´óÏó´«Ã½

I saw Harry Potter last night and who cares if I am 30 years old; I can still appreciate the amazing special effects and the passion that goes into making these movies? When I left the cinema, I was a little unsure as to what I thought but in hindsight; I have to say this was actually a great film and has left me wanting to see the final instalment even more. I still think that the 3rd and 4th movies were the best but this had something else; a particular darkness that has taking it away from being just a film for kids. Did have a bit of a shock at the end due to the fact that I haven't read the books but I already have an idea about where that particular storyline will lead. I was also shocked that a major character didn't make an appearance at all but it didn't take anything away from the film. Definitely a must see and I may even be tempted to go back and watch it again!!

harry potter was realy good, i saw it with friends and we all enjoyed it. even though everyone knew what was going to happen, it was still a surprise coz we were wrapped up in what else had been going on. ron and hermione were so sweet!! and harry and ginny! one of the scariest yet though, everyone near me jumped at loads of parts of the film! but v.v.v. gd, want to see it again!

I have to admit, in general I am not a fan of Harry Potter. However, having small children, I have read the books and seen all the movies, and to me this was quite.... dead-eyed. There was a curious blankness about the cast, with even exalted thesps like Michael Gambon and Maggie Smith seeming to put nothing more into their performances than simply saying their lines and standing so they were in shot. The three young leads were the same as ever, with Rupert Grint demoted to the role of comedy distraction, his performance composing mainly of ridiculous simpering facial expressions and the occassional "bloody hell Harry!" comment. Given that Grint is easily the most talented of the trio, it has become obvious the HP producers are more taken with giving screentime to the more photogenic Radcliffe and Watson, their weak performances all the more galling given the juicy range of emotions they could portray.

Also, whilst I am aware that things inevitably have to be cut from the book (As Edith herself ranted earlier today), what they did cut here simply didn't make sense. Why is Harry looking at old memories? What of these Horcruxes, and what did happen to Dumbledore's hand? Why were there no consequences to Harry's use of Sectumsempra? Whilst covered in the book, these things which form an intricate part of the plot of the next two (dear god) films, they are shoehorned in here, something which exists because it has to, with no thought to the motivations and reasons behind these events. I know it's a kiddie film, but if kids can understand the motivations in the books, they can get it on screen. It's just another example of these films only catering to existing fans rather than attract new ones, as was their once stated intention.

The brightest spot for me was Tom Felton as Draco Malfoy. Despite extremely limited screen time, he managed to convey a very adult performance, emotional yet restrained as his character dealt with issues which wwould surely drive a young man to the brink of insanity, and possibly cost him his soul. He said more with one tortured stare into a mirror than Daniel Radcliffe did with half an hour of dialogue, and I think it's such quiet skills which could mark him out as the Potter star to watch in the future.

Don't get me wrong, the film was a ride, and a fairly enjoyable one. My girls loved it. I for one however, wanted to see Draco's movie. That would have been far more of a story.