Originally Posted by DaFace:
Strongly agree. That felt just as out of place in the movie as it did in the books.
I disagree. I liked the epilogue in the book (which was translated to the movie with less exposition, although it would've been nice if they'd mentioned Remus's kid). It was Rowling's way of looping the whole thing back around again and making it timeless, and it was also her way of showing that the kids successfully paired off and moved into adulthood, and it was also her way of definitely saying she was NOT continuing the story of these three kids again. [Reply]
According to reports, the film had the biggest opening weekend ever, beating "The Dark Knight". However, IMO the dropoff on this film is going to be tremendous. I think half the fans saw it this weekend, and the other half will see it this week at night and on the weekend, and it'll pretty much be done. I don't see a lot of repeat business (whereas with "TDK" and "Avatar" we had the same people coming back two, three times to see it again). Granted, it's a 10:00am Monday show, but right now I only have about 25 people in my "HP7B" IMAX crowd. [Reply]
If he wasn't able to kill Harry with the Elder Wand in the end, how was he able to do it the first time just 20 minutes before that?
Spoiler!
They never said the Elder Wand didn't work for Voldemort, it just didn't work as well as it should have, especially considering that it was the most powerful wand in the world. There have been several times in the series when Harry used somebody else's wand.
Voldemort had no problem killing Harry the first time because Harry didn't fight back. Voldermort just zapped him with the killing curse and he was dead. If Harry had fought back the first time, the result would have been different.
It had nothing to do with Voldemort killing a part of himself. It was because Harry didn't fight back.
Originally Posted by Red 5:
Just picked up Deathly Hallows. Damn, paperbacks are $9 now? I remember when they were all $5.
Have you read the rest of the series? If not, you may get a little lost, I would think. There are several other story lines that did not show up in the movies that are referred to in that book. [Reply]
I saw the movie last night. I didn't really like Part I all that much, so I wasn't expecting that much from Part II.
I loved it. It was much better than I expected it to be. There was a lot of action, none of the annoying and boring scenes like in Part I, and the movie was faithful to what I considered to be the most important scenes in the book.
Spoiler!
The scene where Harry sees Snape's memories was brilliant. I wondered if the movie would just gloss over it, but instead the scene was handled very well and it showed what a tragic figure Snape really was. He was hopelessly in love with Lily Potter his whole life, and even though he treated Harry like shit because of his resemblance to his dad, he defended Harry to Dumbledore when he realized that Dumbledore's plan was to allow Harry to die. Snape may have been the most interesting character in the whole series because you just didn't know until the very end if he was truly good or evil. I'm glad he turned out to be good, although he was also extremely flawed. It made him real.
Harry's death scene was also very good and very faithful to the novel. I loved Dumbledore's line: "Of course this in your head. That doesn't mean it isn't real."
I do wish they hadn't changed the final battle. I preferred the book version where Harry told Dumbledore in front of everybody that Draco Malfoy had been the master of the Elder Wand because he disarmed Dumbledore, and now HARRY was the true master of the Elder Wand because he disarmed Draco Malfoy and took his wand (even though it wasn't the Elder Wand). He then used the Expelliarmus spell to take the Elder Wand away from Voldemort right after Voldemort attempted to kill Harry with it. Instead, the spell backfired and killed Voldemort.
I thought that was a lot more powerful than a simple fight scene in which Harry prevails.
I also liked the way Harry repeatedly called Voldemort "Tom Riddle" at the end in the book. His tone was condescending (he even called him just plain "Riddle" a couple of times), and it was perfect. I would have liked to have seen that in the movie. However, overall I give the movie a major thumbs up.
Originally Posted by luv:
Have you read the rest of the series? If not, you may get a little lost, I would think. There are several other story lines that did not show up in the movies that are referred to in that book.
Originally Posted by JD10367:
According to reports, the film had the biggest opening weekend ever, beating "The Dark Knight". However, IMO the dropoff on this film is going to be tremendous. I think half the fans saw it this weekend, and the other half will see it this week at night and on the weekend, and it'll pretty much be done. I don't see a lot of repeat business (whereas with "TDK" and "Avatar" we had the same people coming back two, three times to see it again). Granted, it's a 10:00am Monday show, but right now I only have about 25 people in my "HP7B" IMAX crowd.
Yea...its extremely front loaded. Probably doesnt have the long lasting play of Avatar or Dark Knight. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Deberg_1990:
Yea...its extremely front loaded. Probably doesnt have the long lasting play of Avatar or Dark Knight.
I think it will do OK. Part I wound up grossing over $950 million, and Part II is a much better movie. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see this movie gross over a billion dollars.
I agree that it probably won't beat Avatar, but that's pretty stiff competition considering that Avatar is the top grossing movie of all time. Dark Knight barely beat out Part I, so I think Part II will wind up beating it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Brainiac:
I agree that it probably won't beat Avatar, but that's pretty stiff competition considering that Avatar is the top grossing movie of all time. Dark Knight barely beat out Part I, so I think Part II will wind up beating it.
"TDK" beat "Part 1" by $50M worldwide ($1B vs. $950M) but kicked its ass in the US ($533M vs. $295M). In the US, "Avatar" is at #1 ($760M), "TDK" is #3, and "Part 1" is way down at #39.
Originally Posted by JD10367:
"TDK" beat "Part 1" by $50M worldwide ($1B vs. $950M) but kicked its ass in the US ($533M vs. $295M). In the US, "Avatar" is at #1 ($760M), "TDK" is #3, and "Part 1" is way down at #39.
I just don't see this film having a repeat business.
I think there may be a lull, but I wonder if some people might just be waiting until they think the theaters won't be as packed to go see it. Also, I think there may be some (such as myself) who might have seen it in 3D the first time who go back to watch it in 2D, or vice versa. [Reply]
Originally Posted by luv:
I think there may be a lull, but I wonder if some people might just be waiting until they think the theaters won't be as packed to go see it. Also, I think there may be some (such as myself) who might have seen it in 3D the first time who go back to watch it in 2D, or vice versa.
I'd be surprised if any theater is packed after opening night, because it's playing on so many screens simultaneously.
My wife wanted to get reserved seating at one of the theaters around here. I checked and found that there was a total of over 50 different showings on Sunday in the three theaters that are within a few miles of our house. So we went last night and had no problem as there were lots of empty seats. (We didn't get reserved seating). [Reply]
Originally Posted by JD10367:
"TDK" beat "Part 1" by $50M worldwide ($1B vs. $950M) but kicked its ass in the US ($533M vs. $295M). In the US, "Avatar" is at #1 ($760M), "TDK" is #3, and "Part 1" is way down at #39.
Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy!:
Am I the only person that came away from Harry Potter with a decidedly "Meh" feeling about it? I must have missed something.
I was underwhelmed. It was decent, don't get me wrong... I just felt like, "Really? Seven movies was leading up to this? Um ... OK."
I'm going to give the books a try later on, but not right now. The last movie kinda left me lukewarm to the entire series.
Not to that extent, but I know what you mean. The entire battle scene on for me was a little disappointing compared to the books. The long, drawn out battle scene worked great in the books, where you expect things to take quite a bit of time in the "real world." But the climax of the entire series in the movies was pretty "Oh...he's dead now? Well, OK then." to me. Not sure how they could have kept it more exciting without going away from the book story, but it did feel a bit lacking. [Reply]