Author Topic: Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Pt.2  (Read 11634 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Pt.2
« Reply #15 on: July 18, 2011, 03:25:27 AM »

Offline stylo617617

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 493
  • Tommy Points: 33
After all this time?

Always.

Re: Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Pt.2
« Reply #16 on: July 18, 2011, 06:46:38 AM »

Offline Bahku

  • CB HOF Editor
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19771
  • Tommy Points: 3632
  • Oe ma krr pamtseotu
ive never read the books, but I've seen all the movies.  I kind of felt like the last few movies were dark, slow, dreary, boring and depressing.  Didn't mind them, but I didn't feel the need to see them a second time.  

Saw the last one on Friday.  Wasn't thrilled with it.  Kinda bored by it.  Still felt it was dark, dreary and kinda depressing.  It was nice to wrap it up and finally see Voldermort vs Harry, but I felt the final sequence was a little odd and anti-climactic.   It got great reviews, but I'm not really sure why.  Pretty overrated if you ask me.  In general I wasn't impressed.

The thing is... I actually did enjoy the first few movies.  I'm not sure at what point the series turned into the "dark" territory, but I'm not really a fan of it.  I think Harry Potter was far more appealing when the characters were kids, everything was full of magic and wonder, people weren't dying all over the place and it just had a fun whimsical christmas feel to it.  I blame the writing... trying to make it "mature" for her audience as they grew up.  Personally I think the "boarding school for British Wizards"  worked a heck of a lot better as a fun children's movie than as uber-serious drama.

I think if you find someone who has never seen the previous movies, give them a short explanation of the character's backstory and then make them watch the final movie... they would think the movie was pretty weak.  I think the great ratings are based on everyone's attachment to the characters.

Maybe I'm in the minority.  Those raving about how great it was... maybe step back from it for a second and ask yourself whether you had more fun seeing the kids going on adventures, entering quidditch matches, learning magic, eating chocolate frogs and sneaking around the school.... or if you had more fun watching the school blow up, Harry brooding around and a bunch of wizards killing each other?  Meh    




Actually, HP had "darkness" to it from the very beginning ... both the books and the movies. The Sorcerer's Stone intended to bring Voldemort back to life, instead of being half-alive, and possessing/sharing the body of Prof. Quirrell, living off unicorn blood, etc. ... pretty dark, and they just got increasingly dark from there.

As she continued writing books, and the movies got produced, her original target group were growing up with the series, and she felt the themes needed to "grow up" as well. Her audience grew increasingly larger, (as it began to appeal to older age groups), and more mature, and that was her intent from the beginning.

I wanted nothing to do with it when it first came out, because I thought it was intended for children only. However, I got hooked after my daughter convinced me to read the first book, and I loved the characters, Rowling's writing style, the movies and actors, and loved how it was finally tied together, (which is something very difficult to do over seven lengthy books/eight movies).

Personally, I don't need to step back and analyze why I like it, or whether it's increasing "darkness" was good for the series or not ... it worked, extremely well, and I enjoyed it ... that's all the conclusion I really need to come to. I try not to over-analyze movies anymore, and just take them in for their entertainment value ... how much I enjoy them.

It is certainly pretty crucial with this particular series to know the characters and have followed them fairly closely, otherwise much of it will mean very little. Neither the books nor the movies were intended to stand alone, and a minimum knowledge of the background plot and characters is pretty important.

I think most of us who are "raving" about how great it was, are intelligent enough to say so without needing to step back and make comparisons to the earlier films. This was an excellent movie, a great adaptation, fantastic screenplay, casting, acting, direction, superb sound and special effects, emotional, impactful, and, for Harry Potter fans, an excellent tying together of the previous seven books and eight films.

The fact that it set both opening night and opening weekend records, is a testament to the sheer enjoyability this series has brought to many of us, and while it is certainly not for everyone, it was far beyond just a need to follow the characters. It was an epic series that was enjoyable, impactful, and fun, and the final film both stuck very closely to the second half of the book, and tied the loose ends together in a wonderfully whimsical but powerful way.

