Not signed in (Sign In)
    •  
      CommentAuthorjohnjones
    • CommentTimeJul 16th 2011 edited
     (10044.1)
    I've just been and found it to be a bold, exciting, fitting end to the saga. And now I'm very much looking forward to seeing Daniel Radcliffe become the new generation's Michael Caine - hopefully without Jaws 3 and also to Ralph Fiennes playing someone with a full nose.
    • CommentAuthorZJVavrek
    • CommentTimeJul 16th 2011
     (10044.2)
    I keep thinking I ought to watch the whole series. I quite enjoy the books, but all I've seen of the films is the first hour or so of Philosopher's Stone (turned it off out of mind numbing boredom) and Goblet of Fire (someone else had put it on; thought it was quite a good adaptation.)

    I wonder what it would be like to watch them backwards. Start with DH2, work back to PS.
    • CommentAuthorStefanJ
    • CommentTimeJul 16th 2011
     (10044.3)
    Last night I watched, for the first time in five or six years, the first Potter film. For me, not so much boring as really, really leisurely (that's not necessarily a good thing) and . . . cheerfully reverential? The later adaptations were much trimmer and better as movies.

    This morning, I saw the finale. Grim, grim, grim, and faithful to the book without being a tedious recounting. They got in all the eye candy I appreciated from the books, including one really creepy bit::
    In the train-station-like anteroom to the afterlife, we see an manifestation of a portion of Voldemort's tortured soul curled up under a bench. That was a terrific bit in the book, and the movie shows it and then moves on, just like in the book.

    If there was a flaw, it was in giving secondary characters little more than walk-ons, so that the deaths of some of them had less impact that they could. On the other hand . . .
    The revelation of Snape as tragic hero was wonderfully well done. The little episodes of his life, revealed in the memory pool, were compact and well strung together.

    Overall . . . we're not talking about a masterpiece. It competently and faithfully presents a complex story. Beautifully produced. Great to good acting. But if you read the books, not surprising. Kind of dutiful.
    * * *
    Oh yeah: I saw it in 3-D, and as with most 3-D presentations, it really didn't make a difference after a while. I think I would have enjoyed it just as much in 2-D. The 3-D was good mind you, not blurry or cheap, but it wasn't at all essential.
    • CommentAuthorOddcult
    • CommentTimeJul 17th 2011
     (10044.4)
    Needed more battle and less kissing.
  1.  (10044.5)
    @Oddcult That's what EVERY film needs
  2.  (10044.6)
    Saw it at 9 in the morning with my mother at the local cineaplex, and already at half hour before, there was line of twenty people waiting.
    •  
      CommentAuthorjohnjones
    • CommentTimeJul 18th 2011
     (10044.7)
    Just yesterday I went to see the 3D version of the film and... it didn't really add all that much. Plus, we were probably sitting too close to the front so there was this blurring effect.
  3.  (10044.8)
    i never realised there were so many 12 year olds on whitechapel
  4.  (10044.9)
    Haven't seen it (yet) but applause for the title of this thread!
    •  
      CommentAuthorBeamish
    • CommentTimeJul 18th 2011
     (10044.10)
    I'm pretty sure I might get this from netflix, eventually.
    • CommentAuthorJECole
    • CommentTimeJul 18th 2011
     (10044.11)
    I quite enjoy the books, but all I've seen of the films is the first hour or so of Philosopher's Stone (turned it off out of mind numbing boredom)


    Lay the boredom at Chris Columbus' door. Hes a safe but ultimately, HORRENDOUSLY DULL director.
  5.  (10044.12)
    never realised there were so many 12 year olds on whitechapel

    I'm sure some of them started out as 12 year olds:)

    Nothing made me feel more old than hearing my friends girlfriend say she started reading the Harry Potter books when she was 3.
  6.  (10044.13)
    Just idly browsing, and BOODOFFSTAGE's comment really struck me when I realised that I could have read the first Harry Potter when I was 13. That's scary. It's become such a ubiquitous franchise that I keep on thinking of it as new (haven't actually read any of them, but seen one of the films).
    •  
      CommentAuthorBeamish
    • CommentTimeJul 18th 2011
     (10044.14)
    I had just graduated high school when the first book came out and didn't read any of them until I had just failed out of my second college. Not great but a fun watch.
    •  
      CommentAuthorjohnjones
    • CommentTimeJul 18th 2011
     (10044.15)
    i never realised there were so many 12 year olds on Whitechapel


    Two points. First, one of the main reasons I started this thread was simply to use the title, Pötterdämmerung.

    Second, there are degrees of 12yearoldem, as witness this:

    • CommentAuthorOddcult
    • CommentTimeJul 19th 2011
     (10044.16)
    hey guise wheres the falloutboy thread?!?!?!?!?

    BiEbeR SuX!

    LoLZ
    • CommentAuthorMandrake
    • CommentTimeJul 19th 2011
     (10044.17)
    I found Part 2 of Deathly Hallows disappointing. The films were never amazing, though, to be honest, the strongest emotional reaction from the movies I can remember is from Chamber of Secrets, if only because HOLY CRAP LITTLE 12 YEAR OLD BOY STABBING A BIGASS SNAKE TO DEATH. My reaction to this last movie was essentially: "The Journey is over. I don't really care anymore." and "Wow that was terrible aging done on them in the last scene."
    •  
      CommentAuthorjohnjones
    • CommentTimeJul 19th 2011
     (10044.18)
    My overall reaction to the last one was "Jesus, Dumbledore was even more of an utter manipulative bastard than Voldemort, wasn't he?"
    • CommentAuthorrichwilson
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2011
     (10044.19)
    It was pretty good, but no MEGA SHARK VS CROCOSAURUS.
    •  
      CommentAuthorjohnjones
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2011
     (10044.20)
    Be careful what you wish for, Syfy will probably make that movie anytime now...