort such a shitty generic villain?

The first movie is so fucking comfy.

>that Diagon Alley reveal
>the Sorting Hat + great feast
>Christmas scenes

hnnnnnng

Someone post the copypasta already

In a word, dull

>>79560240

boredom. I got 45 minutes into the first movie, thought "this is gay" and then turned it off.

>>79560288
This is the correct opinion, good use of dubs

File: 1487117915293.jpg (1MB, 1623x2886px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1623x2886px

one of the dullest franchises in the history of movie franchises. Each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though r-right
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.