There will be many Oscar nominations for this film, and not just for an attachment to the characters. Could she have made it successful if she had kept it on the slightly more innocent level of the first books/movies? Possibly, but I highly doubt it. It had very dark undertones from the beginning, and as Harry matured, (and her original audience), the storyline pretty much had to as well.

Time will tell how it stands up over a longer period, but there is no questioning that it is one of the most successful and, (to it's fans), enjoyable literary series of all time. I think similar can now be said for the movies as well. But like anything else, it's not for everyone.
2010 PAPOUG, 2012 & 2017 PAPTYG CHAMP, HD BOT

* BAHKU MUSIC *

Re: Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Pt.2
« Reply #17 on: July 18, 2011, 10:09:03 AM »

Offline thirstyboots18

  • Chat Moderator
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8791
  • Tommy Points: 2584
My husband asked the 13 year old boy he mentors if he would like to go see "Harry Potter"...he said he would rather see "Super 8"...it seems almost to be an adult cult movie craze now, at least among his friends.  Has that been your experience in seeing the audiences?
Yesterday is history.
Tomorrow is a mystery.
Today is a gift...
   That is why it is called the present.
Visit the CelticsBlog Live Game Chat!

Re: Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Pt.2
« Reply #18 on: July 18, 2011, 11:20:03 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
After all this time?

Always.
I thought that part was better made out in the book.

The movie was pretty much on par with what I expected. Except I was pleasantly surprised with Daniel Radcliffe.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Pt.2
« Reply #19 on: July 18, 2011, 02:22:02 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
ive never read the books, but I've seen all the movies.  I kind of felt like the last few movies were dark, slow, dreary, boring and depressing.  Didn't mind them, but I didn't feel the need to see them a second time. 

Saw the last one on Friday.  Wasn't thrilled with it.  Kinda bored by it.  Still felt it was dark, dreary and kinda depressing.  It was nice to wrap it up and finally see Voldermort vs Harry, but I felt the final sequence was a little odd and anti-climactic.   It got great reviews, but I'm not really sure why.  Pretty overrated if you ask me.  In general I wasn't impressed.

The thing is... I actually did enjoy the first few movies.  I'm not sure at what point the series turned into the "dark" territory, but I'm not really a fan of it.  I think Harry Potter was far more appealing when the characters were kids, everything was full of magic and wonder, people weren't dying all over the place and it just had a fun whimsical christmas feel to it.  I blame the writing... trying to make it "mature" for her audience as they grew up.  Personally I think the "boarding school for British Wizards"  worked a heck of a lot better as a fun children's movie than as uber-serious drama.

I think if you find someone who has never seen the previous movies, give them a short explanation of the character's backstory and then make them watch the final movie... they would think the movie was pretty weak.  I think the great ratings are based on everyone's attachment to the characters.

Maybe I'm in the minority.  Those raving about how great it was... maybe step back from it for a second and ask yourself whether you had more fun seeing the kids going on adventures, entering quidditch matches, learning magic, eating chocolate frogs and sneaking around the school.... or if you had more fun watching the school blow up, Harry brooding around and a bunch of wizards killing each other?  Meh   




Actually, HP had "darkness" to it from the very beginning ... both the books and the movies. The Sorcerer's Stone intended to bring Voldemort back to life, instead of being half-alive, and possessing/sharing the body of Prof. Quirrell, living off unicorn blood, etc. ... pretty dark, and they just got increasingly dark from there.

As she continued writing books, and the movies got produced, her original target group were growing up with the series, and she felt the themes needed to "grow up" as well. Her audience grew increasingly larger, (as it began to appeal to older age groups), and more mature, and that was her intent from the beginning.

I wanted nothing to do with it when it first came out, because I thought it was intended for children only. However, I got hooked after my daughter convinced me to read the first book, and I loved the characters, Rowling's writing style, the movies and actors, and loved how it was finally tied together, (which is something very difficult to do over seven lengthy books/eight movies).

Personally, I don't need to step back and analyze why I like it, or whether it's increasing "darkness" was good for the series or not ... it worked, extremely well, and I enjoyed it ... that's all the conclusion I really need to come to. I try not to over-analyze movies anymore, and just take them in for their entertainment value ... how much I enjoy them.

