Sigh!

Rating: Null/10 (7 June 2004)

Apparently, Peter Jackson (and Mel Gibson for that matter) have not gotten their point across to Hollywood. (After seeing POA I'm not sure they ever will). Why is it so difficult to understand that if a story is well known and has a strong fan base, people will be willing to spend not only their money, but their time to see it. Didn't POTC prove this (in another language no less)? Didn't LOTR prove this? Three times?
It must be said however, that Alfonso Cuarons' vision did indeed improve upon the telling of this story in some interesting ways (I really did like his take on the quidditch match, even if it was too short ). And, had the screenplay been more developed, unnecessary silliness dropped (like shrunken heads), and slower pacing used I believe his art house style would have been the icing on the cake. But, as you can't put icing on cake batter, this ended up being nothing more than an unresolved mess.There was simply too much poetic license.
For instance, (*SPOILERS AHEAD*) I didn't think the uniforms, or lack of them, would bother me as much as it did. It only occurred to me later on that when you forget about their uniforms you forget about their houses, and when you forget about their houses you forget what their houses stand for. This could very easily explain why Ron Weasley has become a caricature and not the well rounded, impulsive but brave character that he is on the printed page. I mean, nothing, but nothing made me as angry as hearing Hermione say Ron's lines in the shrieking shack ("If you kill Harry you'll have to kill us too"). Was it really necessary to rob this character of his one defining moment in the film? Was it really necessary to make Hermione braver than she was in the book? Clearly this is a problem with Hollywood and not with Rupert Grints' performance (as some would like to suggest). For some reason groups of three always result in one character on permanent comic relief detail (see Gimli,LOTR). I can only hope they fix this in future films because if you can't stay true to the characters or the book this is really just a waste of everyones money (and time).
And, speaking of characters, where in the world was Alicia Spinnet, Katie Bell, Angelina Johnson, Lee Jordan, Colin Creavy, Goyle and Oliver Wood? Changing the Hogwarts grounds wasn't nearly as distracting as removing these people from the story. It was as if the foundation laid down in the previous books (not just the films) was just tossed into the garbage can. I hardly recognized anyone.
With that said, I really do believe that Cuaron fleshed out the main characters very well, showing a nice camaraderie and genuine friendship. Dan Radcliffe met the new challenges of Harry head on and did a great job.Emma Watson is Hermione (I just wish she was the Hermione of the book and not Hermionevampireslayer90210). And Rupert Grint just needs better material to work with and more respect from the screenwriters. Even Neville is good (when not reduced to slapstick) and Malfoy would be a worthy adversary if just taken seriously. There were more problems but I think that more than enough people have said more than enough things about them. For me, this really isn't an either/or situation. Columbus' structure with Cuarons' visual embellishments could have easily put this movie over the top. As it stands, I think I'm more disappointed with what it could have been than what it wasn't . And I really hope that the next time fans of the book (who would like to see some semblance of what they read) are at least taken into consideration. All in all, seeing this movie was like being transported to Oz..... and finding that it too was simply black and white.