Deathly Hallows Part 1 Film

off.the.walls

**** me much as a I hate to admit it, the bit where dobby dies made me cry.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Best Harry Potter movie by far but it was still shíte. I'm hating this whole dark theme to the movies (isnt the theme of the books hope, freindship and resistance?), and the actors are just brutal. Also, it does nothing to capture the complex storyline of the books, they've simplified everything.
I really hope some one remakes these movies because its a terrible way to leave the best series of books of our (well, my) generation.
Dosent help either when the characters that are supposed to be 17 look like they're 25....

Otacon

THFC wrote: »

Best Harry Potter movie by far but it was still shíte. I'm hating this whole dark theme to the movies (isnt the theme of the books hope, freindship and resistance?)

OK firstly, the books are dark, and get progressively darker as they series go on. The themes of friendship, hope and resistance still exist but this is the 'Empire Strikes Back' of the HP series. Everything seems to be against Harry and co.

THFC wrote: »

and the actors are just brutal.

If anything, this film has some of the best performances from the leads, especially Emma Watson [who has stopped acting with her eyebrows] and Rupert Grint [who has more to do this time, than just being the comic relief]. Granted the supporting cast are under used, but that is dictated from the book.

THFC wrote: »

Also, it does nothing to capture the complex storyline of the books, they've simplified everything.

While I would agree with you if we were talking about the earlier films, this one seems to have gone out of its way to include everything, even the superfluous wedding scenes!

THFC wrote: »

I really hope some one remakes these movies because its a terrible way to leave the best series of books of our (well, my) generation.

After reading the books through a number of times now, I could see the series working as an animated TV series myself.

THFC wrote: »

Dosent help either when the characters that are supposed to be 17 look like they're 25....

But the actors are actually very close to that age... unless you have a specific example?

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Otacon wrote: »

OK firstly, the books are dark, and get progressively darker as they series go on. The themes of friendship, hope and resistance still exist but this is the 'Empire Strikes Back' of the HP series. Everything seems to be against Harry and co.

Ya, I suppose, but the books bring us into the close friendship that develops between Harry and Hermione, the movie definitely does not.

Otacon wrote: »

If anything, this film has some of the best performances from the leads, especially Emma Watson [who has stopped acting with her eyebrows] and Rupert Grint [who has more to do this time, than just being the comic relief]. Granted the supporting cast are under used, but that is dictated from the book.

This will alwasys be subjective but I think the acting is atrocious, perhaps with the exception of Hermione. Daniel Radcliffe is just appaling - the worst of the lot imo, Rupert Grint seems shy and timid whenever he tells a joke, or does anything for that matter, Snape and Voldemort are seem far too much like the stereotypical villain, almost like somthing you'd see in one og the old Batman movies. And without going into too much detail the rest of the cast just seems wrong too, maybe with the exceptions of Malfoy(s), Lupin and Bellatrix.

Otacon wrote: »

While I would agree with you if we were talking about the earlier films, this one seems to have gone out of its way to include everything, even the superfluous wedding scenes!

Yes, this is perhaps one of the highlights of the movie, but it just doesnt do it for me.

Otacon wrote: »

After reading the books through a number of times now, I could see the series working as an animated TV series myself.

Why animated?? It would be great as a TV series with proper actors.

Otacon wrote: »

But the actors are actually very close to that age... unless you have a specific example?

Ya, buts thats my point, it doesnt help when they're so old.

norrie rugger

THFC wrote: »

Ya, buts thats my point, it doesnt help when they're so old.

But they are not. They are meant to be playing 17 year olds and most actors, playing that age category, seem to be mid 20s

Radcliffe is 21, so was around 19/20 shooting
Grint is 22 now, so was around 20/21 shooting
Watson is 20 now, so was around 18/19 shooting


How are they "So old"??

Otacon

norrie rugger wrote: »

Watson is 20 now, so was around 19/29 shooting

norrie rugger

Otacon wrote: »

Stupid touch screen

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

norrie rugger wrote: »

But they are not. They are meant to be playing 17 year olds and most actors, playing that age category, seem to be mid 20s

Radcliffe is 21, so was around 19/20 shooting
Grint is 22 now, so was around 20/21 shooting
Watson is 20 now, so was around 18/19 shooting


How are they "So old"??

