Snap, crackle, fizzle.

Rating: 7/10 (27 November 2005)

Like James Bond without Q or M, how can you have a Harry Potter film without the Dursley's? They were probably cut because they were not "essential" to the story and because this book was the longest of the 4 that have made it to the silver screen.
But in losing the Dursley's, the movie seems to have lost its way a bit. Since time was limited, I would argue that side plots should have been cut more. The Ball and teenage angst was cute, but took far too long.
In previous installments, the emotional power that drove the film was the extreme loss felt by Harry due to the death of his parents at the hands of Voldemort and how he is a child between two worlds.
The movie should have expanded on the emotional aspects of the film and it should have stayed focused on advancing the key elements in the plot (the rising of Voldemort and the way the wizarding community responded to it).
This would have given the movie greater continuity and allowed the director to have fewer loose ends.
In the past, as with this story, I have not read the Harry Potter books until after the movie -- simply because I didn't want to spoil the movie. After seeing the movie, I read the book. This was the first time in the Potter series that reading the book was essential to understanding the movie. That should not happen.
Indeed there was much from the book that needed to be cut to make a manageable movie. It seems a lot of ideas from the book were introduced halfway, then dropped. These holes in the storyline were very distracting when I was watching the movie.
I would argue that less emphasis was placed on the teen angst, and that time directed toward advancing the elements that lead to the next story.
While the movie had spectacular special effects, it lacked the emotional content of the previous works.
It was still an enjoyable movie, but as far as the series goes... it was by far the weakest of the lot.