I just with Steve Kloves was a better story teller and that David Yates didn't insist on putting his actors into tableaus in order to project internal, emotional states. Radcliffe, Watson, and Rupert (among others) are better actors than Yates handled them.
For instance, in the cupboard scene near the beginning of the movie, Harry simply stares at the cupboard under the stairs where he used to sleep. In the book, he talks to Hedwig about the experience, marveling at how small it seems now, etc. Why couldn't Yates and Kloves have Harry talk to Hedwig in the movie during this scene? It would have made the scene much better. Instead, the audience is left to guess and infer Harry's internal thoughts based on deadpan stares. Give me a break!
Or how about Hermione's reaction to Ron abandoning them in the forest? In the book, Hermione goes ballistic over it, crying her eyes out. In the movie, she's barely bothered about it, seemingly only to be torn about whether to stay or leave. And when Ron returns, the most she has to say is, "Don't think that lets you off the hook" or something similarly banal.
Again, I don't blame Radcliffe or Watson for this. The pattern applies to all the actors in Yates' movies. That means its the director, not the actors, who is at fault.
Yates consistently avoids having his actors act. Instead, he poses them and uses dramatic shots and lighting to portray their various internal states. He and Kloves need to learn to use dialogue and human reaction to tell the story.