I've seen it twice and I don't get bored of it, its my favourite so far.

(No its not one of those things where every new Harry Potter movie that comes out is your favourite) Because Goblet of Fire was my worst and always will be.

I loved how they did Umbridge, I thought she was excellent. Exact to the book! And her office was brilliant with all the kittens on plates!

Oh.. Bellatrix Lestrange.. She was excellent! "Itty, Bitty, Baby... Potter!" Ha, I loved that line! And Hher laugh was fantastic, and the way she slid into the fireplace.. superb!

Oh, don't get me started on Luna. ABSOLUTELY great! I think the actress portrays her very well. I'm disapointed we didn't hear about a crumple horned snorkack, but at least we heard about a Nargle! Her voice was excellent...

Now.. Grawp.. Alot of people say he's too cute to be Grawp because in the books he's ugly, but does it really matter? i thought it was good to have a cute Grawp.. And Hermiones line "Put...Me..Down... NOW!" Actually made me laugh

One of the things that bugged me about the film was, Daniel Radcliffe's, (Who plays Harry) acting. I personally think he acted better in the first 3 films (Same with Rupert and Emma) but I'd say hes getting worse than them. Aren't you suposed to get better as you get older? Everytime he spoke it made me cringe..

"You will never know love.. or friendship.. and I feel sorry for you.."

No, just no.. And..

"I just feel really angry... all the time.."

Made me cringe so much.. Also, whenn he shouted at Draco and Dumbledore...

I think all the other child actors/actresses that went to the ministry [Hermione, Ron, Neville, Luna, Ginny] act better than him.

Overall a good movie :):)

I think it would have been very confusing for someone who hadn't read the book. It was a good movie, but I liked some of the others better (in honesty, I think the films have begun deteriorating in quality since the third one). I did enjoy it, but I think for those without prior knowledge of the story, it was very confusing.

Are we putting Daniel Radcliffe too much under the microscope? He is the key role and expectations are way high. Personally I didn't find him inadequate for the role. His shortcomings in that respect would become more evident in the next two movies but as a person he is maturing all the time of course and may grow into it, hopefully. The movies are well made but feel a little rushed. I'm sure most of the fans, especially those who read the book, would be quite happy sitting through a three hour movie or even longer. I hope there will be an extended version on DVD with cut scenes but as far as I know, not. Imelda Saunders' Umbridge was pretty good. I always saw Louise Fletcher in that role if she could manage the accent. Helena Bonham Carter was perfect as Bellatrix, I only wish she had more lines. She was so excellent as Morgan le Fay- 'don't be wude, Mordwed!'

I thought the 5th movie was good but really rushed. Most of the time I say a movie could've been 20 minutes shorter, this one should've been at least 20 minutes longer.

Imelda Staunton as Umbridge, Evanna Lynch as Luna, and Helena Bonham Carter were excellent in their roles though I think Carter has played that "crazy" role a few too many times.

As for Dan Radcliffe, I thought his acting was fine. Harry spends pretty much the entire book just being angry at everyone and every thing so there was really no stretch of the character. The next two books will see how good of an actor he is.

I thought it was a disgrace to the book. They left out the prefects, the scene at St. Mungos, and a ton of other stuff. I understand the time pressures they are under but they killed the book. Also Tonks seemed a lot meaner than she really is. She is a fun person but because they left her out so much that the only part where we see her is at the beginning where she is introduced.

i agree the movies are a little rushed but i still like them. i agree with thought that fans would be happy with a three hour harry potter installment