Stripped to the bone! And, Casting... hello? hello?

Rating: 7/10 (20 November 2005)

Firstly, I don't think it's a horrible movie. It's just that I've come to expect so much more from the Harry Potter movies.
I read that the movie makers considered making it into 2 movies, as the book is so long. Instead, they stripped it to the bone and made it into one long movie. They tried to cram too much into the 2.5 hour movie so there was not enough exposition or build-up to support the story. I couldn't see how this movie would make sense to people who had not read the book. I asked my companion (not a fiction reader) if he "got it"; and he admitted he was pretty clueless during much of the movie. It should have been so much better with more detailed story elements.
I was surprised they completely cut the characters Ludo Bagman and Winky, even though they had pretty significant roles in the book. I was looking forward to seeing them portrayed. If doing the story justice meant 2 movies, clearly that's what they should have done.
Casting in the first 2 movies was so spot-on! I could quibble, but really all the actors accurately reflected the characters in the books (the quibble, Hermione was a too pretty). Casting of ~new~ characters is the 3rd and 4th movies, on the other hand, ranges from "not deft" to "completely daft". The new Dumbledore doesn't do the character justice - he's too tense and and lacks authority. He doesn't have the air of calm self-possession that's so essential to the role. I find it jarring that the new Dumbledore lacks the confidence and wise-yet-humble presence of the novel's character. Similarly, I thought the depiction of Sirius Black was off balance in movie 3 (vs the book)- anger replacing the pathos of the novel's Sirius. But, I digress as he was not a part of this movie. I'm not comfortable with the movie version of Maxine. The Beauxbaton's head mistress was portrayed as a simpering romantic. In the book she is a woman with great strength of character with a bit of a chip on her shoulder when it comes to a romantic attachment with Hagrid. The worst character deviation was Mad-Eye Moody, who was shown as a clumsy oaf - a clown - on screen. In the book, he's talented and flinty, and his eccentricities were fully explained.
Speaking of Beauxbatons! What was with that entrance into the Great Hall? ... trooping in like little bluebirds, breathy gesturing Ahhhhh.... ahhhh...." as they flitted up the Grand Hall? They looked like something out of ~Madeline in London~! So weird. Another miscasting was the Fleur DeLacour character. The movie Fleur was shown as a regular sporty girl-next door type; whereas she is supposed to be part Veela, and thus more exotic, more beautiful, and slightly other worldly. Victor Krum was better cast as a steely Eastern European, but what happened to the slump-shouldered, toe-in footed grouch from the book? In the book, he was a bit of an anti-hero, on screen he was movie star beautiful.
The tone of the movie is dark and gloomy throughout The few attempts at a bit of comedy relief didn't do much to lighten things. For example, instead of being comical, Ron's angst at having to wear a frumpy set of dress robes related all to well the pain of self-consciousness suffered by teens. Actually, it was a quite a good bit of acting, but it didn't serve the purpose of providing a lighter episode as it did in the book.
It's just not "magical" like the prior movies.
Still, I think many people may like it better than the previous movies as it is more like a typical, action-oriented film. But, I don't go to Harry Potter movies to see "typical".