Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 *SPOILERS*
I think this movie needs its own thread.
Overall I thought it was good. I figure it may leave something to be desired for those who haven't read the books, but then I don't think they matter, cause they should just read the damn books. I think they picked a very good spot to end it. It was sad though, I almost cried when I read the bit about Dobby dying.
I thought the three brothers sequence was imaginative and beautiful, but it seemed out of place to me. I found many parts of the movie were just as I pictured them in the book, which has happened time and time again in this series. Particularly the whole bit in Godric's Hollow, from the graveyard to Bathilda's character and house.
What did you think?
"I'm glad I live in the GPS era. In a different century, I would've set off to visit the other side of the village and wandered off into the mountains and been eaten by a carnivorous plant. Or discovered the Americas."
-LaJessica
I was trying to think of what the Three Brothers bit reminded me of. Henry Selick came to mind first, but then I remembered seeing on TV The Adventures of Prince Achmed (I had to google russian animation cutouts to figure out the name of the movie). It's very appealing to me, though a feature film of it runs a bit long, I would gladly watch a short movie in that style.
(ignore that music, that is not in the actual movie, which is from 1926)
As for the rest of the movie, I mostly liked it. My main problem is the same problem I have with all of them. It spends an awful lot of time on exposition, and yet it's still difficult for people who have not read the books to follow in any great detail. I think that's the problem of being to loyal to the letter of the books. But then I've always been in the capture-the-spirit-of-the-movie-and-don't-worry-about-the-rest camp. That's a terrible use of hyphenry.
I'm of the stick-to-the-book-cause-that's-where-you-got-the-shit-anyway camp.
One thing that was different from the book: they didn't have Harry disguise himself at the wedding, but I didn't mind that bit. It made sense.
"I'm glad I live in the GPS era. In a different century, I would've set off to visit the other side of the village and wandered off into the mountains and been eaten by a carnivorous plant. Or discovered the Americas."
-LaJessica
I haven't read the books but I really enjoy the movies. I don't think I could get into the books for some reason though, even if they are better.
I have to say that this one did drag a bit but it had a lot of great scenes. I did enjoy the three brothers bit and have to agree with Glamoth on the Director's indulgence bit. It was nice to kind of pull away from the movie a bit and I thought the design of the animation was interesting. I think it might have been my favorite part of the movie. At first I was a little taken back and thought what the hell is this all about and agree that it seemed out of place but I know if I were to watch the movie again that scene would definitely be my favorite part. It sucks you in to this whole other dimension. ( I want to say more about this but I'm sleepy and am pretty sure I won't be able to articulate very well)
You know, all the reviews I've read of it (and this is in NO way a critcism of you, Jaz) said two things: 1. I'm not a fan of the books, or the series 2. The movie is too slow.
First of all, I'm not really sure you should be reviewing a film franchise if you're basically walking into it ignorant of said franchise, except for the stuff you've just gleaned by cultural osmosis. Everyone can't love every movie, but the Harry Potter movies are made for a specific, ready-made audience, and it's kind of weird that the three reviews I read of Deathly Hallows Pt. 1, all three of the reviewers went out of their way to say, "I'm not a fan," in ways that went from apologetic to smug. Where are they finding these guys?
Secondly, this book is sort of supposed to drag in the middle. They spent like a year in the woods with nothing to do but listen to the radio and have a creepy One True Ring-like relationship with the Horcrux. It's really boring and tedious for them, and it's the main reason why Ron ends up pitching a fit and bailing on Harry and Hermione. Personally I think the movie did a pretty good job of showing the monotony and tedium without getting bogged down in it. Having them go straight from the wedding to stabbing Horcruxes left and right wouldn't have been faithful to the story.
There is hope, but not for us.
Well said, Lady Jane.
"I'm glad I live in the GPS era. In a different century, I would've set off to visit the other side of the village and wandered off into the mountains and been eaten by a carnivorous plant. Or discovered the Americas."