It is certainly pretty crucial with this particular series to know the characters and have followed them fairly closely, otherwise much of it will mean very little. Neither the books nor the movies were intended to stand alone, and a minimum knowledge of the background plot and characters is pretty important.

I think most of us who are "raving" about how great it was, are intelligent enough to say so without needing to step back and make comparisons to the earlier films. This was an excellent movie, a great adaptation, fantastic screenplay, casting, acting, direction, superb sound and special effects, emotional, impactful, and, for Harry Potter fans, an excellent tying together of the previous seven books and eight films.

The fact that it set both opening night and opening weekend records, is a testament to the sheer enjoyability this series has brought to many of us, and while it is certainly not for everyone, it was far beyond just a need to follow the characters. It was an epic series that was enjoyable, impactful, and fun, and the final film both stuck very closely to the second half of the book, and tied the loose ends together in a wonderfully whimsical but powerful way.

There will be many Oscar nominations for this film, and not just for an attachment to the characters. Could she have made it successful if she had kept it on the slightly more innocent level of the first books/movies? Possibly, but I highly doubt it. It had very dark undertones from the beginning, and as Harry matured, (and her original audience), the storyline pretty much had to as well.

Time will tell how it stands up over a longer period, but there is no questioning that it is one of the most successful and, (to it's fans), enjoyable literary series of all time. I think similar can now be said for the movies as well. But like anything else, it's not for everyone.

Can't argue with the acting.  They have some of the finest British actors alive in these films.  Radcliff and the kids are pretty mediocre, but that's to be expected.
   
You've read the books so I can't really argue with you about it.  You are more familiar with the characters and their backstory than I ever will be.  You (like most of the raving fanbase, I suspect) are far more invested in the franchise than I could ever be.  I only have the movies to go off.  Again... I didn't "hate" the movie... I just think it was incredibly overrated.  The series as a whole was great.  But this movie got the best reviews of any... and some are acting like it will sweep the oscars.  I think as a stand alone movie it was unimpressive.  I had several problems with it.

You're right the series had a "dark" element to it from the beginning, but I'd liken it to Scooby Doo... and I don't mean that in a negative way.  Voldermort more acted as the macguffin that drove the plots of the individual movies.  The "charm" and "appeal" of the movies seemed to be the characters, the magic wonder of their school, all the fun new potions and spells they were introduced to, their interesting quirky magical teachers... Floating Candles, Owl's and House Elves oh my!  It was almost like "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" meets "Scooby Doo Mystery".  And again... I mean that in a positive way.   So much of it was "fun"... so many of the characters were likeable.  "10 points for gryffindor!"  Classic.

You keep all of that in mind then I guess the final movies worked as "closure" and "payoff", but I wasn't really feeling it.  There was nothing really "net new" brought to the table.  The main characters were a little muted while the battle took center stage.  I mean... had someone sat down and only watched this movie, they wouldn't have given a crap about any of the characters, because the characters in this movie weren't really doing anything to make you care.  And you're right... that's unfair to ask for it to stand alone.

Spoilers:

I also felt the final battle between Harry and Voldermort was anti-climatic.  Having only seen the movies, I guess I misinterpreted what a horcrux was.  Maybe I needed a refresher course.  I blame that on the filmmakers.  I was under the impression that Voldermort was alive at this point... and the Horcruxes were his failsafe incase he died again.  Meaning, you couldn't kill him because he'd just resurrect from one of his many horcruxes.  I assumed they needed to destroy the horcruxes so that Voldermort couldn't keep coming back to life.  What I got from this movie was that the horcruxes were actually KEEPING Voldermort alive.  Fine...  That's my mistake.  Fair enough.  You can't blame me.  I haven't read thousands of pages worth of content where this would have been clearly spelled out.  But I assume the characters are aware of what a horcrux is, right? 

