theonlysaneone wrote:
Good movies don't have to stay true to the book. You should judge the movie on its own merits: Did it tell the story well? Was the acting good?
I think the best comparison here, if what you're saying is true, is Goblet of Fire. That movie felt REALLY rushed, but that was because they tried to cram an enormous book into 2 hours.
In that respect no I don't think the acting was good at all. I'd suggest seeing it but then I'd be telling you to waste $9. I suppose it told the story, just a relatively different one from the book. I was hoping it would stay true to the book more like LOTR or Narnia. Yes those movies weren't perfect but in my mind they were far closer to reality. And part of their success I think was due to trying to stay true to the books. I haven't read the Potter books yet only because I felt like waiting for Rowlings to finish so I can't comment on them.
And contrary to what Christopher said I wasn't that impressed with special effects. Yes, some of the special effects were dead on but others seemed as if they skimped on them.
Bottom line I wasn't impressed and I won't be. I was just trying to gauge everyone elses opinion that might have seen it.