Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part 2

BostonB

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

....It's a childrens book at the end of the day,...

That might be true of the early books but, I don't think that true of the last few.

Ditto the movies.

libra02

BostonB wrote: »

That might be true of the early books but, I don't think that true of the last few.

Ditto the movies.

I agree with the that, from about book 4 onwards they really are not childrens books anymore and are young adult. But that is the way JK Rowling wrote them the books got darker as the children reading them grew up.

You have to give it to her that the Harry Potter series is probably the only series of book which appeals and is loved by all ages. I went to see it last night at a late showing to avoid kids and tweens and the range of ages was amazing from kids from 7 to a couple in their late 60's. (I am in my late 20's & I love it.) Amazing and there was not a dry eye in the house throughout it. All you could hear at one point my sniffling and people trying to as blow their nose as quiet as possible.

In regards to movie itself overall I loved it and would give it 4.5 out of 5. I went for 2D as not a fan of 3D and I do not think I missed out on anything.
Action scenes were executed excellently and loved the way they changed showdown between Harry and Voldermort. I saw some complaining about how it

seemed too easy for Harry to kill Voldermort but that how is was in the book it is a wand fight and the film hyped it up more with Harry getting the crap kicked and beat of out him a bit.

Despite all the action the heart of the stroy was still retained and you did not loose any emotional scenes etc.

The infamous

kiss between Ron and Hermoine was so sweet and they did it justic considering how built up it has been. Only problem I have is the kiss between Harry and Ginny could have been a bit more passionate but suppose they were in a middle of a war.

Alan Rickman was excellent as Snape and really hit the nail on the head. If anyone was not moved by

his memories and his undying love for Lilly must have a heart of stone. Same with Daniel Radclifffe scene when he is in the Forest with the ghosts of his loved ones approaching his death. I was in floods of tears.

. Overall though the acting was superb by everyone in the film they all deserve alot of credit. Especially the 3 leads who have come so far since the first film.


Personally I enjoyed the ending but felt it was a bit rushed 5 mins more just and it would have been perfect

get to hear the kids and Ron, Ginnny say a few words more but it was a fitting end and brough Harry's story circle and it was ideal to see Harry get the family he wanted and he got to send his children off to school.

Loooking back the only issue I have with series is the

underdevelopment of Ginny's character. Which is such a pity as in the books she is a powerful witch and we have only got glimpses of this in the films - mainly in the Order of the Phoenix. I feel for the actress as she got bit of a raw deal and gets alot of slack from fans but not her fault she is given such a small role. Ginny always fancied/ loved Harry and ends up being his wife and this is not really shown in the films we get glimpses but for people who have not read books it a bit of a surprise. Besides that overall it has been a great 10 years and 8 films.

BostonB

libra02 wrote: »

I agree with the that, from about book 4 onwards they really are not childrens books anymore and are young adult. But that is the way JK Rowling wrote them the books got darker as the children reading them grew up.....

Thats a great idea unless you are 8 and reading/watching the first one, so that you have to wait years to read/watch the last ones. That just sucks.

libra02

BostonB wrote: »

Thats a great idea unless you are 8 and reading/watching the first one, so that you have to wait years to read/watch the last ones. That just sucks.

Well I think if an 8 year old is starting to read the books by the time they get through all 7 of the books they will be a bit older and anyway the books are not totally dark and menacing. When kids are reading books they are not visualising the scenes in their heads as dark and scary as they see in the films.

With films well they started off U and went up to 12A so it is up to parents whether or not they let the kids watch them and as I said the films reflect the books any so they have to be bit dark. Cannot make they all happy and bright just to suit and 8 year old who wants to see them.

Alot of kids today though are scared by anything in HP.

johnny_ultimate

I'd say the Harry Potter books and films - even the lighter toned early ones - would be most appropriate for kids aged ten and up. Probably a bit heavy for children before that. They certainly do get darker as it goes on - infamously using the 'b' word :P - but I'd still think the books would be suitable for older kids. They do have a unique appeal to older readers though, given the depth of the world Rowling created - remember that the book were all released with 'adult' editions (i.e. a different cover!) as well as kids versions.

roguey

Should I see it in 2D or 3D? To be honest im not a fan of 3D and I sort of wish it would die again, but then I think maybe this may benefit from it? with the action sequences etc?

Mickeroo

roguey wrote: »

Should I see it in 2D or 3D? To be honest im not a fan of 3D and I sort of wish it would die again, but then I think maybe this may benefit from it? with the action sequences etc?