So then...  what the heck happened in that final battle sequence?  It was a total mess.    Harry suddenly realizes the truth about his scar.  He himself harbors a horcrux... so he decides he will kill the snake (2nd to last horcrux) and then sacrifice himself (presumably this will either make it so Voldermort can't resurrect himself... or just kill voldermort, because he'll have no horcruxes keeping him alive).   He tells his friends, "Bros... I'm going to kill the snake and then sacrifice myself".  Seemed like a smart plan...   Harry then proceeds to goes up to voldermort... and immediately lets himself get killed.   Uh...  What about the snake, Harry?   Oh... but it's ok... he's not actually dead... his horcrux is dead...  he goes into "matrix land" where he sees Dumbledor (who they have just established is a two-faced jerk in the previous revelation scene)... except this all apparently takes place in Harry's head where Dumbledor is still a good chap... and oh look... it's a Voldermort fetus (presumably representing the horcrux that.. um... should have just been killed in the blast, right?... uh)... imaginary Dumbledor tells Harry he's still alive and we are back in reality where Harry is breathing.  Voldermort (who has dedicated a decade to killing Harry Potter) asks one of his henchwoman to check of Harry is dead.  She lies and says he's dead.  Voldermort is too moronic to check for himself.  K... (seriously... he couldn't give him a magical head-shot just to make sure?)... so then Voldermort carrys Harry's makebelieve dead body to Hogwarts so he can gloat... but blam!... Harry's alive.  It's battle time.

Pause for a second.  What's Harry's incentive to face certain (perceived) death by facing Voldermort right now?  He's been told he can't win.  The horcrux that Harry holds has just been destroyed... that leaves one horcrux... the snake.  It seems everyone's attention should be on killing that [dang] snake.  Although this final battle with voldermort was what everyone was looking forward to... it's completely totally unnecessary.  Harry already made his sacrifice... what the heck is he doing?   So while Harry and Voldermort are hugging it out and waving their wonds at each other... one of the random secondary characters kills the snake and voldermort suddenly vanishes mid-battle.  Totally anti-climatic and odd.  Easily the dumbest sequence of the entire series and the sequence that supposedly carried this movie.

The movie had moments (Helena Bonham Carter doing her Emma Watson impression was fun... but it was offset by how easily the "evil" Bellatrix was offed by frumpy Misses Weasley.  Turns out most adult evil wizards are about as threatening as Foot Soldiers in TMNT.  I assume they all flunked out of Hogwarts...   Seeing Maggie Smith go Yoda was pretty fun too)  I enjoyed it.  But I definitely wouldn't call it "great". 

« Last Edit: July 18, 2011, 02:39:28 PM by LarBrd33 »

Re: Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Pt.2
« Reply #20 on: July 18, 2011, 02:54:47 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
I've only seen the movies, but it seemed to me that Harry hit Voldemart with a spell that killed him and didn't just vanish when the snake was killed.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Pt.2
« Reply #21 on: July 18, 2011, 03:44:31 PM »

Offline Spilling Green Dye

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1928
  • Tommy Points: 115
Considering I've never read the books nor seen the movies (except for a 15 minute scene), I'm curious what I'd think of this movie.  I love fantasy/scifi/fiction movies, and think I can offer one of the most unbias opinions on the movie if I saw it. 

Re: Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Pt.2
« Reply #22 on: July 18, 2011, 03:45:34 PM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30859
  • Tommy Points: 1327
I've only seen the movies, but it seemed to me that Harry hit Voldemart with a spell that killed him and didn't just vanish when the snake was killed.
In the books I believe Voldemort's wand failed him and his own killing curse finished him off.

In the movie it seem like Harry bested his blast of magic but that he melted without Harry following through.

Re: Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Pt.2
« Reply #23 on: July 18, 2011, 03:54:48 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
I've only seen the movies, but it seemed to me that Harry hit Voldemart with a spell that killed him and didn't just vanish when the snake was killed.
In the books I believe Voldemort's wand failed him and his own killing curse finished him off.

In the movie it seem like Harry bested his blast of magic but that he melted without Harry following through.
makes sense and makes the follow-up conversation between harry, ron, and hermoine make more sense (about Harry besting Draco and being the wands true master).

