Just came back from the midnight premiere and let me say that I should not have read the book before watching the movie. Although good, SOOOOO much was left out and changed. I kept hoping to see certain memorable parts from the book that never made it into the movie. It's funny how it seems the books are getting longer and the movies shorter. I would love a good 3 hour movie done correctly, but when studios want more showing per screen, greed spoils a good solid book.

I watched the midnight showing as well. I haven't read any of the books but I have seen all the movies and I have a friend that is more than willing to give me all the details from the books. I too would rather see the films made longer and more content make its way in. Luna Lovegood was great. She had an air of ethereal essence to her, like she had one food in one world and and the other in another. I would have like to see more about her father in the film though. Nymphadora Tonks and Bellatrix Lestrange were great and needed more screen time. The tragedy in the film seemed a little down played to me though. Theres more I could say but I think a B to B is a fair grade.

While I haven't seen the movvie yet there has been a general trend in the Harry Potter serries. Each book has gotten larger, but the average movie length has remained the same. I for one as a 38 year old guy would not have a problem sitting through a 3 hour movie akin to the Lord of the Ring movies. However, due to the popularity of the Harry Potter serries among all age groups we tend to forget that the Potter books and their movies are written and produced for children. When you read a book to a child you can take breaks. Even when watching movies at home on DVD you can always hit the pause button. However, getting a child (especially a younger child) to sit down quietly in a movie theatre non stop for three or more hours is difficult at best. Not everyone in the theatre (again especially children here) can go 3 hours with out a pee break. I for one would love to see the return of the epic movie akin to The Ten Commandments of Ben Hur, but one, you would have to reintroduce the intermission; and two, the theatre companies don't want them as it reduces overall ticket sales because you they would have to reduce the amount of showing times due to the longer film. In all of the Potter films there has always been elements from the books that I personally wish that the director(s) or screen writer(s) had put in, but I have to accept the fact that you cannot take a 600 page book and put it on the screen and still keep children in their seats. That all being said I cannot wait to see this film, but I will go in a couple of weeks when the crowds die down.

So what's wrong with the movie. I haven't seen it but from the review, we have great acting, great pacing, the same great special effects, a visual that evokes the appropriate mood, humor, drama and even socially relevant comentary. You even said Radcliff performance added nuance to the character not found on the printed page. Sounds, like an A review to me. Especially as movies reviewed on this site rarely get lower than a B. If as #2 suggests the B is the right grade I'd like some idea (like the one #2 gave) as to why. Unless it's just that it might be inaccessable to the two or three people on who haven't seen the previous movies or read the books. Otherwise, great description of the movie, providing things to look forward to without giving away the plot.

I can't imagine which memorable scenes were left out (I'm seeing it tomorrow night). From the previews, I've already seen that my two favorite scenes are in the movie (Fred & George's Great Escape as well as Dumbledore's). The scenes I've seen of the battle at the end look to be one of the best wizarding battles put to film. If they're half as good as they appear from the previews, Marvel should sit up and take note before making their Dr. Strange live action movie.

At some point earlier in the series (was it Goblet of Fire?) they had discussed breaking the books into 2 part movies. Considering how rich with detail the books are (and interesting sides-stories etc..) I don't see why they couldn't have done it and been successful seeing how large the fanbase is. I think people who are just watching the movies could have been sucked in too with a good cliffhanger between parts. Being such a fan of the books it just seems such a shame to be turning these into audio-visual cliffnotes.

I liked the previous movie more than this one - it just seems like alot was left out and that the dvd will have 60 extra mins of movie

Mania is once again wrong. I can't believe they give this movie a B, but gave Transformers an A. I liked Transformers, it was a good show, great homage to the old school cartoon, but it lacked depth. Plus Prime getting his butt kicked was not cool. Order of the Phoenix was fantastic. Yes there were some changes from the book and a lot of cuts, but it was done extremely well. I thought David Yates included all of the most important parts. We can always gripe about it being too short, but we all know that the DVD version will be longer and that is great I will buy it, but I still thought the movie was fantastic and the best one yet. My only problem is that Michael Gambon shoud NOT be playing Dumbledore. I miss Richard Harris, but Gambon did much better this time around. He is just too loud. That is my only criticism. I loved the movie, although I missed Weasley is our King, Yates also cut out about two hundred pages of griping from the book which was nice. Well done, can't wait for the Half Blood Prince.

Yeah, I would not recommend reading any book within a couple months of going to see a film. I did that for the first Lord of the Rings, and instead of enjoying what was there, I was constantnly making a mental check mark of what wasn't there or changed from the book. I've not read book 5 in a couple years, and while I'm sure to remember one or two things that are missing, I won't likely note all 746 parts that were cut. But unless theaters are going to 1. charge more to make up for fewer screenings and 2. have intermissions so people can go to the bathroom... then 3 hour films are going to appeal to fewer theaters and patrons unless it is just that awesome of a film. When I was a "wee lad", I remember the theater would have an intermission for just about any movie that broke the two hour mark. Which actually, I think that would make sense - if people knew they could potty without missing an essential scene, more would be willing to buy concessions, which is where most of the money is made. Heck, some who hadn't gotten any at the beginning might buy some.

I think those are all very good ideas Galaga, going back to the idea of an intermission makes a ton of financial sense for the theatres as well... I loved the LOTR movies and had never read the books; after the movies I read them all, including The Hobbit, and was completely blown away by how much had been left out of the movies. If I had read them first, I know I would have been disappointed, so I'm glad I didn't... reading the books last, added so much more to the movie experience. So... if you have not read the Harry Potter books yet, I would suggest that you wait until all of the movies come out and then go back and read the entire HaPot series... You get the best of both experiences!