I saw it yesterday and really enjoyed it. I felt that the director was much more imaginative than Mr Columbus, and I, personally, don't mind that the film didn't slavishly follow the book as the first two did. (If I were to object to departure from the book, I would point to the second film, in which the ending radically departed from the spirit and feel of the book, taking on a strong action/adventure/heroic tone and transforming the phoenix, particularly its song.) There's little they could do but somehow replace Dumbledore, and no matter whom they chose, they would be criticized--I feel for Mr Gambon, who has been given a thankless task. Sure, I miss Mr Harris, too, but I thank Mr Gambon for stepping into such a difficult situation; it can't be easy--it's like taking on Irina Derevko; there's no upside to it. Others complained about the casting of Serius, and I have to admit that when I first heard that Gary Oldman had been cast I first thought of the role of Lupin. But I don't let my idea of "perfect casting" stand in the way of my enjoyment of a film!!! At least he has the chops. There have been plenty of times when a role hasn't been cast ideally according to my lights, but if I let it bother me, I'd prevent myself from having a good time unnecessarily. Heaven knows that Dracula is almost never cast properly. It's not like
The Running Man, where the film didn't even resemble an extremely good action story (and talk about bad casting for the story in the book!)--not that they're likely to come back and film it right in this post-911 world.
I thought the effects were nicely done (although Lupin's werewolf seemed a bit odd), and Buckbeak especially came out as a real character. Even the Whomping Willow had personality and provided context as we watched it through the seasons, dropping its leaves and shrugging off snow. Plus, these might be the strongest performances yet from our young actors. I can understand missing the quiddich, though.