It obviously wasn't that clear in the movie.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Pt.2
« Reply #24 on: July 18, 2011, 03:55:02 PM »

Offline Bahku

  • CB HOF Editor
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19771
  • Tommy Points: 3632
  • Oe ma krr pamtseotu
ive never read the books, but I've seen all the movies.  I kind of felt like the last few movies were dark, slow, dreary, boring and depressing.  Didn't mind them, but I didn't feel the need to see them a second time.  

Saw the last one on Friday.  Wasn't thrilled with it.  Kinda bored by it.  Still felt it was dark, dreary and kinda depressing.  It was nice to wrap it up and finally see Voldermort vs Harry, but I felt the final sequence was a little odd and anti-climactic.   It got great reviews, but I'm not really sure why.  Pretty overrated if you ask me.  In general I wasn't impressed.

The thing is... I actually did enjoy the first few movies.  I'm not sure at what point the series turned into the "dark" territory, but I'm not really a fan of it.  I think Harry Potter was far more appealing when the characters were kids, everything was full of magic and wonder, people weren't dying all over the place and it just had a fun whimsical christmas feel to it.  I blame the writing... trying to make it "mature" for her audience as they grew up.  Personally I think the "boarding school for British Wizards"  worked a heck of a lot better as a fun children's movie than as uber-serious drama.

I think if you find someone who has never seen the previous movies, give them a short explanation of the character's backstory and then make them watch the final movie... they would think the movie was pretty weak.  I think the great ratings are based on everyone's attachment to the characters.

Maybe I'm in the minority.  Those raving about how great it was... maybe step back from it for a second and ask yourself whether you had more fun seeing the kids going on adventures, entering quidditch matches, learning magic, eating chocolate frogs and sneaking around the school.... or if you had more fun watching the school blow up, Harry brooding around and a bunch of wizards killing each other?  Meh    




Actually, HP had "darkness" to it from the very beginning ... both the books and the movies. The Sorcerer's Stone intended to bring Voldemort back to life, instead of being half-alive, and possessing/sharing the body of Prof. Quirrell, living off unicorn blood, etc. ... pretty dark, and they just got increasingly dark from there.

As she continued writing books, and the movies got produced, her original target group were growing up with the series, and she felt the themes needed to "grow up" as well. Her audience grew increasingly larger, (as it began to appeal to older age groups), and more mature, and that was her intent from the beginning.

I wanted nothing to do with it when it first came out, because I thought it was intended for children only. However, I got hooked after my daughter convinced me to read the first book, and I loved the characters, Rowling's writing style, the movies and actors, and loved how it was finally tied together, (which is something very difficult to do over seven lengthy books/eight movies).

Personally, I don't need to step back and analyze why I like it, or whether it's increasing "darkness" was good for the series or not ... it worked, extremely well, and I enjoyed it ... that's all the conclusion I really need to come to. I try not to over-analyze movies anymore, and just take them in for their entertainment value ... how much I enjoy them.

It is certainly pretty crucial with this particular series to know the characters and have followed them fairly closely, otherwise much of it will mean very little. Neither the books nor the movies were intended to stand alone, and a minimum knowledge of the background plot and characters is pretty important.

I think most of us who are "raving" about how great it was, are intelligent enough to say so without needing to step back and make comparisons to the earlier films. This was an excellent movie, a great adaptation, fantastic screenplay, casting, acting, direction, superb sound and special effects, emotional, impactful, and, for Harry Potter fans, an excellent tying together of the previous seven books and eight films.

The fact that it set both opening night and opening weekend records, is a testament to the sheer enjoyability this series has brought to many of us, and while it is certainly not for everyone, it was far beyond just a need to follow the characters. It was an epic series that was enjoyable, impactful, and fun, and the final film both stuck very closely to the second half of the book, and tied the loose ends together in a wonderfully whimsical but powerful way.

There will be many Oscar nominations for this film, and not just for an attachment to the characters. Could she have made it successful if she had kept it on the slightly more innocent level of the first books/movies? Possibly, but I highly doubt it. It had very dark undertones from the beginning, and as Harry matured, (and her original audience), the storyline pretty much had to as well.