-LaJessica
I was just thinking about Part 2 and how it will start off. The place where they left off makes it pretty perfect. Part two should basically start with a convenient reintroduction of characters and a new mission.
"I'm glad I live in the GPS era. In a different century, I would've set off to visit the other side of the village and wandered off into the mountains and been eaten by a carnivorous plant. Or discovered the Americas."
-LaJessica
Like I said in the other thread: There were some good set pieces and a lot of scenery porn, but Yates' style seems to be getting stale, which is why I think they should have gotten somebody new to direct it.
Secondly, this book is sort of supposed to drag in the middle. They spent like a year in the woods with nothing to do but listen to the radio and have a creepy One True Ring-like relationship with the Horcrux. It's really boring and tedious for them, and it's the main reason why Ron ends up pitching a fit and bailing on Harry and Hermione. Personally I think the movie did a pretty good job of showing the monotony and tedium without getting bogged down in it. Having them go straight from the wedding to stabbing Horcruxes left and right wouldn't have been faithful to the story.
I remember watching this part and just having a little bit of respect for the vast amount of silence that was in this movie, which did, i agree, match the tone of that section of the book quite well.
You know who keeps disappointing me, though? Ralph Fiennes. He should have been so good as Voldemort, but he always seems to be playing it over the top, plus he sounds like he has a stuffed nose all the time, which is hardly menacing.
Voldemort's character is over the top cheesy, but thats the way I always read him. I always found snape more frightening.
"I'm glad I live in the GPS era. In a different century, I would've set off to visit the other side of the village and wandered off into the mountains and been eaten by a carnivorous plant. Or discovered the Americas."
-LaJessica
First of all, I'm not really sure you should be reviewing a film franchise if you're basically walking into it ignorant of said franchise, except for the stuff you've just gleaned by cultural osmosis. Everyone can't love every movie, but the Harry Potter movies are made for a specific, ready-made audience, and it's kind of weird that the three reviews I read of Deathly Hallows Pt. 1, all three of the reviewers went out of their way to say, "I'm not a fan," in ways that went from apologetic to smug. Where are they finding these guys?
Secondly, this book is sort of supposed to drag in the middle. They spent like a year in the woods with nothing to do but listen to the radio and have a creepy One True Ring-like relationship with the Horcrux. It's really boring and tedious for them, and it's the main reason why Ron ends up pitching a fit and bailing on Harry and Hermione. Personally I think the movie did a pretty good job of showing the monotony and tedium without getting bogged down in it. Having them go straight from the wedding to stabbing Horcruxes left and right wouldn't have been faithful to the story.
Well for one I'm not publishing a review so no offense taken. And I'm sure if I read the books I probably would enjoy the movies more. I really do love the movies and I loved this one too. I also understand that it was pt.1 so I had a feeling it was gonna drag for me a bit and end abruptly, not knowing the full story. Overall I think the movie flowed well and you can tell they stayed as true to the book as they could.
methinks I might give the book a third read. Or would that be fourth? Dunno.
"I'm glad I live in the GPS era. In a different century, I would've set off to visit the other side of the village and wandered off into the mountains and been eaten by a carnivorous plant. Or discovered the Americas."
-LaJessica
Oh man, I knew nothing of the movie. My son told me today that he wants to see both parts of the new HP movie and I told him they did one movie per book. Now I feel dumb and have to choose between looking like an idiot to my child and apologizing for making an assumption, or risk him getting into a know-it-all fight with another kid and not be right, thereby making me AND him look like an ass. *sigh*
As for the movie... I will see it when it comes out on video. I love the HP movies, but I can't see paying $40 for the kids and I to see a movie we could see for $5 with a little patience.
Mom's gonna fix it all soon.
$40 to see a movie?
yeah I was surprised it was only $12 dollars for two of us the other day. It's usually $20.
Three movie tickets with popcorn and and drinks and video games afterwards is easily $40.
