Harry Potter for the MTV Generation

Rating: 8/10 (19 November 2005)

Oh where to start...
First off, the movie is very very good. The special effects are outstanding and the actors, acting on the material given and the movie as presented, were all superb. I cannot think of a single 'clinker' person or someone you wish wasn't there at all.
Furthermore, they were taking a massive massive book (JKR suffering from the curse of the ever increasing book-sizes by this period of her authorship... thankfully gotten under control by her latest book, kudos to whatever experienced author took her under their wing). So, there's no way they could fit in every single character and every single trivial but arguably important reference in the books.
Hokay, those things said...
1. The title of my article here. Since they really really tried to get as much of the book in the movie as possible, no scene seems to go over a minute. Scenes flip by like a music video, shooting past you with little buildup and less denouement. As soon as you begin to observe, take in and digest a scene, its gone. My first phrase to my fiancée after the film was "Harry Potter by Reader's Digest" and that about sums it up. Its a very well made 2 1/2hr music video and I'll need to see it a couple of more times to be able to absorb all of what they tried to include in the film. Downsides? The flashed scenes that readers of the book will understand must have left the casual moviegoer who has not read any HP totally baffled. The scene where Harry discovers a dead body in the forest went by so fast and no one even seemed to acknowledge it, let alone were you ever told who did it (yes I do know, but you gotta read the book I guess) 2. Rita Skeeter. If they were going to chop her part up *that* much so the point that she was pointless in the film, she should have been left out altogether. Skeeter's subplot in the book, trying to destroy Harry through lies and being an animagus in secret, is basically a warm-up for the Nazi-like Umbridge in the next book. But, being that these elements are totally cut out and hardly addressed, there's no point in her character and her fleeting moments on-screen could have been used to lengthen other scenes.
3. Dumbledore. Well, I thought Michael Gambon's portrayal of Dumbledore in the third film was about as exciting as cold-dishwater. Its almost as if they got a famous stage actor and said "oh, you're playing the head of a private school but..." and he just went away with that and came back with a performance from snore-ville. In this installment, they tried to correct that. Gambon now is trying his best Gandalf and playing Dumbledore in a more energized and manic style. This has seemed to upset many people as I've seen claims that his accent is forced and fake (I don't know if it is) and that his temper with Harry is totally out-of-character. I welcome the changes as they got it through Gambon's head that Dumbledore is supposed to be a magician on the same lines as Merlin and Gandalf and not a boring half-dead principal and stereotypical head of a British private school. I think his major problem though is that Richard Harris nailed Dumbledore *perfectly* and he's got a hard act to follow.
In conclusion though, most of these problems I mention above are simply coming from the fact that they took an overlong book and tried to adapt it in film format. Any film is going to get panned for what it has to leave out. Its a very good film and very well made. I just wish that the 30 second scenes and little plot development within scenes didn't make me wish I just watched a music video or 2 1/2 hour commercial for an unfinished product.