Time will tell how it stands up over a longer period, but there is no questioning that it is one of the most successful and, (to it's fans), enjoyable literary series of all time. I think similar can now be said for the movies as well. But like anything else, it's not for everyone.

Can't argue with the acting.  They have some of the finest British actors alive in these films.  Radcliff and the kids are pretty mediocre, but that's to be expected.
  
You've read the books so I can't really argue with you about it.  You are more familiar with the characters and their backstory than I ever will be.  You (like most of the raving fanbase, I suspect) are far more invested in the franchise than I could ever be.  I only have the movies to go off.  Again... I didn't "hate" the movie... I just think it was incredibly overrated.  The series as a whole was great.  But this movie got the best reviews of any... and some are acting like it will sweep the oscars.  I think as a stand alone movie it was unimpressive.  I had several problems with it.

You're right the series had a "dark" element to it from the beginning, but I'd liken it to Scooby Doo... and I don't mean that in a negative way.  Voldermort more acted as the macguffin that drove the plots of the individual movies.  The "charm" and "appeal" of the movies seemed to be the characters, the magic wonder of their school, all the fun new potions and spells they were introduced to, their interesting quirky magical teachers... Floating Candles, Owl's and House Elves oh my!  It was almost like "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" meets "Scooby Doo Mystery".  And again... I mean that in a positive way.   So much of it was "fun"... so many of the characters were likeable.  "10 points for gryffindor!"  Classic.

You keep all of that in mind then I guess the final movies worked as "closure" and "payoff", but I wasn't really feeling it.  There was nothing really "net new" brought to the table.  The main characters were a little muted while the battle took center stage.  I mean... had someone sat down and only watched this movie, they wouldn't have given a crap about any of the characters, because the characters in this movie weren't really doing anything to make you care.  And you're right... that's unfair to ask for it to stand alone.

Spoilers:

I also felt the final battle between Harry and Voldermort was anti-climatic.  Having only seen the movies, I guess I misinterpreted what a horcrux was.  Maybe I needed a refresher course.  I blame that on the filmmakers.  I was under the impression that Voldermort was alive at this point... and the Horcruxes were his failsafe incase he died again.  Meaning, you couldn't kill him because he'd just resurrect from one of his many horcruxes.  I assumed they needed to destroy the horcruxes so that Voldermort couldn't keep coming back to life.  What I got from this movie was that the horcruxes were actually KEEPING Voldermort alive.  Fine...  That's my mistake.  Fair enough.  You can't blame me.  I haven't read thousands of pages worth of content where this would have been clearly spelled out.  But I assume the characters are aware of what a horcrux is, right?  

So then...  what the heck happened in that final battle sequence?  It was a total mess.    Harry suddenly realizes the truth about his scar.  He himself harbors a horcrux... so he decides he will kill the snake (2nd to last horcrux) and then sacrifice himself (presumably this will either make it so Voldermort can't resurrect himself... or just kill voldermort, because he'll have no horcruxes keeping him alive).   He tells his friends, "Bros... I'm going to kill the snake and then sacrifice myself".  Seemed like a smart plan...   Harry then proceeds to goes up to voldermort... and immediately lets himself get killed.   Uh...  What about the snake, Harry?   Oh... but it's ok... he's not actually dead... his horcrux is dead...  he goes into "matrix land" where he sees Dumbledor (who they have just established is a two-faced jerk in the previous revelation scene)... except this all apparently takes place in Harry's head where Dumbledor is still a good chap... and oh look... it's a Voldermort fetus (presumably representing the horcrux that.. um... should have just been killed in the blast, right?... uh)... imaginary Dumbledor tells Harry he's still alive and we are back in reality where Harry is breathing.  Voldermort (who has dedicated a decade to killing Harry Potter) asks one of his henchwoman to check of Harry is dead.  She lies and says he's dead.  Voldermort is too moronic to check for himself.  K... (seriously... he couldn't give him a magical head-shot just to make sure?)... so then Voldermort carrys Harry's makebelieve dead body to Hogwarts so he can gloat... but blam!... Harry's alive.  It's battle time.