Did they not just finish like a month ago for part II?? So presuming the latter in each case. There is a big difference between a 17 year old (dont forget he's supposed to be 16 at the start) and a 20 year old.
And besides, its just my opinion.:o

JJ

davetherave wrote: »

Things that should have been gone into more detail:
* Dumbledores will and how the minister keeps pressing them for information about what he was doing the night he died.
* Krums scene at the wedding explaining the symbol/Gregoravich/Grindelwald
* The tabbo on the word. Seems a bit convienent that two DE can find them in a random cafe in London.
* Dudleys goodbye to Harry, after years of kicking him up and down the street it would have been nice for a bit of emotion/redemtion
* I forgot that it was MadEyes eye stuck on Umbridges door. And Harry doesn't take it.
* No use of the invisability cloak either though, unless they wanted to make it a "OMG wait harry, you've got one of the Deathly Hallows" moments in part two. Or was the story telling in the Lovegoods house was it, they didn't seem that excited about it.

Those are some good points there but maybe after we see Part 2, we might understand better why certain parts were omitted. Also, I think they did a reasonably good job adapting the film and condensing it to 2 1/2 hours on screen. I don't think I can sit longer than that in the cinema without an intermission. One detail they omitted which I thought was interesting was Harry, Ron and Hermione's conversations with the Slytherin portrait. This was an important point in the book because it led to Snape finding out where the trio were so he could indirectly give them the sword of Gryffindor. I presume they'll have an alternate way of explaining this in Part 2.

Also, I think the dance scene with Harry and Hermione was really well done and a nice touch to the film adaptation. I think that and the Minister for Magic's speech at the beginning were very poignant considering everything that's going on right now in the world.

ibarelycare

JJ wrote: »

Those are some good points there but maybe after we see Part 2, we might understand better why certain parts were omitted. Also, I think they did a reasonably good job adapting the film and condensing it to 2 1/2 hours on screen. I don't think I can sit longer than that in the cinema without an intermission. One detail they omitted which I thought was interesting was Harry, Ron and Hermione's conversations with the Slytherin portrait. This was an important point in the book because it led to Snape finding out where the trio were so he could indirectly give them the sword of Gryffindor. I presume they'll have an alternate way of explaining this in Part 2.

Also, I think the dance scene with Harry and Hermione was really well done and a nice touch to the film adaptation. I think that and the Minister for Magic's speech at the beginning were very poignant considering everything that's going on right now in the world.

I thought that too I felt like the takeover of the Ministry was like a metaphor for the IMF :D

Pigwidgeon

THFC wrote: »

Ya, buts thats my point, it doesnt help when they're so old.

That's the case with nearly everything nowadays. Take Glee for example, all the leads for that are in their 20's, with the ages ranging from 20 (Chris Colfer) to 28 (Corey Monteith and Mark Salling), yet they all play characters in the same year in high school.

In comparison to that, the actors of Harry Potter's ages are very close to what they are in the movies.

ibarelycare

kateos2 wrote: »

That's the case with nearly everything nowadays. Take Glee for example, all the leads for that are in their 20's, with the ages ranging from 20 (Chris Colfer) to 28 (Corey Monteith and Mark Salling), yet they all play characters in the same year in high school.

In comparison to that, the actors of Harry Potter's ages are very close to what they are in the movies.

Not just nowadays! Remember Beverly Hills 90210? :pac:

Otacon

ibarelycare wrote: »

Not just nowadays! Remember Beverly Hills 90210? :pac:

pocketvenus

JJ wrote: »

Those are some good points there but maybe after we see Part 2, we might understand better why certain parts were omitted. Also, I think they did a reasonably good job adapting the film and condensing it to 2 1/2 hours on screen. I don't think I can sit longer than that in the cinema without an intermission. One detail they omitted which I thought was interesting was Harry, Ron and Hermione's conversations with the Slytherin portrait. This was an important point in the book because it led to Snape finding out where the trio were so he could indirectly give them the sword of Gryffindor. I presume they'll have an alternate way of explaining this in Part 2.

Also, I think the dance scene with Harry and Hermione was really well done and a nice touch to the film adaptation. I think that and the Minister for Magic's speech at the beginning were very poignant considering everything that's going on right now in the world.

It is great to see someone else who thought the dance scene between Harry and Hermione was nice and well done. I have heard there has been alot of mixed views on it. Personally I thought it was a beautiful scene between two best friends who for a short time want to believe there is a bit of light left in the world and just laugh and smile. Great choice of song too.

I think as well the subtle parrelles between the take over of the Minstery and the whole cleansing of the magical world to Nazi Germany was also very well done. Obviously it will go over the heads of children but for adults I think it was there to get them more into the film and the darkness, terrifying time Harry and co are living in.

thetonynator

THFC wrote: »

Best Harry Potter movie by far but it was still shíte. I'm hating this whole dark theme to the movies (isnt the theme of the books hope, freindship and resistance?), and the actors are just brutal. Also, it does nothing to capture the complex storyline of the books, they've simplified everything.
I really hope some one remakes these movies because its a terrible way to leave the best series of books of our (well, my) generation.
Dosent help either when the characters that are supposed to be 17 look like they're 25....