A few reviews I've read say steer clear of the 3D as the film is quite dark as it is and the 3D only makes it darker. I've not seen it yet though so maybe someone who has can enlighten us? I'm definitely going to the 2D version anyway, cheaper ticket just as much enjoyment :P

libra02

roguey wrote: »

Should I see it in 2D or 3D? To be honest im not a fan of 3D and I sort of wish it would die again, but then I think maybe this may benefit from it? with the action sequences etc?

Personally I would stick with 2D and that is what I saw it in last night and the action sequences were brilliant. I can think of only 2 places where I personally said yeah 3D may have enhanced that but it is really not needed.

If you are going for repeat viewings try 2d first and then if you feel like 3D would have been better well you can go to the 3D showing.

Though I have heard they did not go overboard with the 3D on this film and it is not like there are wands sticking out from the screen all over the place

libra02

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'd say the Harry Potter books and films - even the lighter toned early ones - would be most appropriate for kids aged ten and up. Probably a bit heavy for children before that. They certainly do get darker as it goes on - infamously using the 'b' word :P - but I'd still think the books would be suitable for older kids. They do have a unique appeal to older readers though, given the depth of the world Rowling created - remember that the book were all released with 'adult' editions (i.e. a different cover!) as well as kids versions.

I agree and the Harry Potter books have always been aimed at aged 10 upwards anyway from the first one on. Any book shop will have them in this section.

Trepzi

I had a couple of issues with the film. The biggest ones being

Voldemort hugging Draco Malfoy

. What was that about? It was completely out of character and just plain weird. I didn't like that

Percy just reappeared. I loved that reunion in the book. I also hated that they didn't show Fred's death scene.

I don't understand why they bothered to mention

Tonk's and Lupin's kid at all

. The way they did it made the reference pointless.

PseudoFamous

Trepzi wrote: »

Voldemort hugging Draco Malfoy

. What was that about? It was completely out of character and just plain weird.

I also found

Voldemort's giggling to be extremely hilarious and out of place

. Couple these things with how he

leaned in when Harry wanted to "Finish this together"

, and we see Voldemort in a completely different light

delbertgrady

Saw it at midnight on Thursday. I thought it was great. Maybe not quite Prisoner of Azkaban level, but one of the best adaptations.

:

Helena Bonham Carter impersonating Emma Watson as Hermione impersonating Bellatrix.
Ginny: "Harry!"... followed by Rupert Grint's expression. Gold.
Neville: "That went well".
Ghostly Kelly MacDonald!
Moving Snape's death scene to the boathouse to keep it more localised. Smart decision.
I actually thought Radcliffe was the most convincing as his "older" self.
Maggie Smith. Superb throughout.

:mad::

Ginny woefully under-represented onscreen, yet again: she doesn't even speak in the epilogue.
The long-awaited Ron/Hermione kiss ended up being predominantly the back of Rupert's head! :rolleyes: Reshoot!
Killing so many "central characters" offscreen.
Seamus: "Stand down, Neville". Sheesh...
Neville's cardigan. I know it's deliberate, but either he's reinvented himself or he hasn't.
Really obvious cut-and-paste CGI and editing job to have all the teachers appearing: Emma Thompson is onscreen about three seconds.

To be fair, most of my grievances are pedantic nit-picking. I'll be going again tomorrow...

BostonB

libra02 wrote: »

Well I think if an 8 year old is starting to read the books by the time they get through all 7 of the books they will be a bit older and anyway the books are not totally dark and menacing. When kids are reading books they are not visualising the scenes in their heads as dark and scary as they see in the films.

With films well they started off U and went up to 12A so it is up to parents whether or not they let the kids watch them and as I said the films reflect the books any so they have to be bit dark. Cannot make they all happy and bright just to suit and 8 year old who wants to see them.

Alot of kids today though are scared by anything in HP.

In my experience people or kids, generally do not take years to finish books. (Well other than penguin book on Hitler thats been taunting me for years.)

But I think you are missing my point. The books and films are tagged as "childrens books" mainly to excuse their shortcomings. But then we say they are not suitable for those same kids. I think that highlights the flaw in the books. Too dark for kids books, too childish for adults. I enjoy them as much as the next person, but the point remains. They are spread too thin.

Trepzi

PseudoFamous wrote: »

I also found

Voldemort's giggling to be extremely hilarious and out of place

. Couple these things with how he

leaned in when Harry wanted to "Finish this together"

, and we see Voldemort in a completely different light

I totally agree. I have to say it was a more amusing Voldemort than I was expecting. I was almost sad

to see him go

:rolleyes:

Slydice

I've never read the books so all I have to go on are the films.

