blurb

Latest Movie News Headlines

The UnPopular Opinion: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1

Apr. 11, 2012by: Alejandro Stepenberg

UnPopular Opinion Header

THE UNPOPULAR OPINION is an ongoing column featuring different takes on films that either the writer HATED, but that the majority of film fans LOVED, or that the writer LOVED, but that most others LOATHED. We're hoping this column will promote constructive and geek fueled discussion. Enjoy!

*** SPOILERS ENSUE ***

As both a fantasy and as a world, Harry Potter is nigh-on unparalleled in my estimation.  I was the sort of kid who would be at Barnes & Noble at midnight, pick up my book, take it home, and not stop reading until I had finished.  I loved nothing more than the act of completely devouring the next chapter of Harry Potter's story.  And of course I eagerly anticipated each film, since seeing them served as an event that bound my friends and I together in a way that is oft-unmatched by other films these days.  We all knew the story, and we were all excited to see it unfold through a new lens (pun intended).

That being said, I think it is no secret that the quality of the films themselves has been rather uneven.  This is mainly due, in my belief, to a constant struggle of how to craft an identity as something at once respectful of the source material but still separate.  All storytelling requires certain elements, be they pacing or character development or affective action, and it is when such qualities as these are sidelined in favor of adhering too closely to the original material for its own sake that the film adaptations suffer.  Narrative writing allows for all sorts of sidenotes and details that the limited time and perspective of a film cannot match, and so any good film adaption should choose instead to work within those constraints and build a complete story in filmic terms.

Which HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 1 does not.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows pic 7

Let me say that I love HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 2.  I think that it fixes all of the mistakes that botch the narrative/character flow of PART 1 and thereby works far better as a film, which is what I believe its duty to be.  And herein lies my whole criteria for this critique of PART 1: I believe that it should (but fails to) work as a film and adhere to the storytelling requirements that a self-contained tale would dictate.  And I don't care if it's just the first part of a larger story - it still should work in and of itself, and just so happen to also be the first half of something greater.  Call me crazy, but that's what I think.

Which, again, is something HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 1 fails in due to sticking far too close to the source material at the expense of working as a film.  There is a reason why HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN is often cited as a favorite film in the series - it, perhaps moreso than all the others, chose to forge its own identity.  Alfonso Cuaron had no compunction with shifting character, plot, or world development as needed in service of telling a tighter story that was independant of the book.  He found the story at the heart of PRISONER and told it in his own way.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows pic 6

Now this is a beautiful movie, there's no denying.  The production team and David Yate's directorial eye successfully built a wonderful world at once magical and real, full of fantastic little details to be found in each and every frame.  And as per usual for this series, the performances are uniformly excellent no matter how small the part.  HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 1 is, simply put, an extraordinarily proficient achievement on a technical level.  Not to mention how the animated renditon of "The Tale of the Three Brothers" was by itself stunning enough to be easily worth the $8.50 I paid to see PART 1 in theaters.

But that all goes out the window when it is overlayed by consistenly sloppy story development, character interaction, and dialogue.  I respect that there is an enormous amount of information to cover, but it seems like every other minute Harry/Ron/Hermione delivers a line that is a question for someone else about what something means or how something works.  If the actors were any less talented this movie might very well have been the chief borefest of 2010, due to the fact that there is so little to say that isn't in some way expository.  It is a testament to the talents of all involved that my interest was (often barely) maintained while watching two or three people just sit around and explain things to each other.

I won't go much into the whole subject of plot holes/jumps/assumptions, because I know that 1) most every film has them to some degree and 2) enough basic details of the Potter universe and plots are widely known that the films don't have to spell (pardon the pun) everything out.  That being said, I'm going to raise a few examples because they make absolutely zero sense in relation to who these characters are and the situation that they are in and are indicative of a greater storytelling shoddiness found throughout the whole of PART 1.  It is details like these that irritate me to no end, because if I take any time to think about them they become so glaring as to be distracting from whatever visual beauty may be on my screen at the moment.  And these examples become that much more glaring in light of the fact that the Harry Potter series is one normally known for its attention to detail.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows pic 1

1) After the initial chase scene across London involving the seven Harry Potters, Lupin (sensibly) interrogates Harry so as to make sure he is who he says he is.  And when Kingsley Shacklebolt arrives they interrogate each other, which is all well and good.  Then, despite the fact that quite a few more people show up, Lupin and Shacklebolt immediately abandon something which made complete sense for them to do simply because plot expediency requires it.  We very clearly see them as they chill out, uncaring as to whether any else who appears at The Burrow is in fact the traitor.  I cannot see any reason for them to do this except for the fact that it becomes inconvenient for the pacing of the dramatic moment involving George's injury.

