Harry Potter: Not mediocre, but still average

Why am I always underwhelmed by the “Harry Potter” movies?
In the middle of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows Part One,” I thought to myself I’d really love watching this movie if I stumbled onto it on HBO at 2:30 a.m. and knew nothing about it.
This is how I happened to watch the original “Planet of the Apes” movie, along with “It’s a Wonderful Life,” and “The Breakfast Club.”
I happened to be watching TV when they came on, I happened to settle on that channel and two hours later I had watched the whole thing.
My feeling about the latest “Harry Potter” installment is, while it was a very well-made movie, I just couldn’t get pulled into it. Like the book on which it was based, it didn’t assertively hold my interest throughout. I think reading the book colored my movie experience as well.
A good gauge for how well a movie holds my interest is how often you have the presence of mind of check your watch.
A really great movie is so engrossing, I never look. I stay focused on the screen.
The worse a movie is, the more I look.
I saw the 6 p.m. show, and checked my watch at 7:05, 7:20, 7:35, 7:50 and then at the end of the movie.
This isn’t a bad record, all told, but it’s not great.
I wish I could say something else really insightful about the movie itself, instead of just my reaction to it.
It was well-directed, the special effects were awesome. The book on which it was based was a huge hit. (I have to admit, I found myself skimming though huge sections of the book and stopping when the story got interesting, but since I am not a truly rabid "Harry Potter" fan, that's only natural with a book that doggone long.)
There were no dumb moments. And, the movie ended on a cliff hanger, not a crappy final twist ending like this summer’s “Inception.” (For what it's worth, I still don’t know why "Inception" was said to be so revolutionary. I thought it was so clever it out-thought itself.)
I should have really liked “Part One.”
Instead, I just liked it.