My reaction overall is similar to my reaction of the TV Mini-Series Taken. It was really good in the begining but the ending wasn't as good as the earlier work. It wasn't crap but I was hoping for something a bit more meaningful because the earlier work was so good.

constitutionus

caught this last night in the 2d version.

i really liked it.

its not really a film though, more a final act of the whole series. i.e you couldnt just walk into this with no knowledge.

but all in all i really liked how this series grew from the innocence and awe fo the begining to the dark and mature destination it got to. back to back this is really impressive as a film series.

i DO wonder if its a little TOO dark and oppressive for younger viewers but i was there with my friends 11 year old and he loved it, never left his seat once.

what i really liked is how it touched on a hell of alot that went before in a very sublte way i.e seamus and his predispositoin to blow stuff up and how when it ended it really did feel like a nice complete ending to the series. the major characters all started off in one place and ended up here very organically and i havent seen that in film in ages.

particularly not a kids film.

i give it 8/10.

does what it does well.

Mindkiller

Watched it yesterday. Enjoyed it. Definitely better than any of the other Yates movies and probably the best HP movie in general. I haven't read the book in ages so I don't really remember any discrepancies though I don't understand how

Voldemort died. He just seemed to distintegrate when his horcruxes were broken

I liked this bit

Outkast_IRE

To me it was an acceptable ending to a good series , i have not read the books but i do intend to at some stage.

To me personally the last few films really felt like your missing huge amounts by not reading the books and knowing the backstories, i suppose they did the best anyone could when compressing the story down so much .

Overall i was glad i went to the cinema to see the final harry potter i thought the pacing of the movie was improved upon from the first part of deathly hallows.

I seen it in 2d but was i the only one who found the colours incredibly dull, i know this is probably the look they were going for but i havent seen such a dull coloured film since "THE ROAD"

Mickeroo

Mindkiller wrote: »

Watched it yesterday. Enjoyed it. Definitely better than any of the other Yates movies and probably the best HP movie in general. I haven't read the book in ages so I don't really remember any discrepancies though I don't understand how

Voldemort died. He just seemed to distintegrate when his horcruxes were broken

when they

destroy the horcruxes they essentially destroy his soul

Mindkiller

Mickeroo wrote: »

when they

destroy the horcruxes they essentially destroy his soul

In the movie you mean? Because that's not quite how it works in the book.

All destroying them should do is stop him from being immortal. Voldemort is a horcrux as well

Mickeroo

Mindkiller wrote: »

In the movie you mean? Because that's not quite how it works in the book.

All destroying them should do is stop him from being immortal. Voldemort is a horcrux as well

I presume that must be the angle they went wth in the movie. Sorry, i missed where you wrote that you had read the book. Been a few years since I read it so can't remember exactly how it played out now.

constitutionus

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

To me it was an acceptable ending to a good series , i have not read the books but i do intend to at some stage.

To me personally the last few films really felt like your missing huge amounts by not reading the books and knowing the backstories, i suppose they did the best anyone could when compressing the story down so much .

Overall i was glad i went to the cinema to see the final harry potter i thought the pacing of the movie was improved upon from the first part of deathly hallows.

I seen it in 2d but was i the only one who found the colours incredibly dull, i know this is probably the look they were going for but i havent seen such a dull coloured film since "THE ROAD"

that DID stand out to me as well.

i presume they were going for a "hopelessness/bleak" feel and in that respect i think it worked.

but it definetly is very different.

cant help thinking that may screw up the 3d version as dull = murky mess in that format.

on the plus side made the magic effects stand out beautifully as they were the most vibrant things in the film. that and the flashbacks.

in fact now i think about it i think the only really bright and vibrant scenes

are at the end with them all grown up sending their kids off to school. thats probably delibrate too.

They messed up Voldemort in the films the same way as they messed up Dumbledore. Voldemort is the epitome of evil, callous and ruthless and he

hugs Draco and starts laughing stupidly at jokes!

. It's ridiculous. In the movies he seems to hold a lot less of a threat to Harry or anyone he faces really.

Dumbledore was a lot more flustered and seemingly not 'in the know' as much as he appeared to be in the books. He lacked the sense of mysticism that he had in the books. To be fair Richard Harris' portrayal seemed to possess it but when the new director came in Dumbledore seemed to always be worried about something which is not in line with his character at all.

Da Shins Kelly

Haven't seen the second part yet, as I only got around to watching the first part today. I was quite impressed with it. I really enjoyed the whole Deathly Hallows folklore animation sequence, thought it was a really nice touch.

