I'm pretty sure Cedric was never Hermione's boyfriend. She was all over Viktor Krum in "Goblet of Fire".

Cedric was Cho's boyfriend, I believe.

Hermione attempts to explain the rush of emotions that Cho must have felt -- all intensified by the fact that her boyfriend, Cedric, was killed the previous year --

The breaks are to make sure you the reader understand that Hermione is talking about Cho's feelings for Cho's boyfriend, Cedric! They aren't commas, they are breaks, like parentheses as in by the way, in case you didn't know that Cho's boyfriend Cedric died!

Oh all I really care about is seeing the Weasley twins turn Hogwarts into a swamp for a day totally screwing with Umbridge while McGonagall and others leave it to the bitch to clean it up herself. I also hope it's a great movie as it so far is my favorite of all the books.

JK Rowling may know how to write a ripping yarn, but "sturdy poetry" is pushing it.

Ugh, you shouldn't start off by praising the Azkaban movie if you want any credibility. Cuarón tried to make a great kids' book into an artsy romance drama. He seemed to feel inconvenienced by the few bits of magic the plot forced him to throw in. Critics were the only ones who loved that wretched movie. It was infuriating to read glowing reviews of a movie that flaunted its disdain for the book and the book's fans. I'm glad that someone was wise enough to send Cuarón back to directing art house films, where he belongs and where I can avoid his dreck.

Newell did a great job with the fourth film. I hope Yates has done a good job with the current film, because he's scheduled to do the sixth one as well.

And I very much liked Cuaron's movie. It was a necessary and important step up in class from the two before it, and I thought it was just beautifully done. I also liked that the director of GOF kept several of Cuaron's additions to the school's architecture, like that long stone covered bridge.

I would love Cuaron to come back and do the last movie.

The movie is the shortest to date for the third longest book of the series to date. And how can any movie less than two hours long sprawl in any fashion?

The best thing about the first two movies was that they sought, almost completely successfully, to be true to the books they represented. That meant, among other things, that they were subject to the same unevenness and unnecessary silliness that the books are, and so couldn't be called great movies, although they were certainly very good. And at least they recognized and honored the structure and the exquisitely whimsical feel of the stories.

Compare that to the unbelievable arrogance and imaginative failure of the Lord of the Rings disasters that came out about the same time, resulting in execrable movies that defiled one of the great tales of all literature. No disapprobation is too great for those nauseating pieces of dreck.

"Prisoner" wasn't quite as faithful to its subject matter, but its bends of and additions to the story showed a profound understanding of the overall feel and thrust of the book, and Cuaron's rich tone and atmosphere gave us a brilliant and satisfying telling. Particularly of note was the movie's capture of Hermione's growing confidence and power, one of the most appealing movie heroines of any era.

Which was a major reason why "Goblet" was so disappointing: they turned Hermione into a squeamish, timid, squeaking non-entity. What was up with that? But its main problem was that they were dealing with the silliest, most contrived, and most ethically muddled of the books.

Looking forward to Phoenix.

Well then you've found your calling, Cola: you're a film critic at heart :-) Don't feel too bad, my mother says I have the soul of an accountant and I've managed to come to terms with that.

At first when I saw Azkaban, I hated it. Now it is the favorite of all the movies for me because I do think that Curon understood the book and gave it a piece of himself.

I also agree that Goblet of Fire was a disappointment and I blame that on the director not understanding Dumbledore, Voldemort or Hermione or even the wizarding world, such as with the video screen effect for the Quidditch match, to bring such a high tech image into a world that is decidely non-tech made me think the director liked special effects more than he liked understanding the book or the characters and I am very happy to know he did not direct Phoenix.

The book upon which this movie is based was agonizingly long. Rowling desparately needed an editor to bring the beast to heel. I don't know how anyone could adapt that mess to a movie format and from what I could tell, they were unable to do so. 138 minutes is absurdly long for the subject matter, unless it is a closeup of Alan Rickman reading the phone book. That, I could tolerate.

and the Search for the Goblet of Cash, in which Harry turns 30. It's time to end this farce...

Mmm, Harry Potter is almost legal.... Thanks for using that picture for the article. :)

Duh.

My two cents:

It's dark. It's beautifully shot. It's very good. I've noticed a lot of critics are conflicted because it is so dark. They want the lightness and 'wizard world' amusements back. I disagree. We see the wizard world; we just see it at war.

My advice to those critics: Go back and read the book. The book is just very, very dark.

The movie does leave out many things I loved, but not to the detriment of the film. The actor who is playing Dumbledore is much more centered into his role in this film as well.

My second piece of advice to everyone who likes Harry Potter: Go see it. Totally worth it. The transition to adulthood and the painfulness of adolescence, happening right in the middle of a terrible time, is really handled well.

As for Ms. Zacharek's review, my only real quibble is the use of the word "sprawling" for the movie. The screenwriters deserve free drinks for years. They condensed a huge book into under three hours without killing the story. That's magic.