Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part 2

[Chadderz]

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!

I assumed the lack of nose and hair (and ears) was a decision to make Voldemort look more snake-like.

 

[Vorago]

Voldemort's a non convincing bad guy, he doesn't look evil enough.

 

[andydye]

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.

Tolkein was writing for his children who I think were younger even than that at the time...

Still apples and oranges quality wise!

 

[DwaynieAD]

Tolkein was writing for his children who I think were younger even than that at the time...

Still apples and oranges quality wise!

the hobbit is a children's book, the others definitely not

 

[poorbassist15]

I'm leaving to go see the movie now, I'll report on how bad it suc....I mean, how good it was.

 

[Dale D Dilly]

I'll go see it once the crowds start to thin a bit.

I think they're well-made, fun films, especially after the 4th when they get a little more grownup in content and style. The books are great kids' fare too.

They are what they are content-wise, but I think most will agree that the films are pretty well made. Most of the dialog is well written, the acting is decent across the board with a few really good actors in there, the scores and a lot of the cinematography are a treat within the genre, and the special effects are convincing enough to be fun. I think the overall atmosphere is pretty great for the most part too (with the one exception that they don't seem to realize super-dark lighting, and grey settings don't automatically make things sinister and depressing for four films straight).

I'd say the films stand well on their own outside of pandering to an established fan base: I got conned into watching the first Twilight movie one night, and though the content is contrary to my taste I kept an open mind on the production quality... My open mind was not rewarded.

 

[Muddslide]

Comparing HP to LOTR is comparing apples to oranges.

Agreed. Although I thought the LOTR films, while well done overall, also had plenty of cheesiness.

I just think of the HP movies as entertainment. Nothing wrong with entertainment. Not everything has to be deep and artistic. Haven't read any of the books and don't plan to, but since I have kids I have seen most of the HP movies and thought some were fun and worth a watch.

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

Well, both are too young to be "arousal-fodder" for me, but I think the girl who plays Ginny Weasely is far more fetching than Emma Watson.

And incidentally, I feel that Rupert Grint (the kid who plays Ron Weasely) is the only decent actor out of the three main kids (Harry, Hermione, and Ron.)

 

[Journey55]

I thought it was pretty good but they left out some minor stuff....like replacing Crabbe with some black guy, or not mentioning Lupin's kid til the end

 

[jmattbassplaya]

I thought it was pretty good but they left out some minor stuff....like replacing Crabbe with some black guy, or not mentioning Lupin's kid til the end

The ending battle definitely was a bit of a let down. It didn't play out the way it did in the book. Actually, the whole movie was kind of a let down. I guess if you watch both parts back to back this part would of been good, but without the first part it just seemed 'empty' - lots of action but no real substance to what was going on.