Warning to those who are avid fans of J.K. Rowling--I LOATHE the Harry Potter books. Yes, I have read them. I find her writing to be more than a little plagiaristic of the style of C.S. Lewis, but without the skill that he employed. That being said, I thoroughly enjoyed both this and the first movie. Frankly, I don't care if the scriptwriters left this bit or that bit out; it is simply impossible for all parts of any novel to be completely included in a film without turning it into an epic of a minimum of seven hours, which is ridiculous. That is the nature of a film; much over two-and-a-half hours and the theatres are only going to be able to show a limited number of screenings, which will, of necessity, limit the profit to be made on the film--and the bottom line of any film project is "How much of a profit will it make?". (And, of course, how many people are going to be able to sit through it without multiple bathroom breaks? I had to run out myself once, cursing, just when they were about to "follow the spiders"...)
I found the casting to be clever and appropriate; of special note is, of course, the late Richard Harris as Dumbledore (and I wonder if they will make the obvious choice to replace him in the next movie with Max von Sydow, who could be made to look and sound exactly the same?) as well as the return of Robbie Coltrane and Alan Rickman. Both of these actors can actually act, as opposed to simply being screen personalities. The visual effects are stunning, although just a little too obviously digital in more than a few cases. The story is easily followed, which is more than I could say for the original books. The pacing was almost perfect; I only looked at my watch twice--my measure for a movie in which I am immersed. Both times occurred, I might add, when I was distracted by Rupert Grint's voice obviously cracking--they're going to have to do something about the fact that their stars are definitely more than a few miles down the road of adolescence.
This movie, of course, is raking in the cash. Deservedly so; it's not by any stretch of the imagination a movie of any deep and lasting meaning, but it gives good value for one's entertainment dollar, and at the scandalous prices that movie admissions are reaching now, that is certainly a ringing endorsement. It was able to take me away from the insanity of a stressful holiday season, and for that reason alone I was completely satisfied. See if it can do the same for you.
I found the casting to be clever and appropriate; of special note is, of course, the late Richard Harris as Dumbledore (and I wonder if they will make the obvious choice to replace him in the next movie with Max von Sydow, who could be made to look and sound exactly the same?) as well as the return of Robbie Coltrane and Alan Rickman. Both of these actors can actually act, as opposed to simply being screen personalities. The visual effects are stunning, although just a little too obviously digital in more than a few cases. The story is easily followed, which is more than I could say for the original books. The pacing was almost perfect; I only looked at my watch twice--my measure for a movie in which I am immersed. Both times occurred, I might add, when I was distracted by Rupert Grint's voice obviously cracking--they're going to have to do something about the fact that their stars are definitely more than a few miles down the road of adolescence.
This movie, of course, is raking in the cash. Deservedly so; it's not by any stretch of the imagination a movie of any deep and lasting meaning, but it gives good value for one's entertainment dollar, and at the scandalous prices that movie admissions are reaching now, that is certainly a ringing endorsement. It was able to take me away from the insanity of a stressful holiday season, and for that reason alone I was completely satisfied. See if it can do the same for you.