Good movie, bad portrayal of book.

Rating: 7/10 (17 July 2007)

As an avid reader of the Harry Potter novels, I found this movie a terrible interpretation of the fifth book. I will at least give credit where it's due - as always, the casting for this movie was marvelous, the effects astounding. But I feel that they left out some very important information that would leave anybody trying to follow the storyline through movies alone in the dark. For example, the movie never explains who/what Aurors are, so leaving you to wonder why Shacklebolt and Tonks are even in the story at all.
There were many significant parts that were left out or altered. Umbridge giving Harry Potter a lifetime ban from Quidditch was a huge event in the book; so was McGonagall swearing her dedication to see Harry become an Auror, as it showed Harry that there were people who believed in him. Also, every scene in St. Mungo's was left out as well, something I believed quite significant.
Probably my biggest complaint of all was with the way they abbreviated Harry's grieving time over Sirius. In the books, it is a long, detailed process that really stresses how much Sirius' death devastates Harry, how he isolates himself from his friends for a few weeks, and how significant the closing conversation with Dumbledore really is.
I do understand that movies need to "trim the fat" on some novels to turn them into an appropriate-length movie. But I felt that by cutting so much of the development of Harry's character, people viewing the movie alone are going to have trouble grasping the depth that was intended for his role.