2) The whole f***ing "plan" to sneak into the Ministry of Magic in order to retrieve the Horcrux locket that Umbridge has.  Except there is no plan.  This is infuriating for two reasons - the first is that this departure from the books is actually for the worse.  See, in Chapter 12 (entitled "Magic Is Might"), Harry, Ron, and Hermione spend a total of three months planning.  Or more specifically, they spend two months thinking about what to do and the last month researching the plan they decide upon.  They write reams of notes, use the invisibility cloak to stalk Ministry of Magic employees, and generally come up with a pretty good idea of how they're going to go about this extremely dangerous mission.  But in the film version? Let me copy out here the exact dialogue spoken before the three of them take the Polyjuice potion that changes them into their chosen employees:

Hermione: Just try and act normal. Do what everybody else is doing. If we do that, then with a bit of luck we’ll get inside. And then…
Harry: It gets really tricky.
Hermione: Correct.
Harry: This is completely mental.
Hermione: Completely.
Ron: The world’s mental. C’mon, we’ve got a horcrux to find.

So their plan, despite the fact that they'd be killed if caught and Harry is the Wizarding World's Most Wanted and they're the only ones who can stop Voldemort, is to hope for the best? We now come to the second reason that this entire Ministry Infiltration sequence is infuriating - it makes zero sense for these characters to act this way in this situation.  It goes against their intelligence and their already-spoken understanding of the immense danger they're in.  This all could have been easily explained away with a small montage of scenes, or even just few lines of dialogue, but no.  David Yates and scribe Steve Kloves opted instead for the lazy rendition which makes zero sense.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows pic 2

And not only is it lazy, it turns the whole sequence into a humerous sidenote to the greater story.  Not that every moment in PART 1 needs to be doom and gloom, as that would be undesirable in its own way.  But it is much more interesting as an audience member to watch a well-laid plan fall apart when things don't go according to plan than to watch three characters I care about bumble around in a strangely comedic sequence.  If Yates and Kloves felt that a greater break from the prior bouts of doom and gloom was needed, then I would suggest that they could have found a better balance earlier on and kept a small thread of lightness and humor woven through the plot, rather than sidelining the momentum and respect for the characters Yates and Kloves had already established.  They constantly set up rules for the world and then abandon them, they set up character motivations and then change them without explanation, and are really just generally very inconsistent in terms of who these characters are, why they're doing what they're doing, and what tools are available for them to achieve those established objectives.  Characters and the rules of the wizarding world seem to drift in and out of relevance/importance as the plot dictates, with no regard for respecting good storytelling.

There's a difference between giving an audience too much information and not giving any at all, a balance which PART 1 seemingly fails to recognize.  And again, I don't think that it's fair to excuse the exposition dumping and a plot that is paced like a Mexican jumping bean by saying "you can't look at it as its own movie, you have to recognize that it is half of a whole."  No.  I refuse.  I believe that even with being called PART 1, if it is going to be released on its own then it should be released as complete unto itself within the framework of what it needs to accomplish story-wise.  It's like how Joe DiMaggio used to play baseball - he would give 100% at every game, pushing himself to the limit time and time again.  When asked by another player why he did this, he said (and I'm going to paraphrase terribly here): "what if there is a mother and her son in the stands, and this is the only game they'll ever be able to afford to go to? Why shouldn't they get to see me play my very best game?"

Well, David Yates and Steve Kloves? Why shouldn't they?

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows pic 5

*P.S. And you can call me heartless, but I found Dobby's death to be rather laughable.  This portrayal of his character worked well enough back in HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS when the series was still being sold as movies for children, but in PART 1 he just comes off as a caricature of cute innocence that I find it very difficult to care much about.

Extra Tidbit: I really enjoyed Yate's work on HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX. It's easily one of my favorite of the films.
Source: JoBlo.com

MORE FUN FROM AROUND THE WEB

Strikeback
Not registered? Sign-up!
Or

12:18AM on 04/12/2012

Agreed.

Dreadful film.

1. The source material stinks. I know she was making this stuff up as she went along, but she had six books in which to introduce this exposition. As it was, nothing happened in book 5, nothing in book 6, and suddenly we are dumped with an entirely new mythology in the final book. Tedious. Which leads to...

2. The only way to adapt the Potters is with hindsight. The books are flawed and uneven, but there's a great story buried in there. Map it all out as one overarching
Dreadful film.

