What did you think about THE MOVIE?

sorry for the double post--but please ignore the grammatical errors.

The title of this thread should clearly be HP7P2

I'm trying to decide if I want to watch part 1 again before seeing part two. Or maybe read the book for the fourth time.

I'm waiting for the crowds to die down before seeing it.

Kind of disappointed that this one is so short. I was kind of hoping it would be an epic three hour long wizarding battle royale. Guess they ran out of money?

I'm hoping to see it sometime within the next week.

It's 2h20.

That still makes it the shortest movie out of the entire series.

Going to see it in 3D tonight... I don't care about the 3D part particularly, but it was the only after 8pm showing at my local.

In an ideal world the director will have the good sense to delete the final chapter from the book.

SPOILER: It's there.

I just got back from it.

I liked it but it seemed so uneven. The first part was so drawn out but this one is the polar opposite. So many things are glossed over and the battle is treated more like a background event then anything else. Had a lot of the same problems the book had. It could have really benefited from an extra 30 minutes or so and fixed all those problems but they didn't. As I originally suspected, the shortness does hurt it. Characters appear for less then a minute then die off-screen in a very unceremonious manner. I mean, they kill Fred off-screen. Would have been a lot better if they'd stuck to how it was in the book cause then it would have at least given Percy something to do, who's brought back only to hover in the background at certain points. Kind of disappointing. And the fanfiction-esque epilogue sucks here just like it did in the book.

But what action there was was great and I had mixed feelings for the first part but warmed up to it eventually. Maybe the same thing will happen here.

And Neville is a badass. Hope Matthew Lewis gets an awesome career out of this. He deserves it.

I thought Fred died "offscreen" in the book too.

From what I remember it is shown.

After the whole Room of Requirements bit the trio run into Fred and Percy and they fight with some Death Eaters. Some kind of explosion goes off right next to Fred and kills him. After that I think Voldemort calls the stand-still and they carry Fred's body to the Great Hall.

In the movie there's just a couple second shot of Fred during that battle then later after the stand-still is called the group goes into the Great Hall to find the whole Weasley family around Fred's body.

They also bring back Oliver Wood for all of two seconds and you can barely even tell its him so I have to ask why they even bothered? He's the guy on the broom yelling "Come on!" in the trailer. I stepped out to take a piss for less then a minute so maybe that's when he showed up a long with Percy and Tonks because the next thing I knew there was a quick 10 second shot of her and Lupin later and then they were dead. I know they were both killed off-screen but they could have given them a couple more minutes of screen time, just enough to tell Harry about their kid because he mentions him later like he already knew about him despite nobody ever telling him.

The movie was full of little things like that that really disappointed me. Like I said, the last movie was a couple of key events dragged out over 3 hours. This was a bunch of stuff packed into 2. If they would have made Part 1 the 2-hour movie and Part 2 the three-hour deal things would have turned out better. I'm kind of hoping there was a lot of stuff cut-out that they'll put back in for the DVD release.

But the film's still good. All of Neville's scenes are worth the price of admission alone.

I thought they drawn out the one Neville scene

SPOILERS ALL OVER

During the Snape memory, did they gloss over Voldemort trying to kill Harry with the killing curse? I thought that, in Snape's memory, the piece of Voldemort's soul attached to Harry when he killed his mother. That's a huge difference from the book. And all the movies for that matter.

But, overall, I'm satisfied with it ending the eight movie series.

The biggest problem I had was the commercial they played before it:

I hooked my parents on the series and took them to the last four movies--so I got to watch this commercial next to my mother. Great.

They played the trailer for Breaking Dawn before it where I saw it. They fucked up my record of not seeing a minute of any of the movies.

I just got back from seeing it. It was really good. After watching the ENTIRE SERIES back to back, and then watching this one, it's still really good.

I thought it was enjoyable; better than HP and the Deathly Hallows Part 1. There were some cringy moments when I couldn't help but laugh, but that's nothing new. Epilogue was still awful, but it was funny how Hermione and Ron looked like teen parents. The news channels were hyping up their kiss so much, funny how it took up such a small part of screen time.

I'll probably read the books again in a few years.

PS

Which Hogwarts house will you be sorted into?

Which Hogwarts house will you be sorted into?

That quiz seems to have been written by a 12 year old.

So I can see the movie in 3D or not in 3D. I'm hesitant to see it in 3D, I have never seen one, not since the Michael Jackson thing at Disney World in the 80s. It seems like something for kids to me, like it might be cheesy. Any input?

If you're prone to headaches and sore eyes, don't choose the 3D. Most goggles are heavy, and the movie is rather long, so you might get a headache. I wish I could've seen it the normal way, but it was ok in the end. SPOILER: The burning school looks better (and more painful) in 3D.

I was wondering about the headache thing. I've had a headache for a week now, so I think I'll opt for normal style.