Pause for a second.  What's Harry's incentive to face certain (perceived) death by facing Voldermort right now?  He's been told he can't win.  The horcrux that Harry holds has just been destroyed... that leaves one horcrux... the snake.  It seems everyone's attention should be on killing that [dang] snake.  Although this final battle with voldermort was what everyone was looking forward to... it's completely totally unnecessary.  Harry already made his sacrifice... what the heck is he doing?   So while Harry and Voldermort are hugging it out and waving their wonds at each other... one of the random secondary characters kills the snake and voldermort suddenly vanishes mid-battle.  Totally anti-climatic and odd.  Easily the dumbest sequence of the entire series and the sequence that supposedly carried this movie.

The movie had moments (Helena Bonham Carter doing her Emma Watson impression was fun... but it was offset by how easily the "evil" Bellatrix was offed by frumpy Misses Weasley.  Turns out most adult evil wizards are about as threatening as Foot Soldiers in TMNT.  I assume they all flunked out of Hogwarts...   Seeing Maggie Smith go Yoda was pretty fun too)  I enjoyed it.  But I definitely wouldn't call it "great".  




Good post, for the most part, (TP) ... and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. If you had read the books, the inconsistencies in the areas you brought into question would make a lot more sense, and as I said, it's hard for this, (or any of the movies but the first), to stand alone. The more knowledge you have of the plot, background, and characters, the clearer it would be. I enjoyed the books the most, but they did a fantastic job in adapting the movies and staying close to the plot line, too.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2011, 11:54:30 PM by Bahku »
2010 PAPOUG, 2012 & 2017 PAPTYG CHAMP, HD BOT

* BAHKU MUSIC *

Re: Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Pt.2
« Reply #25 on: July 18, 2011, 05:52:21 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
Bahku... wasn't lumping you in with the "raving fanbase" and I didn't mean it like "raving lunatics".  I type to fast and sometimes don't pay attention to what I'm typing.  Lol... All I was referring to was the fans that are giving this movie rave reviews... somehow came out "raving fans" instead of "the fans who are hyping this movie as amazing".   I suspect that you (and those fans) have more context to the story than I do, because you've read the books.  I can only go off the movies... and as a movie I didn't think it was excellent or even the best of the series.  

It actually dawned during the final scene when they played a little bit of the familiar theme song...  "oh yeah... I remember when this series reminded me of Christmas time"... I imagine that pavlovian reaction to Harry Potter would only be limited to folks who only are familiar with seeing the movies.  Kinda interesting.

Re: Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Pt.2
« Reply #26 on: July 18, 2011, 06:14:58 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
 He tells his friends, "Bros... I'm going to kill the snake and then sacrifice myself".
No, he tells them, "Kill the snake!". Not the same at all.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Pt.2
« Reply #27 on: July 18, 2011, 06:44:56 PM »

Offline Rondo_is_better

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2821
  • Tommy Points: 495
  • R.I.P. Nate Dogg
I give it a 7/10, maybe  even a 7.5/10. I was thoroughly entertained, and the 3D actually added to the experience for me. I think, all things considered, part 2 maxed out its potential. As a movie, anything from the Harry Potter series simply cannot be great, because they all lack the gravitas of a serious drama, or the hilarity of a good comedy, or the thrill of a true action movie. The movies are handicapped by their own brand and primary target audience, as well as the quality of the actors they were able to initially acquire, which for the sake of consistency they were unable replace.  A nice high note to the end of the series.
Grab a few boards, keep the TO's under 14, close out on shooters and we'll win.

Re: Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Pt.2
« Reply #28 on: July 18, 2011, 08:07:11 PM »

Offline Big_Matt34

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 629
  • Tommy Points: 80
as well as the quality of the actors they were able to initially acquire, which for the sake of consistency they were unable replace.

I think Emma Watson has become a very good actress. Her acting during the scene where [SPOILER} Harry basically tells them he has to go die was perfect, the crying then saying "i'll go with you", got me choked up. She's the only one i'm confident will keep on doing big things.

Grint is pretty good himself, but i have no clue how he will be outside of playing Ron.

