1. What is the deal with Hollywood not including the characters in the titles in the actual movie??? (I know it is hard to condense 870 pages into a 2.5 hour movie, but they could have at least explained what the hell the Order was...)
2. Can the kid playing Harry actually act? I mean I know the main reason he was chosen is because he looked right, but after watching him in this role...I dunno, Maybe it's just the whole need of trying to put across 3 chapters of emotional discussions on your face in a 30 second train ride...(seriously, watch that scene and let me know what you think.)
3. As I walked out of the movie I realized that I have no idea whether the movie makes any logical sense as an actual movie. Hear me out... I have read and reread OotP (It is one of my favourite HP books) and therefore a 1 sentence mention in a scene, linked me back to a several chapter long scene in the book (this happened more than once) and I have no idea if that sentence, reference, etc, made any sense to those who were seeing the movie that hadn't read the book.
4. I liked the movie, I will be seeing it again in the theatre, however, i do feel a bit cheated for the reason mentioned above. And as mentioned above, it was mightily edited and condensed. I do not agree with much of the condensing (Like the other 4) but I did not write the scripts. One of the reasons this is one of my top two HP books is all the great Fred and George scenes, especially them taking leave of school and Umbridge. In the movie I felt it was highly condensed and kinda came out of nowhere. (I really wish they had snuck in the hallway swamp somewhere in the movie, but we did get Flitwick doing his happy dance which was nice.)
5. The score was spiffy and not a Williams clone, but had no unifying theme for the movie and lacked in several specific places - for instance - The flying around London on broomsticks, I mean I would hear something completely different than wimpy 'eh' music, but maybe thats just me... Umbridge needed a different theme - Did the composer even understand her character?? and how unbelievably foul and evil she was? some of that should have come thru in her theme and it didn't.
6. Speaking of Umbridge, Mad props to whoever did the kitten teaplates on the wall thing. That is one of the reasons I keep watching the movies even though they don't live up to the books - reading about how creepy it was was one thing, but seeing and hearing! the kitten teaplates on the wall was something completely different and gave a whole new dimension to the ambience.
7. No quidditch! Yay! I hate the quidditch scenes, I don't get the quidditch scenes, but I was a tad upset that they did not explain in the movie why there was no quidditch. In the book, Umbridge had taken away his broom, and thence took away something he was good at and further isolated him from his cadre of friends, i think some explanation at some point of that would have explained better why he so got into the DA stuff....
8. The DA scenes were pretty spiffy. They even showed that Patronus charms can manifest as an animal (Hermione got her otter!) However, why have they never mentioned in the movies that Harry's is a stag?? The animal his Father turned into. It was a bit of a character plot point in the book and they completely took that out. I don't get it.
Well, it was good. it was highly condensed, however I'm a bit confused how they are going to tie in a lot of Half-Blood Prince since they left a lot out... Eh, we will see.
Now, just 9 more days for the book...