Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part 2

[tom once dead]

I watched it in 3D last night, and I thought it was pretty damn good. I have to say I preferred part 1 though.
Thoughts?

[dbhokie]

I thought it was coming out tonight. I checked tickets for tonight at the local theater..14 screens playing at midnight, all sold out. *shrugs*

[EdHunter]

Can't get all the fuss about Harry Potter in general. I read the first 4 books, and saw the first ?2? films, then age 10, gave up on the 5th book and moved on to Lord of the Rings, Orwell, Verne, Wells and Pratchett. When I was about 12, I went back to Harry Potter, just see how it stood up. Truth be told, I was astounded at how weak it was...

[dbhokie]

Originally Posted by EdHunter

Can't get all the fuss about Harry Potter in general. I read the first 4 books, and saw the first ?2? films, then age 10, gave up on the 5th book and moved on to Lord of the Rings, Orwell, Verne, Wells and Pratchett. When I was about 12, I went back to Harry Potter, just see how it stood up. Truth be told, I was astounded at how weak it was...

They are entertaining, nothing like the classics as far as in works of literature, but I enjoy them.

I started out with Tolkein and Lewis when I was quite young. Harry Potter was more an entertaining aside. Though I wouldn't consider Pratchett to be a whole lot better in terms of literary quality.

[EdHunter]

Originally Posted by dbhokie

They are entertaining, nothing like the classics as far as in works of literature, but I enjoy them.

I started out with Tolkein and Lewis when I was quite young. Harry Potter was more an entertaining aside. Though I wouldn't consider Pratchett to be a whole lot better in terms of literary quality.

You kidding? The bloke's a genius!

[dbhokie]

Originally Posted by EdHunter

You kidding? The bloke's a genius!

No, not kidding. I don't consider his style to be very eloquent, or genius. It is entertaining in the mode of common modern writing, so I enjoy it, but I would consider it leagues behind the likes of Tolkein, and renowned philologist Lewis, along with dozens of others. I am not saying it is bad, it is just not in my opinion anything spectacular. I think so of most modern writers I have read, literary quality, philology, critical writing has gone downhill quite a bit overall in my opinion.

[tom once dead]

Originally Posted by dbhokie

I thought it was coming out tonight. I checked tickets for tonight at the local theater..14 screens playing at midnight, all sold out. *shrugs*

It came out here (Australia) tuesday night.
I think for the first time ever something has been released in Australia before the states.

[hbarcat]

Remember, Harry Potter is aimed at children. It's written with 10-15 year old kids in mind and the movies are much the same. Comparing HP to LOTR is comparing apples to oranges.

The movies have been pretty good about making themselves fairly entertaining to the adults who are inevitably accompanying their kids to the theaters. I've not been too bored with any of the movies while bringing my daughter and her friends to see them. I admit the characters are all very one-dimensional and the plots all seem to lack any degree of verisimilitude but still it's good fun.

And the fact is, I like that so many kids are reading full length novels rather than playing video games and it's also refreshing to see movies for kids and teens where the heroes are actually decent people motivated by a desire to do good (unlike many of the obnoxious jerks so common of movie heroes) and who end up prevailing in the end over the forces of evil.

I think it's good for kids to see straight forward fantasy movies like this that are fun and entertaining while teaching them a little bit about right and wrong.

[EdHunter]

I get that it's brain-out, bubblegum, tabloid, asinine, simple stuff, and can respect the fact that it has kept a whole lotta kids' interest in reading, but it just doesn't do it for me. Decent gateway though, I must admit, forming a good bridge between Dahl and HG Wells.

As for the films, I jsut wanna see Emma Watson, tbh.

[hbarcat]

Originally Posted by EdHunter

I get that it's brain-out, bubblegum, tabloid, asinine, simple stuff, and can respect the fact that it has kept a whole lotta kids' interest in reading, but it just doesn't do it for me. Decent gateway though, I must admit, forming a good bridge between Dahl and HG Wells.

As for the films, I jsut wanna see Emma Watson, tbh.

I assume you mean Roald Dahl. My favorite author as a kid.

I can see the heavy influence of Dahl on the Harry Potter books. But Rowling's writing, IMO, is far short (in virtually every way) from Dahl's.



Mmmmmm. Emma Watson.

[carlos840]

Originally Posted by dbhokie

No, not kidding. I don't consider his style to be very eloquent, or genius. It is entertaining in the mode of common modern writing, so I enjoy it, but I would consider it leagues behind the likes of Tolkein, and renowned philologist Lewis, along with dozens of others. I am not saying it is bad, it is just not in my opinion anything spectacular. I think so of most modern writers I have read, literary quality, philology, critical writing has gone downhill quite a bit overall in my opinion.

First "Tolkein" could be a mistake but twice in different posts!

Its Tolkien!!!

[C.Linton]

Originally Posted by tom once dead

I watched it in 3D last night, and I thought it was pretty damn good. I have to say I preferred part 1 though.
Thoughts?

I like the HP movies, but my only concern with this one is the Dark Knight Rises trailer that was supposed to be shown. Any comments on that?

[IconBasser]

meh, I stopped watching after the sixth (and I had to be dragged along to see it). They're just... so awful.

[dbhokie]

Originally Posted by carlos840

First "Tolkein" could be a mistake but twice in different posts!

Its Tolkien!!!

Sometimes I am a tad dyslexic. Thank you though for the critical error correction.

[mindinspace]

I avidly read the HP books, and I'm pretty into the movies, save for the 3rd and 6th ones. I loved part 1, but part 2 left something to be desired...there were moments that I loved in the book that were completely different in the movie, and it wasn't the same for me. I feel like the series is over (i.e. a sense of closure), but I feel like the last movie could have been better and thus I feel somewhat dissatisfied. Wasn't a bad movie, just wasn't what I expected considering its score on rt.com and what people were saying about it (though I find the latter source to be much less reliable). Anyone else feel the same, or am I just crazy? :-P

[Pilgrim]

I think that Rowling is this generation's Tolkien. She has created books that will live for at least decades, and possibly longer.

I thought the first Deathly hallows movie should have been cut by at least 15 minutes, eliminating those interminable scenes of them roaming around the country. However, I did still enjoy it.

Haven't seen the final one, but I darn sure will. If you can't enjoy these, you need to turn your "kid" factor back up and chill.

[colcifer]

I'm not a fan but props to her for getting so many kids to appreciate novels.

Dahl ftw, btw. Maybe I should dig out my copy of Danny when I get home.

[Kwesi]

FAWKING LOVED IT!!!!!! Gave me the same feeling as when I finished the book -- that the ending could have been better but it was still AMAZING! Like, an A+ but not an A++ .

[Grateful]

We caught a midnight show at the insistence of my 14 year old daughter. It was great to see it with a theater full of animated (and sometimes disturbing) Potter fans.

Though I will never understand: With all that power to come back to life from gosh-only-knows where, and 'poof!' all over creation in a cool looking black dust swirl, why can't Voldemort winky-up a finished nose? (and maybe some Burt Reynolds hair to go with?) But then again, I grew up watching "Bewitched", where the nose is everything.

It was still great fun!

[tom once dead]

I think now I'll have to watch the whole series in order. I also thought the ending was a bit of a letdown after how epic the ending to part 1 was.