Strangely enough though, I received a call shortly after my post inviting me and the kids to see it. I really liked it. I balled when Dobby died, which produce all sorts of odd looks from people.
Mom's gonna fix it all soon.
Just got home after watching the movie. I thought the part with Dobby dying was at first sad, then funny.
Harry's all, "I want to have a proper burial. No magic." Then you see him digging a hole with a shovel. Where the hell did the shovel come from?
I imagined someone saying, "Well, we don't really want to get our hands dirty."
Then Harry was like, "Alright, we'll use magic to make a shovel. BUT THAT'S IT!"
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Harry's all, "I want to have a proper burial. No magic." Then you see him digging a hole with a shovel. Where the hell did the shovel come from?
I imagined someone saying, "Well, we don't really want to get our hands dirty."
Then Harry was like, "Alright, we'll use magic to make a shovel. BUT THAT'S IT!"
Hahaha I thought the same thing. And sadly I did laugh at this part too. I'm an insensitive asshole sometimes.
Harry's all, "I want to have a proper burial. No magic." Then you see him digging a hole with a shovel. Where the hell did the shovel come from?
I imagined someone saying, "Well, we don't really want to get our hands dirty."
Then Harry was like, "Alright, we'll use magic to make a shovel. BUT THAT'S IT!"
Hahaha I thought the same thing. And sadly I did laugh at this part too. I'm an insensitive asshole sometimes.
I felt sad because of the book--the movie really didn't capture this part.
But the fight when they left the house was awesome! Really well done. I actually felt really sad when Hedwig was killed. Again, really well done.
Overall, I liked the movie. I went in with very low expectations after the putrid stinkhole otherwise known as The Half-Blood Prince (I really liked the book) but thought 7.1 was really well done.
I wish Harry had some actual closer with the Dursleys though (must've been left on the cutting room floor).
I think it's been the best movie. I've read all the books (and absolutely love them) and loved this one more tan the others.
And I think that "putrid stinkhole" was actually Goblet of Fire. Ugh, I hated that thing.
Harry's all, "I want to have a proper burial. No magic." Then you see him digging a hole with a shovel. Where the hell did the shovel come from?
I imagined someone saying, "Well, we don't really want to get our hands dirty."
Then Harry was like, "Alright, we'll use magic to make a shovel. BUT THAT'S IT!"
The shovel came from the house. They weren't just in a field. They went to Ron's brother's house, Shell Cottage.
"A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism." -Carl Sagan
"Am I cruel? Probably. Is she an idiot? Yes." -jane s.
And I think that "putrid stinkhole" was actually Goblet of Fire. Ugh, I hated that thing.
I thought Goblet of Fire was one of the better ones. Although his smallest part of the series, Snape was awesome in that one.
And I think that "putrid stinkhole" was actually Goblet of Fire. Ugh, I hated that thing.
I thought Goblet of Fire was one of the better ones. Although his smallest part of the series, Snape was awesome in that one.
Snape is always awesome but, you see what they did to Dumbledore? When he goes like: "Harry, did you put your name on the Goblet?..." he looks like he's going to bite Harry's face off anytime! I hated it.
And I think that "putrid stinkhole" was actually Goblet of Fire. Ugh, I hated that thing.
I thought Goblet of Fire was one of the better ones. Although his smallest part of the series, Snape was awesome in that one.
Snape is always awesome but, you see what they did to Dumbledore? When he goes like: "Harry, did you put your name on the Goblet?..." he looks like he's going to bite Harry's face off anytime! I hated it.
The problem is Richard Harris was perfect. That makes Gambon's Dumbledore that much worse. That being said, I try to dismiss everything and anything Dumbledore related after the second movie.
I just saw Deathly Hallows Part 1 last night. I liked it.
I had heard from people that it really dragged in the middle, but I didn't find it too bad at all. The dorky dancing was rather sweet.