Anyway, to answer your question, you don't really need to see it in 3D - it was pretty un-neccessary, although as Irina said, it looked quite good when the school was burning down and the snowflakes were falling..

I saw it in 2D and it looked fine. The only time I thought the 3D could add anything was in the handful of shots of Nagini jumping at the camera.

Oh yeah, and:

I like 3D, especially in this movie. You don't NEED to see it in 3D, but why not? If you've had a headache for a week, that's not normal. Go see a doctor, and start reviewing your daily routine.

I know that's not normal. I'm at the doctor now, it took a while for them to fit me in.

I saw it in 3D because I was on a date and that was the one showing when we finished dinner. It made my head hurt a bit, but not too badly. It was pretty neat. There was so much they left out though. I read the book again after seeing the movie, it was just as good the fifth time. I wish they had included the centaurs and the house elves, Kreacher especially. There were other things I wished they'd included, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

After the movie I was talking to my date about the books and I told him that he really should read them. He said, "but I've seen the movies, why would I need to read the books?"

We won't be going out again.

There were a couple of points where I choked up a little. Probably just because I have been invested in this for so long.

Melody's date said the wrong thing.

I've had girls say - they made a movie of that, I'll just wait.

Or the exact same thing your date said.

Terrible. I didn't read Fight Club until after I saw the movie. Same with American Psycho. Same with Lord of the Flies, Rules of Attraction, Bright Lights Big City, and so many more.

Maybe if it's a good story, it's even better to read it. At least that's how I think.

I liked the movie.

But what was with Harry's kid's Bieber hair? He should be nerdy like his Dad!

Snape and Neville were my favourites.

I saw it in 3D, but it really wasn't worth it, 2D would have been just as good.

Snape was spectacular. He was always my favorite from the begining, I didn't know how he was going to redeem himself, but I knew he would. Of course I already knew how his story played out when I saw this last movie, but it was amazing to see it brought to life. To see him holding Lily's body. To see the fear in his eyes when Harry steped out of the crowd.

This is cheesy, but I am seriously considering getting a Snape tattoo. I have been for a while. In so many ways I relate to his character, and the strength and shame and fear and love within it, more than nearly any character else in anything.

It would have to be a quote of his.

Whether it's because I listened to the book before I saw the movie (Des--this is about the 3rd or 4th time listening to it and I've read it twice) or that I'm just so into the whole series--I'm not sure why this is sticking in my head so much. Just one of those things I guess.

^Wow, that's an awkward post--I'm not even going to try to edit it--I hope it makes sense. If not, disregard.

It made enough sense.

I've only read the series twice. So i can't really answer any of it myself. I'm going to read them all again, starting today.

I think that's an odd deal breaker. I liked the movies, and I'm sure I'd enjoy the books, but yeah, saw the movies already. I'd rather move on to new books and stories that I've been putting off then spend my time reading a story I already know the majority of.

Hmmm, but I did read Fight Club after seeing the movie. I guess if I loved the movie enough, I'd read the source material. I guess that just means that the Harry Potter movies didn't "wow" me enough.

Anyone who thinks there is nothing to gain from reading a book because they have all ready seen the movie is just silly, you included.

Preach!

I tried reading Lord of the Rings but gave up after a few chapters and decided to just wait for the movies.

Justin - you will never get this!

I was going to read the newspaper, but I figure I'll just watch the made-for-tv movie.

In my defense, it was Lord of the Rings.

lol true

Can't argue with that. I read half the series and quit, too dry for me.

The Lord of the Rings books, along with The Hobbit, are awesome. I've only read them once but have listened to them at least ten times (I have a thing for books on CD--The Harry Potter series, The Lord of the Rings, and The Godfather are in constant rotation interspersed with other titles).

Now, I would have understood if you said The Silmarillian--I couldn't read it and had a hard time staying awake when listening (not a good thing when you're driving).

I loved the hobbit, but I had trouble the trilogy. I tried to read the silmarillian maybe five times, but I failed.

The Silmarillion may be the hardest book I ever read. Umberto Eco's a piece of cake compared to this.

Like I felt with the book, it was a satisfying end to the series (even though they had to break it up into two movies).

In particular, I was impressed that a movie that was more than two hours long managed to feel much shorter than that. Normally that kind of pacing doesn't show up in a lot of films of that length.

Read the whole thing again to understand my point, fully.

You admit you might enjoy the books while in the say breath you say that it's odd that we would dislike someone for saying reading the books would be pointless. Your point isn't really that clear at all.

Doesn't seem like anyone would ever claim it to be "pointless". It seems like people would most likely be claiming it's not worth it to them, as they already know the majority of the key points of a story, and it didn't wow them to the point of wanting to read the source material to have a deeper understanding of it. To assume people are so narrow-minded/stupid is a mistake... most of the time.

I'd say the same thing as the person you just brushed off did, but it would seem odd that you would assume I wouldn't want to read the books because I think the movies deliver the same experience rather than because the movies didn't convince me to go back to the source material.