What annoyed me about the latest Harry Potter film

First of all can I just put right up front – I really enjoyed this movie.

I even laughed out loud occasionally.

It was fun.  It was a well scoped version of the book… I’d see it again.

Oh and Alan Rickman – please!  His voice!  I love him.

But I was distracted.

And it detracted from the movie.

It was… annoying.

Tell me what you see in these photos…


Or maybe… what you don’t see…


Can you see what I’m getting at… (that’s a clue by the way).


Okay… well it all changes here…


Get it?

It was annoying because once I noticed it, I kept noticing it.

Stop reading now if you haven’t picked up what I’m talking about and don’t want to.

Still with me?


I love it that you’re still with me…


Here’s the thing:

Half the time Harry’s glasses appear to have no glass in them.

There is just no way they can be THAT clear.

The other half…

They definitely have glass.

Now I get that as a film-maker – those reflections would get in the way of your film.

The lighting must be hell.

But deal with it.

Because, when you don’t…

When you give up and have the second pair of frames ready for those tricky sequences, your audient (er, that’s me) spends the whole movie going:

“There isn’t any glass in those frames…”

And then…

“Oh!  They’ve put the glass in!”

It’s irritating and distracting.

I missed the funny moment in Slughorn’s first gathering…

And of course there is no rewind in the movies…

It spoiled my time in the house people!


Am I the only one?

10 Replies to “What annoyed me about the latest Harry Potter film”

  1. *Dipp*

    Ya Mum, You are.

    I did notice but I, as a good audient, CONTINUED watching because I don’t spend my time worrying about petty things when there is a hell good movie goin’ on!

    They did a great job on the movie.

  2. Argh! I haven’t seen it yet, but now I just KNOW that I’ll be looking out for this and it will annoy the hell out of me too! 🙂


  3. I thought you were talking about the shoddy job the eyebrow make-up artist did.

    By the way, i thought the movie was long and tedious, not at all like the other ones – I may have fallen asleep a couple of times.

  4. I haven’t seen the movie yet, but I noticed in your pictures there was no glass in the frames. I don’t think it will bother me when I finally see the movie though.

  5. Just wondering of you and Dipp talk to each other, or only online?

    My optometrist recently sold me new glasses that are described as “anti-reflection,” so that people dont get distracted when they look at me. Shame about the fact they he thought they would get distracted by looking at me. Pity too, therefore that they are also tinted, and go dark when I’m in the sun. Nevermind about that – perhaps Harry’s glasses are anti-reflection? Or maybe its just flat glass.

  6. I didn’t notice it in the movie and I did enjoy it and have a few laugh out loud moments. But there were some scenes from book that they didn’t include which I would have liked to have seen in the movie.

  7. Maybe his lenses were wearing the invisibility cloak…? Yeah, probably not.

    Haven’t seen the film but did notice from your pictures. And this is one reason I think HD is a big con. I know you saw it in the cinema but at home, if you had the film on a rental VHS and watched it on your 51cm CRT, you’d never pick it up.

    Some glasses in movies distract me because you can tell the lenses are made of window glass: completely flat! They don’t make glasses like that! So when it does catch the reflection of a light, it just looks wrong.

Comments are closed.