The Three Brothers story did kind of seem a bit out of place with the movie, but it was bloody well done.
The end so makes me want to see the next one NOW!
And I think that "putrid stinkhole" was actually Goblet of Fire. Ugh, I hated that thing.
I thought Goblet of Fire was one of the better ones. Although his smallest part of the series, Snape was awesome in that one.
Snape is always awesome but, you see what they did to Dumbledore? When he goes like: "Harry, did you put your name on the Goblet?..." he looks like he's going to bite Harry's face off anytime! I hated it.
The problem is Richard Harris was perfect. That makes Gambon's Dumbledore that much worse. That being said, I try to dismiss everything and anything Dumbledore related after the second movie.
I much prefer the second Dumbledore. With the first one, it seemed like he was going to turn to dust any second. The new one is much more lively and strong. Like Dumbledore.
"A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism." -Carl Sagan
"Am I cruel? Probably. Is she an idiot? Yes." -jane s.
And I think that "putrid stinkhole" was actually Goblet of Fire. Ugh, I hated that thing.
I thought Goblet of Fire was one of the better ones. Although his smallest part of the series, Snape was awesome in that one.
Snape is always awesome but, you see what they did to Dumbledore? When he goes like: "Harry, did you put your name on the Goblet?..." he looks like he's going to bite Harry's face off anytime! I hated it.
The problem is Richard Harris was perfect. That makes Gambon's Dumbledore that much worse. That being said, I try to dismiss everything and anything Dumbledore related after the second movie.
I much prefer the second Dumbledore. With the first one, it seemed like he was going to turn to dust any second. The new one is much more lively and strong. Like Dumbledore.
I always thought of Dumbledore as witty and quirky--but never lively. The only time he was ever mentioned as being lively was when the dementors came to the quidditch match, causing Harry to fall off his broom in the Prisoner of Azkaban.
Wow... I'm a dork.
I just bought my first Nick Cave album because of that one scene.
And I think that "putrid stinkhole" was actually Goblet of Fire. Ugh, I hated that thing.
I thought Goblet of Fire was one of the better ones. Although his smallest part of the series, Snape was awesome in that one.
Snape is always awesome but, you see what they did to Dumbledore? When he goes like: "Harry, did you put your name on the Goblet?..." he looks like he's going to bite Harry's face off anytime! I hated it.
The problem is Richard Harris was perfect. That makes Gambon's Dumbledore that much worse. That being said, I try to dismiss everything and anything Dumbledore related after the second movie.
I much prefer the second Dumbledore. With the first one, it seemed like he was going to turn to dust any second. The new one is much more lively and strong. Like Dumbledore.
I always thought of Dumbledore as witty and quirky--but never lively. The only time he was ever mentioned as being lively was when the dementors came to the quidditch match, causing Harry to fall off his broom in the Prisoner of Azkaban.
Wow... I'm a dork.
Oh, yes. But you understand that, they shouldn't have been there even when they were hungry.
They changed more than one thing, believe me - I've got friends geeky enough to know this for sure.
I cried when Dobby died, and watched the film late enough that most of the other people there weren't quite as obsessive about HP as me - and definitely not anywhere near my friend, who cried long after the movie was over.
Suffice to say, we got a lot of weird looks.
Yo man! Next time, I kick your ass! That'll be that!
They really didn't change much, and what they did change wasn't important and made more sense for a film.
"I'm glad I live in the GPS era. In a different century, I would've set off to visit the other side of the village and wandered off into the mountains and been eaten by a carnivorous plant. Or discovered the Americas."
-LaJessica
Actually, they changed A LOT.
Yo man! Next time, I kick your ass! That'll be that!
apparently no one else sees a need for this thread.
i r fail.
"I'm glad I live in the GPS era. In a different century, I would've set off to visit the other side of the village and wandered off into the mountains and been eaten by a carnivorous plant. Or discovered the Americas."
-LaJessica