Radcliffe has been the weakpoint mostly, but i think he did a [dang] good job in this movie...especially during the Resurrection Stoneand Kings Cross scene.

I also disagree with you saying anything from Harry Potter can't be great...in your opinion perhaps, but the consensus between fans and critics is that this movie is indeed great.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2011, 08:15:21 PM by Big_Matt34 »

Re: Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Pt.2
« Reply #29 on: July 18, 2011, 09:19:17 PM »

Offline twinbree

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2670
  • Tommy Points: 170
Actually, HP had "darkness" to it from the very beginning ... both the books and the movies. The Sorcerer's Stone intended to bring Voldemort back to life, instead of being half-alive, and possessing/sharing the body of Prof. Quirrell, living off unicorn blood, etc. ... pretty dark, and they just got increasingly dark from there.

As she continued writing books, and the movies got produced, her original target group were growing up with the series, and she felt the themes needed to "grow up" as well. Her audience grew increasingly larger, (as it began to appeal to older age groups), and more mature, and that was her intent from the beginning.

I wanted nothing to do with it when it first came out, because I thought it was intended for children only. However, I got hooked after my daughter convinced me to read the first book, and I loved the characters, Rowling's writing style, the movies and actors, and loved how it was finally tied together, (which is something very difficult to do over seven lengthy books/eight movies).

Personally, I don't need to step back and analyze why I like it, or whether it's increasing "darkness" was good for the series or not ... it worked, extremely well, and I enjoyed it ... that's all the conclusion I really need to come to. I try not to over-analyze movies anymore, and just take them in for their entertainment value ... how much I enjoy them.

It is certainly pretty crucial with this particular series to know the characters and have followed them fairly closely, otherwise much of it will mean very little. Neither the books nor the movies were intended to stand alone, and a minimum knowledge of the background plot and characters is pretty important.

I think most of us who are "raving" about how great it was, are intelligent enough to say so without needing to step back and make comparisons to the earlier films. This was an excellent movie, a great adaptation, fantastic screenplay, casting, acting, direction, superb sound and special effects, emotional, impactful, and, for Harry Potter fans, an excellent tying together of the previous seven books and eight films.

The fact that it set both opening night and opening weekend records, is a testament to the sheer enjoyability this series has brought to many of us, and while it is certainly not for everyone, it was far beyond just a need to follow the characters. It was an epic series that was enjoyable, impactful, and fun, and the final film both stuck very closely to the second half of the book, and tied the loose ends together in a wonderfully whimsical but powerful way.

There will be many Oscar nominations for this film, and not just for an attachment to the characters. Could she have made it successful if she had kept it on the slightly more innocent level of the first books/movies? Possibly, but I highly doubt it. It had very dark undertones from the beginning, and as Harry matured, (and her original audience), the storyline pretty much had to as well.

Time will tell how it stands up over a longer period, but there is no questioning that it is one of the most successful and, (to it's fans), enjoyable literary series of all time. I think similar can now be said for the movies as well. But like anything else, it's not for everyone.

TP Bahku. Excellent points. I agree the books had heavy subject matter from the Philosopher's stone. I think it depends on the age at which you start the series. Older readers tend to agree with this. Murder, killing unicorns, azkaban and dementors. Even the cruelty of the Dursleys. These are all serious issues introduced in the first 3 books. If I had a child I might not want them to read the books till they were teens. Having read a couple of British boarding school series as a child, I think HP contains way more mature subject matter than I would have liked at that age.

I also agree watching the earlier movies or getting the cliff notes on wikipedia can clarify some of the issues that may diminish enjoyment of the movie. The final movie/book in particular needs a bit of prior knowledge because the keys to the resolution of the series have been placed throughout the earlier books. I found myself going back to the books whenever a new movie came out because there's so much relevant details to remember and I want to avoid being that annoying person obnoxiously whispering who?! when? what the heck?! in the movies.
Tommy: He's got a line about me. Tell him the line.

Mike: Everybody 60 or over knows Tommy as a player. Everybody 40 or over knows Tommy as a coach. Everybody 20 or over knows Tommy as a broadcaster. And everybody 10 or under thinks he's Shrek.