Nothing like the book but a decent enough movie

Rating: 7/10 (14 July 2007)

So many great parts were skipped over, rushed with ridiculous cliché transition scenes, or simply changed because, apparently, it's impossible to include everything. But what can anyone reasonably expect?
I went into this expecting exactly what I saw, it's still just a tad annoying hearing people talk about how impossible it would be to follow the book. It's not impossible at all. Look at the matrix 2&3, look at pirates of the caribbean 2&3, look at LOTR (it's all one continuous story). Lots of "stories" have had to be split up into multiple films and they all worked great. It's just a tad short-sighted to say it wouldn't work with a harry potter film. I think a lot of what people enjoy is looking at the wizard world, seeing cool looking spells, and generally learning more about everything to do with the harry potter universe. You don't get much of that when a 26 hour read is condensed into a 2.5 hour film. I personally would love to see more of the "boring" parts of the book simply because it's interesting seeing a high-budget Hollywood interpretation of what was in the book. Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't be the least bit disappointed if the film-makers simply came out and said "this book is too long to put into a single film with out leaving out a lot of the book and changing a lot of other parts, so we're releasing it in two films." It's completely understandable. It's an 800 page book! LOTR books were only 400-600 pages and the films were considerably longer than any of the harry potter films.
Overall, it was a decent enough movie though. Great special effects, good enough acting (I wouldn't go so far as to say it was amazing). I'd say it's basically a standard high-budget film. Entertaining to watch, well worth my $10 so I could come and complain how it was nothing like the book :)