Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

I saw it, didn't like it much though. Not that it was bad, but it felt like a filler, sort of like the Twin Towers is a filler, or The Empire Strikes Back. It wasn't the beginning or the end, just a film.

Still great potterness, just... not worth the $10 I paid to see it.
 
thejadedmonkey said:
I saw it, didn't like it much though. Not that it was bad, but it felt like a filler, sort of like the Twin Towers is a filler, or The Empire Strikes Back. It wasn't the beginning or the end, just a film.

Still great potterness, just... not worth the $10 I paid to see it.
Click to expand...

I feel like this movie would be absolutely stunning if paired with the second half right after it. It feels a little jarring having it just end mid way through.
 
I might go see this installment given that I've heard that they've stayed true to the book (in large part).
 
NathanMuir said:
I might go see this installment given that I've heard that they've stayed true to the book (in large part).
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong - I'm not directly coming after you here - but I don't understand why it's so important for movies to exactly follow the books from which they're based. IMO, film is a different medium than print, and what works in one might not work in another. If the movie is well executed, who cares if it follows the book to the letter?
 
dmr727 said:
Don't get me wrong - I'm not directly coming after you here - but I don't understand why it's so important for movies to exactly follow the books from which they're based. IMO, film is a different medium than print, and what works in one might not work in another. If the movie is well executed, who cares if it follows the book to the letter?
Click to expand...

I've been able to follow them just fine without reading the books.
 
dmr727 said:
Don't get me wrong - I'm not directly coming after you here - but I don't understand why it's so important for movies to exactly follow the books from which they're based. IMO, film is a different medium than print, and what works in one might not work in another. If the movie is well executed, who cares if it follows the book to the letter?
Click to expand...

I completely understand where you're coming from and I agree with the bolded portion.

However, I usually like the book more than the movie (in general). In particular, there's just so much information in the HP books and the image I get in my head when I read them is much better, IMO, than what any movie could create or hope to capture in roughly two hours. I'd just rather not spoil that image in my head. :p
 
I saw it opening night and thought it was pretty awesome. It was a little long in some parts, but just as good a Potter film as ever. Bummed about Dobby, but overall, I think it was pretty enjoyable, and then it just ended out of nowhere. Check it out if you're a fan, I don't think you'd be disappointed.
 
leekohler said:
It was extremely good, just not for young kids. Hermione gets tortured in one scene that is quite disturbing. That's when the dad with his 5+ year old twin sons in front of me left the movie.

But yes, I thought it was really impressive.
Click to expand...

But the topless scene didn't bother him at all?

Yeah, I saw it on the weekend (amidst long line-ups, of course) and I liked it. Last night, just for fun, I put on "The Philosopher's Stone" -- wow, what a difference. So much younger, so much more innocent.
 
As a huge huge huge fan of the books (queueing up at midnight to get them) and having grown up with the books since 1997 (WOW) that's 13 years ago.

I really enjoyed this film because it stayed true to the book, apart from the odd bit where they'd clearly missed out huge chunks of the story in previous films and they had to work around it (i.e. Mundungus Fletcher)... and they missed out a major scene with harry finding a letter...... so i'm not sure how that's going to fit in with what he learns at the end (won't spoil it).

But I'd have quite happily sat there through another 2.5hours of cinema to see the rest of the story.

IMO the book to film transfer in this one was up there but not quite as good as Lord of the Rings (the best in my opinion).
 
I'm clearly going to have to read the book again. It's been years and I've forgotten most of the plot details.

That said, the movies are entertaining on their own right and don't require (or expect) knowledge from the book.
 
agree with you
the series of part one is really a good one..
but then it become more and more bleak,and child see must see with adult person.....
see the picture the cute boy become to be a man...and the film become more terrible and bleak than the first one..
harry-potter-wallpaper2.jpg

Harry-Potter-the-Order-Phoenix-458.jpg
 
I think they made this movie for adults intentionally. I, honestly, have never seen one second of a Harry movie, but their demographic/psychographic audience is getting older. Those that have followed them from the first movie are now more than likely 17+ years old.

If the parents that got their kids hooked on the series at an early age allowed their children to watch the early movies, certainly they will allow their kids now to watch.

It's call extending your audience, and they seem to be cashing in on it...BIG TIME.
 
leekohler said:
The first few are quite mediocre. They're fun, but the special effects are horrendous. They get progressively better.



You may be very lost if you haven't seen the others or read the books.
Click to expand...

I do say Chamber of secrets though is in my top 5 films I'd rate the following

Half blood Prince
Goblet of fire
Chamber of secrets
order of the pheonix
scorers stone.
 
They screwed up a bit Hermione was not supposed to all that but jenny was supposed to be the babe. but they are backwards.
 
dukebound85 said:
I was extremely let down. It was way too much like LoTR imo. Did not enjoy the setting at all as I love the whole Hogwartz thing.

Probably my least favorite in the series
Click to expand...

HOGWARTS comes into it in the second part. The whole point of this is to find/hunt down the horcruxes and destroy them, very similar to 'Lord of the Rings', in parts.
 
Well.. i sam him yesterday.. but i´m really disappointed .. think it will be the last part but no, there will be another one in summer =( *grml*
 
Read the books multiple times, have all the movies, HUGE fan of the series, this may be biased but I LOVED IT! And am I the holy one that thinks Emma Watson is pretty cute? (she's 20+ no so it's not pedophilia!!). Too bad she cut her hair. Just saying.
 
leekohler said:
I've been able to follow them just fine without reading the books.
Click to expand...

i haven't watched this movie yet but i was already a little lost with the last movie which felt already very disconnected from the people who haven't read the books

not with the story directly but the whole 'feel' of the movie ... IMHO they should have given the last movie also given a 2 part treatment or at least made it a little longer
 
dmr727 said:
Don't get me wrong - I'm not directly coming after you here - but I don't understand why it's so important for movies to exactly follow the books from which they're based. IMO, film is a different medium than print, and what works in one might not work in another. If the movie is well executed, who cares if it follows the book to the letter?
Click to expand...

It's not so important to me, but if it is a book I really like, it is important that it follows pretty closely. If the story is a great one, I want to see that story on the big screen. Not something made up. I can cite a great example- True Blood on HBO. They have absolutely RUINED the books by Charlaine Harris. Vampires and Werewolves in cahoots, and other outrageous things like the Menard who takes over the town. Preposterous I tell you! :)

In contrast, I see no problem with the Harry Potter series of movies which have done a good job of following the books and all of the books have been good reading imo.

Just saw it. The middle when they are camping is pretty slow and it has been critiqued as such. I agree, however it is coming from the book. Regarding the slow part it was better reading it than watching it on the big screen. I also think that reading the escape from Potter's house when they were all poly juiced up to look like Potter was better reading than portrayed in the movie. I'd of rather had a 4 hr movie and just have gotten it done.

This may be considered a spoiler, so stop here if you've not read the book:


Part 1 ends when Voldermort obtains the elder wand from Dumbedore's crypt and dances a little jig while singing "Potter's gonna get it!"
 
Last edited:
My wife surprised me over the weekend and took me to go see it. I was very excited and looking forward to it. I loved it, my wife also enjoyed it and she is not a huge fan like I am. I would agree that it's not a movie for young kids.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back