A brave adaptation of HP3, but not enough depth.

Rating: 4/10 (17 June 2004)

I read somewhere that Cuaron did not read Harry Potter 3 before commencing work on the movie. I was therefore NOT expecting too much when I viewed the film on opening day. (Don't expect too much and you are often pleasantly surprised) Mostly, I was disappointed in the length, and depth. The length of the film is relatively short, BUT why? There is so much from the book that was left out, you always expect that. But surely the film could be longer to fit more in. I found myself staring at the screen credits searching for more (I never do that).
It was intense, and that is great, but it seemed like Harry was only at school for 2 weeks. I've never produced a movie myself, but surely some more scene repetition could be used to give the sense of depth I felt it lacked.
Great use of humor! (almost "Python" like) The fat lady even surpassed the book.
The movie was predicted as being "dark". That it was, but not as I would have expected. I expected a dark mood, but was more taken by the dark (or bleary) scenes. It looked cold and uninviting. Hogwarts looked derelict and unimpressive. Quiddich reminded me of a home movie of a wet day at an air show. And dementors flying? Visually they were OK, but they were too sterile. They are supposed to be vile, but came across as shrouded ghosts.
Essential characters were left out. No Cho, Cedric, Percy, or Woods. There are loads of scenes just not there, too many to mention. Some are vitally important (if not essential) to this story as well as to what is to come next.
That aside, it is a tremendous story, and even though I only average 3-4 films per year, I will be going to see this one again.