There were some interesting shot compositions that the director gave us that worked well for me:

I, too, disagree with iSm about Radcliffe. He's a good actor. I think he gets better and better with each film.

I recently read an interview where Radcliffe says he started out playing Harry just like, well, himself. He was like 10 years old or something, so had little idea how to "act." Later on, he felt it would be a jarring change of character if he changed that.

So maybe it's just Radcliffe himself I find pretty dull and characterless. He seemed positively lustrous when he was under the influence of guaranteed good luck. So maybe he's got acting chops after all, but himself has all the personality of a doorknob.

I just know the character as written seems a lot more lively to me. I don't find Radcliffe unappealing, just needlessly dull. And starkly less able to be persuasive to me in the last two films, when I found the acting of Grint and Watson to improve, um, dramatically.

:D

Yeah, specially with new what's his name played by yummy Freddie Stroma.

Here he is dancing around in his skivvies ... a little earlier in his career.

Anyway, as per my usual tradition, I have just now embarked on a re-reading of the book. I won't be very far into it by the time I see the movie again ... but I'm counting on liking it better the 2nd time, now that I know what it is, and won't be upset about what it isn't.


I truly enjoyed it up till the end, when I started to dislike it. Such the complete opposite of my experience with the novel. When the lights came on, I was so surprised to find my general feeling about the film ... unsatisfied and unhappy. The audience that cheered wildly at the titles two and half hours earlier and had laughed hardily throughout gave less than enthusiastic applause.

True, the story gets grim towards the end, and the mood at the conclusion is somber. I'm looking forward to my re-read and my re-watch very much.

Stoat and I are of the opinion:


We agree with lots of the other things others have mentioned before, especially regarding the title of the film.

We'll post more tomorrow and I may even convince the stoat to post something if I can.

Oh, and something more to support the "read the book first" theory:

Lani wanted to see it last night so we did.

I liked it better than the last few. That isn't to say I still don't really give much of a damn at all about these characters but I thought the movie was better put together than recent ones.

I suspect they're really are tons of things that are much better understood with book familiarity but unlike with the more recent films I didn't feel like I was being slapped in the face with them. The biggest was the title but if it weren't for this thread I'd just assume that has been set up for explanation in the movie (and I suppose it still may be).

There were others but for the most part I didn't feel that they made no sense without the back story as so often in the past. The antidote for Ron, not explained, but it wasn't really necessary for the story. It was enough to know that (or think based on presentation) that Harry is finally coming sufficiently into his knowledge that he can actually find -- every once in a while -- solutions of his own. Overall, though, he remains too passive in his own story for me to understand his appeal as a "hero."

Way too much of an episode of "Hogwarts - Seething Den of Adolescent Hormones." But there wasn't actually much larger plot development without that filler.

When Hermione said "you need us" I thought the appropriate response was "Why? You and Ron contributed absolutely nothing to the significant events of this movie beyond mooning over each other."

Look and feel, though, and narrative focus were much improved.

This was a problem I had with the books. Too much fate, not enough heroism.

Good fun. Good fun.

However,

Hahah, loved a review I recently came across in the New Yorker.

TeeHee. In all fairness, it's hard not to imitate Tolkien in fantasy. It would be like complaining every pirate movie ever made is ripping off the ride at Disneyland.

But the vanishing cabinet critique is spot-on. I understand they deleted the big battle scene lest the next movie seem repetitive, but then the entire reason for the vanishing cabinet is rendered moot and is a gaping plot hole of stupidity.

If the death eaters that come through the cabinet aren't going to attack the school, why go through all the trouble, that apparently takes the whole school year, to work out the bugs and transport through the cabinet? They went to great lengths to have the assassin, Draco, and his back-up, Snape, already installed and part of the accepted people at Hogwarts. If death eaters were going to come through the cabinet, why did they need these key players in place?

Gotta be careful when you eliminate some things from the book .... other things have to go also, or you risk making NO SENSE.