Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 35 out of 38
  2. Negative: 0 out of 38
  1. Reviewed by: Sara Brady
    100
    Newell puts his own stamp on the franchise and delivers the best Potter movie yet filmed.
  2. Reviewed by: Angie Errigo
    60
    Terrific effects and considerable charm, but, once again, you can't help wishing the filmmakers had been bolder with the adaptation.

See all 38 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Negative: 31 out of 280
  1. This Potter film finally has magical world that's believable. But seems like that costs a proper ending. If there would be a proper ending, this film would be da best of 'em all. But it doesn't. It's just great action that suddenly stops. Expand
    • 3 of 3 users said yes
  2. GeorgiaW.
    5
    I thought that the movie was enjoyable, definitely. However, I thought that Dumbledore was far too harsh - um, why would he push Harry? - and I preferred the original Dumbledore. I thought that Rupert Grint was excellent (easily the best of the trio), followed by Daniel Radcliffe. Emma Watson has issues with her acting. Seriously. Why would you continuously wiggle your eyebrows when trying to show an emotion? Why? WHY? Its useless - i'm so glad other people agree with me. I would have given up on her a long time ago too if i were her acting coach. Dear Lord. Also, the dress. You know the one - purple, floaty, various tiers...absolutely VILE. I don't think they could have possibly made a more disgusting dress. In the book it is periwinkle blue at least, not pink/purple (which, in itself, I don't have a problem with. Just as a dress...) And why the tiers? Couldn't they have made something elegant and chic? Why does she have to look like a meringue that was tie-dyed??? Otherwise, I thought it was excellent; very amusing. Daniel Radcliffe has certainly grown up, hasn't he? Very nice. Robert Pattinson, Clemence Poesy and (can't remember actor's name) Krum gave excellent performances, as did Miranda Richardson (fabulous fabulous fabulous). I though Katie Leung was pretty good too, though I wasn't at all expecting a Scottish accent (which, eventually, I got used to). Mad-Eye Moody was very funny, but lacked the mad bit, especially for those who wouldn't have read the book (not me - I am an avid Harry Potter fan, but I know they are out there). Ralph Fiennes was excellent also; rather creepy as opposed to downright terrifying, as he is in the books. Then again, I suppose thats the only way to portray a wizard like Voldemort, as the sheer dangerous elegance is impossible to act. Snape as always gave the best performance (he is my favourite character); Alan Rickman can really pull off the cruel, mean, but somewhat good character (is anyone else having issues about believing Snape's Death Eater-ship? I can't figure him out. Shame we don't know anything about his patronus or boggart). All in all, the most enjoyable Harry Potter film, but the fifth looks excellent. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  3. PhilipF.
    3
    What a jumbled mess. Special effects ae used to replace the story line. There is little or no character development and little motivation for the conduct of the characters. Only the avid reader will understand who the characters are and their relationships. It is way too violent and scary for pre-teens. As Robert Evans has said, if it's not on the page, it's not on the screen. Avoid this one and rent it if you must. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes

See all 280 User Reviews