Not really, since I don’t really consider the movies to be canon. The movie is just entertainment; a way to kill 2 hours while looking at some fantastic special effects. :-). The books are still the “real thing” for me.
There were other significant diffrences too; Hagrid’s COMC class isn’t shown, so it’s Luna who tells Harry about the Thestrals. And the whole episode at St. Mungos and the trip back to Grimmauld place is left out, so the Occlumency lessons begin right after Mr. Weasley’s attack.
Overall, I thought the Movie was OK, but the acting could have been a lot better. There wasn’t much emotion at all in Radcliffe and the other’s acting; very flat and monotone. The scene where Harry first arrives at Grimmauld place and meets up with Ron and Hermione, he doesn’t really work up into a tirade the way he should have. And the ending scene, where Harry trashes Dumbledore’s office, was made very somber instead of gut-wrenching and passionate, the way it should have been.
What did you think?
I thought the acting was better all around with the kids. I really wanted to see Dumbledore’s trashed office though!
St. Mungos -- that reminds me, is there much of Neville in the movie?
Yeah, and riding the Thestrals to the MoM is sort of out of the blue. If I hadn't read the book I'd be lost there.
Other than that you note the same things that jarred for me.
OTOH, Umbridge was very good, I would have had her just a hair more cloyingly sweet, and Luna was darn near perfect.
and was it just me or did Harry's glasses lack lenses in about half the scenes?
I enjoyed it, but was really distracted by what was/was not added to the movie and wondering if such and such a scene would be shown.
With the exception of Harry being so godawfully angry and emotional, this was my favorite book. I was glad that he was toned down. It seems to me that there was so much jumping from one thing to the next to advance the plot, that character development was nothing.
Umbridge was absolutely perfect.