just not the same

Rating: 7/10 (16 November 2005)

I suppose it's my own fault for not liking this movie. It's not an awful movie, just diverts from the authentic story line way too often, deleting completely those little clues that stump you at the end after reading, leaving you wondering "why didn't I realize that sooner." One of Rowling's quirks that make her books so imaginative are those little details that transport you into the world of Harry Potter as a third part perspective. But this movie totally eliminated that for me.
So yes, if you haven't read the books, you'd probably rant on about how much you loved it, how much you adore Harry, Hermione, and Ron, when in actuality, you adore Daniel, Emma, and Rupert. I'll admit I adore Rupert in his gawky portal, but probably would think he's adorable in any role, because that's the kind of person he is. What I'm trying to say it, the acting is flat the innocent romance that J.K spent trying to develop, falls short in this movie, and is instead replaced with sexual innuendos that are not appropriate for a movie derived from a book credited "Age Range: 9 to 12." But instead seem to appeal to the age range of 16  60, heavily male oriented, perverts that have nothing better to do than drool over actors no where near legal age.
The intensity of the supposed story romance of Hermione and Ron seem to be lost in the real life attraction between Emma and Daniel. I suppose you'll have to see what I mean by this.
The CG seems to be lacking as well, considering the break through of recent movie blockbuster, the magical creatures seem so blatantly unreal. Not even bothering to return Dobby to form.
The one thing is did love in the movie was the panoramic shots of the school and its surroundings, but who wouldn't fall in love with a snow scene in a mountainous plain or a castle atop a cliff. Visually stunning backgrounds and extravagantly designed decor seem to be the only thing truly Harry Potter.