Quite watchable, but Rowling's (flawedly conceived) world fails to impress me.

Rating: Null/10 (23 September 2007)

I haven't read any of the books (I have much better things to do with my time), but perhaps that makes me more qualified to judge the movies on their own merit. HP 3 is a visually terrific movie, entertaining although not exactly gripping, with predictably good special-effects, and a top adult cast (Gambon, Rickman, Oldman, and Thewlis).
However, I have some problems with the logic and the characterization. Rowling has fallen into the same trap as many authors of kids' books and movies to portray half the adults as raving morons. (Just pandering to the young readers, nothing new...) It would seem that Malfoy has more leverage hence real power than all the teachers combined; he basically gets that "chicken" to be executed and loses Coltrane the job, instead of getting himself punished. I'm told by an avid HP fan that Snape (Rickman) covers for him, but surely this Snape cannot have THAT much power in the school. (And if he does, then the other teachers are morons for letting him.) Additionally, Malfoy is such a walking cliché as the "evil brat" that he ceases to be either interesting or effective as HP's same-age nemesis. The constant snickering is too cheap a gimmick even for crappy comic-books, plus there is the total illogic of how Malfoy can possibly be a leader for his friends when he displays extreme cowardice every ten minutes. Fantasy or not, a movie has to follow at least the most rudimentary rules/laws of human (group) psychology. Why Malfoy isn't abandoned 20 times over by his friends is beyond me. Evidently, Rowling has never been a boy (or?) so she doesn't understand how boys think. A leader does NOT strengthen his position by whining like a school-girl ten times a day. It's just absurd i.e. Malfoy's behaviour is total overkill, lacking the slightest subtlety or logic.
Another typical cliché is HP's character. Rowling succumbs yet again to a typical trap that female authors fall into when developing a main character who is a boy, and that is that she created the image of a semi-nerdy Harry Potter - much like Sue Townsend's absurdly unrealistic wimpy, annoying Adrian Mole. Why do women sympathize so much with the delta male boy? Why not make HP be an alpha-male in-the-making?
But Rowling is more concerned with making tons of money as quickly as possible, i.e. cashing in on the hype while it lasts, than with writing water-tight stories or avoiding some unnecessary clichés. Sure, the books have more detail hence should be less illogical than the movies, but I have been told by HP readers that many of my criticisms can be extended to the books as well. Besides... even if the books were flawlessly written (which I doubt) she is ultimately responsible for the movies' quality hence its flaws.
The scene in which HP is confronted with Sirius for the first time is messily written. If Thewlis and Oldman had a gram of intelligence they would tell HP straight away that it is the "mouse" that they want to kill, and not him. "Let's kill him" is a misleading plot-device meant to create suspense, but at the expense of logic.
Why would HP prevent Snape from killing or capturing Sirius? Just because he found out Sirius is his godfather? It doesn't wash.
If Hermione (what a dumb, dumb name) is so clever, so quick to make the right decisions, so strong-willed, so hard-working, so powerful, why doesn't she simply destroy Voldemort in this third part and solve everyone's problems? It's absurd that Hermione plays the leader in the movie's finale, with HP seeming lost and confused, never sure what to do next, following Hermione like some obedient, weak-willed puppy. Is this Rowling's nod to feminism? If HP is the main character - and especially "The One" - where are his leadership qualities or his cleverness?
The casting of Harry Potter is weak. Radcliffe is bland, insufficiently charismatic for the role. But what could one expect? It was nepotism at work, yet again...
There are some cute scenes, as with HP trying to open the "Monsters' Book".
On the extra DVD, someone from the crew actually said that the dementors have been made out to look unique, "like something that has never been seen before" on film. Tolkien's/Jackson's wraiths, anyone?
Rowling and the HP filmmakers have borrowed so much from Tolkien/Jackson, that they should at least have the decency to admit to it and not lie through their teeth.
The director Cuaron went on to make one of the worst films of this decade, "Children Of Men". Watch it and laugh...