Certainly not a bore.

Rating: 4/10 (23 January 2008)

The movie has around 30% of the book. They miss a lot of the interesting things such as the wizard sport, St. Mungo's (definately would've wanted to see a wizard hospital), and detail. In the book things progressed slowly and in the movie these things were introduced in whichever way seemed easiest. Like for example when Harry sees Mr. Weasley's attack, he goes to #12 Grimauld place then finds out Dumbledore wants him to learn mind-closing, in the movie after he sees the attack he goes to Dumbledore's office, somehow Dumbledore knew about it before Harry told him, and somehow he called Snape, and after he comes he drags Harry to his office to teach him mind-closing and another weird thing, how did they end up in Grimauld place? nothing makes sense, and in the movie, why did Cho be the sneak and there was no Marrieta? And why were there no acne on Cho's face? And the way Umbridge found out about the DA in the movie was pretty stupid.
And some stupid things were shown which weren't shown in the movie, like Harry and Cho's kiss, although it is understandable being a Hollywood film. And the last showdown between Dumbledore and Voldemort was exaggerated and the fighting against the order and the death eaters could've been shown better. To someone who hasn't ever read Harry Potter, the film is 'exciting' to those who have read- a disappointment. A movie which is mostly different from the book is totally pointless and confusing because it makes it hard to make the next film mainly because they have to make the themes same as the last movie, causing a plot change. (GRRRRRRRR!!!) It seems after the first two Harry Potter movies, quality went down the drain, hopefully they will attempt to make the 6th and 7th movie a LOT like the book.