I've enjoyed this movie and the last one. They've gotten progressively darker, which is a good thing in my opinion. I thought the first two were not very good, the third and fourth were OK and the fifth was bad too. I think the sixth was a major improvement, and this Part 1 is quite good too. It's good to see the books and movies growing up with their audience, and having more sinister and dark themes. The introduction of characters like Bellatrix, as well as the complexity given to the character of Draco Malfoy are really good aspects. It makes the whole thing a bit more adult, which is a great thing given that the characters are supposed to be entering adulthood.

I'm hopeful for the last one!

cena

Anyone see it in 3d. Athlone only showing in 2d once a day and its too ealy too see it than.

Trepzi

Liam O wrote: »

They messed up Voldemort in the films the same way as they messed up Dumbledore. Voldemort is the epitome of evil, callous and ruthless and he

hugs Draco and starts laughing stupidly at jokes!

. It's ridiculous. In the movies he seems to hold a lot less of a threat to Harry or anyone he faces really.

Dumbledore was a lot more flustered and seemingly not 'in the know' as much as he appeared to be in the books. He lacked the sense of mysticism that he had in the books. To be fair Richard Harris' portrayal seemed to possess it but when the new director came in Dumbledore seemed to always be worried about something which is not in line with his character at all.

I totally agree on both points. Voldemort became more of a comedic villain in the film than the evil dark wizard that he was.
In my opinion Richard Harris nailed the role of Dumbledore. After that Dumbledore also seemed a bit too angry/rough - like how he attacked Harry after his name came out of the Goblet of Fire

Re: the whole Voldemort

death

thing -

he didn't die because they destroyed all the horcruxes. He died after all the horcruxes were destroyed, when the killing curse that he sent at Harry rebounded because the Elder wand would not harm it's true master

. That didn't really come across too well in the movie though so I'd say that if you hadn't read the books it would have been impossible to know what happened.

Mr. K

Saw it earlier, much better than Part 1. I can't think of too much to complain about, the scenes I was hopeful about (

the Snape flashback

and

Neville killing Nagini

) were awesome.

Unfortunately,

Molly

killing

Bellatrix

wasn't as violent or abrupt as I'd hoped it would be.

Phony Scott

I hugely enjoyed it, but it wasn’t without serious issues.

Plus points:

Firstly I loved the pacing of the film, it feels much tighter than the previous episodes, but that maybe down to the fact that there is more time to play with.The action scenes were terrific through-out.

Overall, I would say it’s the richest film of the series when it comes to sentiment. I don’t mean that in a bad way, certain scenes were excellently handled and not oozing in overt sentiment. Key to this was the soundtrack, which I have major issues with, but in specific scenes, which needed the emotional whomp, it didn’t over-egg itself.

Alan Rickman stole the show, but even more so than usual.

The problems:

The insistence of not showing any on-screen deaths for certain people. Sure, that’s how it happens in the book, but it diminishes their importance in the series. It really suggests that there are far too many characters to deal with, so the blame lies with Rowling, but then we wouldn't have had so many great characters to chew on.

A similar issue was the

death of Bellatrix Lestrange

, surely it’s Neville Longbottom’s job, though I suspect

revenge isn’t something Rowling wants in her heroes

.

Some of the CGI was ropey, namely when anyone was flying on a broomstick in the Room of Requirement. I haven’t seen this as an issue in the last few films, but here it was as bad as the first three.

The action scenes, though terrific, were hindered by the soundtrack. This soundtrack was too subdued and restrained for this type of thing. It worked excellently in the emotional department, but the action scenes needed to be way more grandiose.

I felt the production values noticeably suffered in one scene in particular, namely when

Harry's body was carried into Hogwarts

. I just seemed so barren after a war.

One last thing, I wonder if anyone in House Slytherin got parole anytime during those 19 years :P

maximoose

Saw it on Saturday night and left feeling very underwhelmed. I think that Part 1 was a much better film. A lot of awful actors (Bill, Fleur, Harry's parents), needless crap additions to the story (

Lavender dying, Nevilles love for Luna?!

, and the final battle was just a bit pants in comparison to the book. No house elves for one!

I thought the pensieve scene was brilliant though, IMO was done very very well.

Think also there was far too much experimenting with the sound, too many Saving Private Ryan moments with the slo-mo and heartbeats etc.

Greyjoy

cena wrote: »

Anyone see it in 3d. Athlone only showing in 2d once a day and its too ealy too see it than.

I saw it in 3D at the weekend, tbh I would have chosen the 2D version but this was a free ticket. The film was converted into 3D afterwards rather than originally filmed in 3D so it doesn't really add anything to the movie except in a couple of the cgi chase scenes.