Severely lacking in detail!

Rating: 3/10 (8 December 2005)

I was extremely surprised at how well-liked this movie is amongst IMDb users - who are some of the harshest critics I know.
I thought this movie was appalling. Not because of the acting, all cast members did wonderfully - particularly Daniel Radcliffe as Potter, Emma Watson as Hermione, Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort and Robert Pattinson as Diggory. The special effects were a huge improvement on the sadly pathetic dementors of the third movie, and although there were some minor issues I had with appearances - Ron's hair was ... not well received, neither was Moody's eye, and for me, Michael Gambon cannot do Dumbledore well because Richard Harris did such an OUTSTANDING job, but he gets points for effort.
My issue with the film was the lack of detail. Rita Skeeter and the trouble she causes was completely ommitted, except for one scene, vital clues about Longbottom's family aren't connected, and where the hell was Dobby? And Winky? And important stuff about Crouch? I understood the movie only because I had read the book, my friend who had not read it (and yes, not everybody slogs through Harry Potter) did not understand Crouch well. The subplots - of which there were many - were focused on quickly - snapshots of each subplot, which is, frankly, not good enough. The directors and screenplay writers NEED to decide what they are ommitting, and what they are keeping, and not show the audience pieces of everything. Yes, the fourth book was a big book, but the fifth was bigger. The fifth movie will now have to recap the fourth in addition to its huge plots and subplots.
The actors did marvellously, and I commend them on a good performance despite a terrible screenplay.