The difference is in the directing...

Rating: Null/10 (4 June 2004)

I just came home from the movie, having planned since last fall to be there on opening day with my daughter and her friend. The girls loved it. Maybe I'm getting old, but... First, I was not happy with the set and scenery changes - mind you, I specified "changes"; the look was quite good, but not what had been set up before. The look and layout of Hogwarts was already set. Why change continuity? Second, the storyline felt more "chopped up". I grant you that the third book is longer than the first two, but I really felt that more could have been done to maintain the integrity of the book. Third, it felt like the adults were hardly used at all, except Robbie Coltrane, and it seemed that he was only given the extra time because of the hippogriff that was so integral to the end of the story. No sign of Madam Pomfrey, Madam Hooch (and not much Quidditch either!), Sir Nicholas, Professor Sprout, or Professor Flitwick (although Warwick Davis did have a roll in this one as an unnamed professor). The Fat Lady has been changed. Maggie Smith, Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman were sorely underused. Michael Gambon will just have to take some getting used to (my vote was for Richard Attenborough), and I agree with the reviewer who, like I, didn't like the change in the backstory of Lupin, Lily and James. Did I like any of it? Yes, I did. There *was* an overall darker feeling that seemed to give the feeling of darker days ahead for Harry and his friends; a little more on the mature side, which is probably what my daughter and her friend liked about it. (And didn't you love seeing Malfoy get decked??). The kids are growing up, and with maturity will come more responsibility, and more serious times. See it if you wish to keep up with things, but be prepared for the changes.