MotorbikeMaintainanceGuy

This movie, although in black and white, is a fantastic movie. Although I was slightly disappointed that elements from the book (Aunt Alexandra and Dolphus Raymond chiefly) were not in the film, it is a wonderful summary of a wonderful book.

Fantastic acting from Gregory Peck helps make the film work. Mary Badham and John Megna are absolutely adorable as Scout and Dill. I feel Philip Alford deserves special credit for his portrayal as Jem - entirely believable as the boy who wants to help his father.

Despite the fact it is an incredibly good movie, read the book first. The movie gives a visual portrayal of characters, but the book has little nuances, little quirks that just capture life. The movie also cuts out Aunt Alexandra, and merges two characters together, and Aunt Alexandra is a key character in the book. So, read the fantastic classic that is To Kill a Mockingbird, then watch the fantastic film

I was extremely surprised at how well-liked this movie is amongst IMDb users - who are some of the harshest critics I know.

I thought this movie was appalling. Not because of the acting, all cast members did wonderfully - particularly Daniel Radcliffe as Potter, Emma Watson as Hermione, Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort and Robert Pattinson as Diggory. The special effects were a huge improvement on the sadly pathetic dementors of the third movie, and although there were some minor issues I had with appearances - Ron's hair was ... not well received, neither was Moody's eye, and for me, Michael Gambon cannot do Dumbledore well because Richard Harris did such an OUTSTANDING job, but he gets points for effort.

My issue with the film was the lack of detail. Rita Skeeter and the trouble she causes was completely ommitted, except for one scene, vital clues about Longbottom's family aren't connected, and where the hell was Dobby? And Winky? And important stuff about Crouch? I understood the movie only because I had read the book, my friend who had not read it (and yes, not everybody slogs through Harry Potter) did not understand Crouch well. The subplots - of which there were many - were focused on quickly - snapshots of each subplot, which is, frankly, not good enough. The directors and screenplay writers NEED to decide what they are ommitting, and what they are keeping, and not show the audience pieces of everything. Yes, the fourth book was a big book, but the fifth was bigger. The fifth movie will now have to recap the fourth in addition to its huge plots and subplots.

The actors did marvellously, and I commend them on a good performance despite a terrible screenplay.

It seems that once again, I am one of the few to criticise Harry Potter films (3/10 for Goblet of Fire). What spoilt this film largely for me was the special effects. The Dementors were a huge disappointment - they looked like men with pieces of black cloth over their heads. As with the Goblet of Fire, not enough time was spent on small but important details. Harry does not meet Cho in this movie, which provokes an unlikely glance at a random Ravenclaw in the fourth movie as Harry's basis for falling in love. Where was the quidditch? Where was Diggory?

Sirius Black and Remus Lupin are poor caricatures of deep characters. Black is not involved enough, he just hovers at the edge of the film at all times. Lupin does not look shabby with a neatly trimmed moustache and combed hair - he looks like a Muggle businessman. The scenery also changes inconsistently with a great whoppin' bridge appearing out of nowhere and gosh, Hagrid's hut has relocated.

Another detail which I forgot is the Boggart scene with the class and Lupin. As Harry steps forward, the Boggart clearly takes the shape of a Dementor, yet later on, Lupin claims he thought it would turn into Voldemort.

The only redeeming feature of this film was that the actors (with the exception of Black and Lupin who weren't provided with adequate script and just didn't look like the part respectively) did well.