Obviously theres no denying that daniel radcliffe is brutal, but both grint and watson ( especially watson in this one ) were great in this film, and have been in all of the more recent ones.

pocketvenus

thetonynator wrote: »

Obviously theres no denying that daniel radcliffe is brutal, but both grint and watson ( especially watson in this one ) were great in this film, and have been in all of the more recent ones.

I actually think Daniel Radcliffe was great in this one and has really excelled since the 5th film. My friend says he is an excellent stage actor as she saw him in Equus in London & was extremely impressed with his performance. Even in the Half Blood Prince I thought his comedic part was excellent.
Emma Watson I always though was a brilliant actress but they all have improved as the franchsie has gone on and this is be expected considering none of them had any huge acting experience when they started at the young age of 11.

All of them I think deserve praise for their performances in HPDH Part 1

Patricide

pocketvenus wrote: »

I actually think Daniel Radcliffe was great in this one and has really excelled since the 5th film. My friend says he is an excellent stage actor as she saw him in Equus in London & was extremely impressed with his performance. Even in the Half Blood Prince I thought his comedic part was excellent.
Emma Watson I always though was a brilliant actress but they all have improved as the franchsie has gone on and this is be expected considering none of them had any huge acting experience when they started at the young age of 11.

All of them I think deserve praise for their performances in HPDH Part 1

I think although he gets better every film. I woulnt consider him good in this. He was neal there though.

Have also heard hes a fantastic stage actor strangely enough. Maybe after this he should stick to it.

Davabo

I was very dissapointed with his film,

I re-read the book one day before i saw the film, and they leave so many little parts out. (The parts that make the book).

*They needed to show stan stumpike and expelliarmus (Spelling?).
*They needed to show the dursleys departure, the way dudley and aunt pentuna actually cared for harry.
*They went to aunt muriels in the book after moving harry, in the movie they went straight to the burrow
*And a MAJOR factor for me was how at the wedding, Harry was not harry!, He was barney weasly, under pollyjuice potion. Krum needed to be included too.
*They also left out the ginny and harry scene in the bedroom?
*Wormtails death?

Thats all from the top of my head, I honestly had to turn off the film and rewatch it at another stage, I lost interest and i am a huge potter fan.

I can only hope part 2 will be amazing.

thetonynator

Davabo wrote: »

*They also left out the ginny and harry scene in the bedroom?

They had that scene in the kitchen though which was better . . .although they left out some of it.

DancingQueen:)

Davabo wrote: »

*And a MAJOR factor for me was how at the wedding, Harry was not harry!, He was barney weasly, under pollyjuice potion.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that part! Should have been included really, would have liked to have seen him as a Weasley

Patricide

After re-watching azkaban just there, Im so glad that curon wasnt let anywhere near the last one.

God that was awful.

EKRIUQ

Watched the DVD last night and must admit I wasn't very impressed with it at all. I thought they dragged out the scenes in the woods and for any one that didn't read the books it must of being very boring. Coming to think of it I was bored reading the book as well. Thought the acting wasn't too bad but it all felt a bit rushed. Looking forward to the final instalment I'm sure its going to be a lot better.

TheBuilder

Davabo wrote: »

I was very dissapointed with his film,

I re-read the book one day before i saw the film, and they leave so many little parts out. (The parts that make the book).

*They needed to show stan stumpike and expelliarmus (Spelling?).
*They needed to show the dursleys departure, the way dudley and aunt pentuna actually cared for harry.
*They went to aunt muriels in the book after moving harry, in the movie they went straight to the burrow
*And a MAJOR factor for me was how at the wedding, Harry was not harry!, He was barney weasly, under pollyjuice potion. Krum needed to be included too.
*They also left out the ginny and harry scene in the bedroom?
*Wormtails death?

Thats all from the top of my head, I honestly had to turn off the film and rewatch it at another stage, I lost interest and i am a huge potter fan.

I can only hope part 2 will be amazing.

My thoughts exactly, these things are important towards the end, none more than the Stan Shunpike scene.

Necronomicon

TheBuilder wrote: »

My thoughts exactly, these things are important towards the end, none more than the Stan Shunpike scene.

How so? Maybe I'm not remembering, but I can't think of why that would be crucial.

TheBuilder

Necronomicon wrote: »

How so? Maybe I'm not remembering, but I can't think of why that would be crucial.

The ending centre's around how "expelliarmus" has become Harry's signature spell and its shown in the book as how Stan Shunpike recognises him in the chase from Privet Drive. Then it ends with how Harry only needs to use the same spell that he has used so much over the 7 years to disarm Voldemort of the Elder Wand and finish him off. I just think it would have been better to show this connection as its bound to leave those who haven't read the books asking how he killed him with a disarming spell.

carol111

yeah its really nice movie.