Loved it totally!
I liked the first few Harry Potters; the ones with a full colour gamut. They presented me with this magical and fantastic world. Remember when Hogwart’s was first introduced? You were shown these crazy scenes of moving stair cases, ghosts within pictures, flying cars, etc… Towards the end of the Potter series, all of that magic was lost.
I saw it yesterday, and having not read any of the books, had some pleasant surprises, Snape most of all. Neville also moved up to my favorite character. Fun stuff, and really well-done 3D as well. :)
Again, I think that’s a book thing. After book 4 the focus changes somewhat.
I couldn’t agree more and I feel the same way about the books. “British Prep School Hijinks” + magic was the appeal originally; things became less interesting as the stakes were raised and it made less and less sense for Harry to keep coming back to Hogwarts each year.
I’ll still see this, of course…
I agree , HP1-4 were the lighter more kid friendly type of movies, the end of Goblet of Fire was the transition into the more serious tones ( the death of Cedric on screen) , movies 5,6,7pt1,7pt2 are much darker and stress that the tone has drastically changed and real bad shit can happen at any moment.
I never read any of the books, and I am only going to see Part 2 on Monday, but I feel they were all good movies, just different as the story needed to evolve.
Me and my two friends felt the 3d version was very dark(as if the contrast had been turned down too far) and offered nothing to compensate for it.
I’m a non-book reader, and the same thing happened to me. I thought the whole patronus deer thing indicated that Snape knocked up Harry’s Mom.
I did thoroughly enjoy the film though, and I think I walked out slightly less confused than in any previous HP film.
The story did need to evolve but unfortunately it didn’t. The acting and over all tone stayed within the 6-12 year old bracket. I felt no tension at all during any of the battle scenes, which all ended rather quickly and left me wondering, ‘is that all’. Yeah, I do like big explosions and shiny CGI splattered across the screen, but I do want some substance to each battle.
I hear people (and some of my friends) comparing Potter to this generation’s Star Wars but I just don’t get it. Remember when Ben fell to Darth Vader? Short fight; lots of substance and meaning. The only thing that comes close in the Potter universe is Dobby and his bit in e7 part 1.
I’m not bagging Harry Potter but the movies did not capture me the way I wanted to. My girlfriend says to read the books because a lot was skipped over in the movies. Now might be the time to.
Well, that skipping is why movie 5 is better than book 5, but I think books 1 - 4 capture the magic better than the films did. By a long way.
In 4 bodies start dropping. Cedric Diggory’s death is a pretty big deal, mostly because of how out of hand it was, and how easily the “best of the best” at Hogwarts could be killed. Sirius Black’s death in 5 is even bigger. Harry loses his last connection to his parents, and the closest thing to living family he has. And then Dumbledore fucking dies in 6. Imagine if Ben had been around through the last act of Jedi, had always been there to guide Luke, and then Lando killed him. And the death toll in 7 is out of control. These are characters that have been beloved for over a decade, and they’re dying all over the place! And these are, thematically, incredibly rich, poignant, harrowing and heartbreaking deaths. And that’s without mentioning Harry’s personal crucible. To claim they had no substance is to simply misunderstand what has occurred.
Ben’s death in Star Wars was iconic, but also deeply archetypal. For people of the right age it was a major life event, but it’s also just another wise old teacher dying before our hero thinks he’s ready. The story of Harry Potter is a lot more complicated that Star Wars, and for people of the right age, has every bit as much impact.
I’ve yet to read the books, but watching Part 2 Friday night I kept sensing quite a few deviations from the text. Am I right or was it the chicken tenders I’d just eaten at Applebee’s steering me wrong?
Saw it at Carmel the night before the Dance with Dragons signing, and had quite a few kids in the theater. It’s been a long time since I heard repeated applause watching a movie, but the kids were going nuts as each major baddie died or Ron and Hermione’s first kiss.
The thing that bothered me the most was in the scene in the room of requirement, when Malfoy tries to stop Harry, and he brings along his longtime sidekicks Goyle and Zabini. Did the kid playing Crabbe want too much money or something?
Wasn’t he arrested or something? Maybe I’m thinking of someone else, but I have a vague memory of one of them being in some real-world trouble.
Alan Rickman was so good in the few scenes he was in that it almost made up for them dropping some of the best lines in the book.
Rickman’s been criminally underused in most of the films, but he always does the best he can with what he’s given.
Anyway, I saw it yesterday, and it was decent but not more than that. The series as a whole has been rather meh–I enjoyed the first and third the most, but don’t plan to see any of them again. Gambon’s Dumbledore usually hits the wrong emotional notes, Rickman and Maggie Smith are underused, etc. etc. etc.
There are obviously those who love the films, though. Someone who loves them too much was sitting behind me to my left yesterday. Every time something even remotely sad happened, he started sobbbing. Then it took him literally five minutes to get himself back under control, during which time he’d exhale heavily and theatrically, sigh, groan, and so on. His emotions were so overwrought that I found myself wondering if he was trying to impress a girl with his sensitivity. Finally, he’d calm down, and then two minutes later something else would set him off again. It was one of my more unpleasant movie-going experiences. I’d rather return to the days of male machismo than share a theater with this guy again.
To claim they have no substance is to watch the movie. The movie fails utterly at conveying their loss. Arguing that those who disagree ‘just don’t get it’ isn’t a good enough rejoinder :)
I’ve never read the books, and after 7.2 went on wiki to see what the deal with Snape was (as the movies were terrible at conveying his relationship to Lily and Harry) and…yeah, the movies really do seem to have ended up letting down the books.
Within the overall framework of the films, I don’t think he could have been used any more than he was. Snape’s character is one of the more fun to watch to begin with, grows more interesting with time, and Rickman’s portrayal just made him all that more charismatic. If he’d had a greater presence he would have stolen the whole show without even meaning to. (Which we would both have enjoyed watching, but I can understand why it was something the filmmakers wanted to avoid.)
Agreed that more Maggie Smith would have been welcome.
There are obviously those who love the films, though. Someone who loves them too much was sitting behind me to my left yesterday. Every time something even remotely sad happened, he started sobbbing. Then it took him literally five minutes to get himself back under control, during which time he’d exhale heavily and theatrically, sigh, groan, and so on…
You should have whipped round in your seat, hissed “PETRIFICUS TOTALIS!!!” at him, and tasered him with your “wand.”
MOST theaters frown upon people whipping out their wands. Some theaters are fine with it, but they’re not the ones showing Harry Potter.
Yup. The movies don’t do the major deaths well at all. If you haven’t read the books, there’s absolutely no reason to think Cedric’s death is of any importance whatsoever. It just seems like they killed a kid to establish Voldemort as a real threat because you can’t kill Harry.