A - B - C - D - E - F - G - H - I - J - K - L - M - N - O - P - Q - R - S - T - U - V - W - X - Y - Z

Well what can I say. I hadn't read the second book until after I watched the second movie. But I thought it was really good. I think the first one was probably better, although I love Dobby. The whole time in the theatre I had to pee. REALLY BADLY! But I just couldn't bring myself to leave. So at the end of the movie I ran like never before. I think I even knocked over a little kid. Sorry. All in all a great time. I definetly recommend it to anyone who's a Harry Potter fan, or even anyone who's not. Can't wait until the third one comes out and keep on writing J.K. Love Ya

If I was rating this movie based on its merits as a book adaptation, I would have given it one star. I greatly enjoyed the book by J.K. Rowling and went into the movie expecting to experience the same intrigue, humor, and suspense.

I left the theater wondering if the director is actually Gilderoy Lockhart. Although many of the major plot points from the book made it into the movie, the director felt the need to banish character development and any possible lulls in the story in favor of showing off what the special FX department can do. Aside from the fact that the special FX were sub-par when compared to contemporary fantasy movies (the scenes of the flying car were particularly bad, and not all of the sound FX seemed appropriate), the pacing of the movie was atrocious. The audience is fed scene after scene after scene of action without a break. Small action sequences in the book were amplified in length to compete with the "Pod Race" scene in Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. Violent scenes from the book that involved protagonists (such as Dobby beating himself up) were removed, or toned down, in order to “kiddify” the movie, despite the fact that it is an adaptation of a children's book. Instead of the worried, uncertain Harry Potter from the books, director Chris Columbus transformed him into a Hollywood hero who is devoid of personality. His apparent ability to easily vanquish any and all foes robs the movie of suspense.

Even so, a few kernels of humor and wonder fell through. The set designs were beautiful, and not all of the special FX were bad. The cast did an excellent job with what they had. As long as you are not expecting a deep story, you will be treated to 171 minutes of eye candy.

I think the major difference between the Lord of the Rings movie adaptations and the Harry Potter movie adaptations is the difference between a director who loved and understood the books, and a director who didn't.

What can I say? This was definitly the BEST movie I've ever seen! I'm eleven years old, and I admire Ms.
Rowling's gift to write such books.I'm very fussy about reading, some books I just take a glance at and
goodbye, I don't want to read you.However, the Harry Potter books have kept my eyes glued until the last page. The same follows with the movie, except that I was staring at the screen for three hours.I enjoyed it so much that the only time I pulled my eyes away from the screen was when my little sister asked me something or I explained something to my mum. Please keep it up, the third movie should be even better, and god, how long will it be?!
Thanx, from your no.1 fan, Amy