If you've read the book, the movie disappoints..

Rating: 1/10 (26 December 2010)

Sadly, Kloves and Yates took Rowling's richly detailed character driven story and turned into an action film. I found myself surprised at the realization a couple weeks ago that I had just finished reading the last installment of the Harry Potter books for a third time. Admittedly, I have not yet read the first four books; coincidentally, the first four movies, I liked. The last three books, I've read and perhaps not so coincidentally, I was disappointed by the films for all three (so far - in as much as the last book has been split into two parts). Rowling's writings of the books are very rich in detail, detail which illustrates quite beautifully the nuances of the relationships that the characters have with one another and thus offer the understanding for the how and why of the characters' development. Key details in Rowling's novels set up plot points and history for the subsequent novels. In The Half Blood Prince, the movie, Ginny leads Harry into the Room of Requirement to hide the potions book. In the novel, Harry decides to hide the book to avoid having it confiscated after using a curse hand-written in the book against Draco Malfoy. The importance of this change is in the final book, when Harry is looking for the Horcruxes he recalls having seen the Diadem of Ravenclaw on the bust perched on the cabinet in which he hid the book. Now that the movie has altered this happening, they've removed the setup for Harry finding one of the final Horcruxes in the Room of Requirement. Details such as these go towards showing the definition of the characters themselves...how Harry is different from Voldemort is his remarkable capacity to love in spite of all that he has suffered. He cares for his friends, whereas Voldemort has no friends. The "lessons" that Dumbledore has with Harry in the sixth book are important for Harry to learn all that he can to understand Tom Riddle and how he became Voldermort so that he will know how to defeat him. In the movie, these "lessons" are completely glossed over and there is no great understanding offered into Riddle's background and history. Like the comment Dumbledore makes about Tom keeping souvenirs, this is a clue for Harry when trying to figure out what objects Voldemort selected as his Horcruxes. In the book, The Order of the Phoenix, the members of Dumbledore's Army communicate via the enchanted Galleons, no mention of this at all in the movie and yet this is key for how the students communicate whilst at school in the last book while waging war. I do understand that the films would be way too long if they all followed the books to the letter, however, let me offer Sir Peter Jackson and his translation of Tolkien's critically acclaimed classic literature into three fantastic epic films that do absolute justice the books with exceptional scripts and filmmaking. Yates and Kloves would have done well to pause for a moment and asked if they were making action movies or were they trying to tell the story of Harry Potter. To me, filmmaking is storytelling in its own right. Granted, a book depends upon the imagination of the readers' to create a picture with the words on the page, while film removes the necessity of imagination because the picture is painted for the viewer via the interpretation of the filmmaker. Yet, in my opinion, Yates took too much liberty with the stories and changed them without regard to how it limited the understanding of the characters, their development, and the choices that they made. I could go on and on because there are so many more instances where the details cut from the books for the movies diminish the robustness of the characters that Rowling created, but to what end really? There was no mention of the relationship of the House Elf Kreacher with Harry and how much it had changed after Harry showed Kreacher the smallest of kindnesses by giving him the fake locket. How Kreacher then starting cooking wholesome comforting meals for the three friends while they were doing reconnaissance at the Ministry of Magic. Had the filmmakers chosen to show the time that Harry, Ron and Hermione had spent going back and forth under the cloak one at a time; shown how they had to move every time they said Voldemort's name because it had been "tabooed"; then Ron's defection and subsequent return would have been more logical, understandable, and forgivable. Had they shown in the last film that the students were fighting already when Harry and Dumbledore returned, introduced Fleur and Bill which sets up the wedding in the next film; shown the gravity of Bill's injuries, shown the strain for Tonks and Lupin. These moments were all in the books, and they are all integral parts of the story that the movies do not tell. The movies just barely skim the surface on these and many other points almost in arrogance with the assumption that a split second on screen is sufficient for the suspension of disbelief....in the case of a movie in the genre of fantasy, the suspension of disbelief is not so much the goal as is character development in the hopes that the audience is invested in the characters and wants to join them on the journey. This quality is missing from this film as well as the others that Yates and Kloves have done in the series. I want to say to them - it's not just all about the cool special effects gentlemen, the Harry Potter series is in fact an exploration of character, the depth of humanity in the face of death and the sacrifices one is willing to make for their friends and loved ones time and again despite tragedy; it's about the triumph of the human spirit and the capacity to love. See the film if you must, but just know, it's the missed the mark.