|
Actually yes, I liked the last one.
I never expect movie adaptations to be anything more than the "essence" of the original. I read books because my imagination allows more freedom than a directors vision does. It allows for more details and explanations that something with a time constraint simply cannot provide. Lord of the Rings tried it. As much as I loved the movies I just can't bring myself to watch them much.
It's not that I want movies to be breakneck speed with no explanation behind the whys or whats, but I do expect that the story will need to omit subplots and small details in favor of more generic over arching story.
I was disappointed with some of the story elements, for instance none of the movies really explain what the deal is with the map and the animus's. You are shown that it's important, but then the next movie rolls around and the subject is mostly dropped. The book covers this much better than the movie does, of course.
They also glossed over some of the Weasly story from the last movie, especially the connection with the Death Eater. That was also bothersome.
But for people who have never read the books, they won't notice these things missing. If they have read the books, then they already have the "superior" version and the movie is just cliffnotes. Perhaps in some cases the imagination is superior to that of the visual interpretation.
|