Longest Book. Shortest movie.
That simple fact is pretty annoying...I mean how can they compact such a complex book into 138 minutes? They don't. They can't. And to try would be suicidal film making, doing nothing but making a big mess out of the film.
So let me tell you right now, if you insist on the plot adaptation being great, don't bother to see this movie. Don't feel guilty or disloyal.
But if you can ignore that fact that scenes are left out, you may rather enjoy this film, as did I.
The acting is just wonderful. A plethora of veteran, English actors only means good things. Whether it be Danielle Radcliffe with his surprisingly good display of disgust and hope, or Ralph Fiennes with his ingeniously frightening demeanor, or even Imelda Staunton with her deadly, torturous personality...you are bound to be awed by the cast.
Technical Aspects are also wonderful. Everything from the special effects, which are in my opinion incredible, to the cinematography, which make the unfathomably stunning set pieces look even more beautiful.
And since I insist on being a jerk and making fun of people who pay attention to the plot, let's talk about it. The plot, as you may of guessed, is fine with me. It's consistent. The movie went by fast but it didn't seem to just "skip along" which I believe is a negative trait possessed by the 4th one. They did leave out quite a lot of things, arguably some things that they could have easily included without making the film "a mess". But they didn't, and there is nothing I can do about it. I don't care enough to point my finger and say "the movie was terrible because...and this event happened at the beginning...when...and so..." You get my point.
In short, I feel they did a great job. Again, yes, they took out a lot, and it is technically the worst adaptation when compared to the other four, but then again it is a very complex book, and I feel they made the right decisions. It is obvious they weren't lazy.
I give it a 9/10, and will stand by my opinion it is the best out of the five films, easily.
That simple fact is pretty annoying...I mean how can they compact such a complex book into 138 minutes? They don't. They can't. And to try would be suicidal film making, doing nothing but making a big mess out of the film.
So let me tell you right now, if you insist on the plot adaptation being great, don't bother to see this movie. Don't feel guilty or disloyal.
But if you can ignore that fact that scenes are left out, you may rather enjoy this film, as did I.
The acting is just wonderful. A plethora of veteran, English actors only means good things. Whether it be Danielle Radcliffe with his surprisingly good display of disgust and hope, or Ralph Fiennes with his ingeniously frightening demeanor, or even Imelda Staunton with her deadly, torturous personality...you are bound to be awed by the cast.
Technical Aspects are also wonderful. Everything from the special effects, which are in my opinion incredible, to the cinematography, which make the unfathomably stunning set pieces look even more beautiful.
And since I insist on being a jerk and making fun of people who pay attention to the plot, let's talk about it. The plot, as you may of guessed, is fine with me. It's consistent. The movie went by fast but it didn't seem to just "skip along" which I believe is a negative trait possessed by the 4th one. They did leave out quite a lot of things, arguably some things that they could have easily included without making the film "a mess". But they didn't, and there is nothing I can do about it. I don't care enough to point my finger and say "the movie was terrible because...and this event happened at the beginning...when...and so..." You get my point.
In short, I feel they did a great job. Again, yes, they took out a lot, and it is technically the worst adaptation when compared to the other four, but then again it is a very complex book, and I feel they made the right decisions. It is obvious they weren't lazy.
I give it a 9/10, and will stand by my opinion it is the best out of the five films, easily.