1. The source material stinks. I know she was making this stuff up as she went along, but she had six books in which to introduce this exposition. As it was, nothing happened in book 5, nothing in book 6, and suddenly we are dumped with an entirely new mythology in the final book. Tedious. Which leads to...

2. The only way to adapt the Potters is with hindsight. The books are flawed and uneven, but there's a great story buried in there. Map it all out as one overarching story, spread the exposition out, develop the characters properly, and then divide it into 7 chapters. It's what Jackson did with LOTR, and it made for a much more satisfying series.

3. Yates and WB got lazy. Yates himself admitted that he held back on film 6 so as to save impact for film 7. The one director per film kept the series interesting - they should have hired someone new for film 7 (yes film 7. one film.). As it stands - film 5 was a nice compact little affair, film 6 was an unmitigated disaster, film 7.1 was the longest 2 hours of my life, and 7.2 had no impact, being half a film. A cynical money grab, and everything felt stale and mechanical by this point.

I think the only people who felt any impact at all from 7.1 and 7.2 are those that brought the emotional investment with them. The films didn't earn a shred of it themselves.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
7:44AM on 04/12/2012
Thank goodness! Someone exists who agrees with my view on the books as a whole. I was beginning to think I was the only one who saw through JKR's hack writing. Not sure I agree with the parallel you make to LOTR though.

Still, glad to see someone else finding the introduction (and resolution of) an entirely new mythology in the last book to be quite unpalatable. My particular gripes have been these:

1) Artificially forcing each book to last 1 school year. This led to your observation
Thank goodness! Someone exists who agrees with my view on the books as a whole. I was beginning to think I was the only one who saw through JKR's hack writing. Not sure I agree with the parallel you make to LOTR though.

Still, glad to see someone else finding the introduction (and resolution of) an entirely new mythology in the last book to be quite unpalatable. My particular gripes have been these:

1) Artificially forcing each book to last 1 school year. This led to your observation that books 5 and 6 are "nothing happens" books. Agreed.

2) Failure to follow-through on foreshadowing. Nobody, but NOBODY should have killed Bellatrix except for Neville. She'd built up and built up that conflict from early on, and then let it drop on the floor.

3) The general inability to help readers understand the motivations of the Death Eaters. Are they blindly, stupidly racist (muggle vs wizard)? Why do they restrict their own spheres of influence to England only? What was the original Voldemort-led war like, and what was its motivation? Why didn't they proclaim themselves openly to muggles and demand obedience?

Bah, I can't keep going on, because I'll type problems with this series all day....you did make an excellent point that there is generally a good underlying story here, but a professional writer with more talent than JKR should go through the series and make it better. Perhaps when they "reboot" the series in 20 years a screenwriter will do so.
7:23PM on 04/11/2012
I haven't read the books. But movie adaptations should be considered like any other movies. Comparing with the original material is absolutely irrelevant. It can be mentioned in a review, but it has nothing to do with the actual quality of the movie on its own.
I haven't read the books. But movie adaptations should be considered like any other movies. Comparing with the original material is absolutely irrelevant. It can be mentioned in a review, but it has nothing to do with the actual quality of the movie on its own.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
4:20PM on 04/11/2012

Very well written.

I mostly disagree with you, as I found it to be one of my favorite Potter films...But Damn! This is one finely written piece of article I've read in this site. Its clear, precise, constructive and tries to be logical on almost every level. I think this is how a criticism has to be validated: not with looking down or irrelevent emotions (reasons for the failure of many previous Unpopular opinions), but with a clear focus on what should be done & whats not. Thanks Alejandro, very nice
I mostly disagree with you, as I found it to be one of my favorite Potter films...But Damn! This is one finely written piece of article I've read in this site. Its clear, precise, constructive and tries to be logical on almost every level. I think this is how a criticism has to be validated: not with looking down or irrelevent emotions (reasons for the failure of many previous Unpopular opinions), but with a clear focus on what should be done & whats not. Thanks Alejandro, very nice work.

Now, whether or not I agree with you, one thing I always do is watch both parts back to back, so never felt that problem of missing the 3rd act. Even before Part 2 when I watched it for the first time, I was so into the books that I didn't feel the incompleteness of the film....I knew what was coming and I was prepared to wait, but maybe its just me. And though I don't think the film did as bad a job of managing the Ministry sequence as you think, one thing I NEVER get is why Harry & Co. DIDN'T try to save the muggle-borns there (which was one of the best Hell Yeah!! moments of the book in my opinion)?? Including that scene not only could change the sequence as just a comedic sidenote(like you said) but also a much more impactful and important accomplishment of the Trio. Another thing, I actually liked all the camping plots, because unlike the previous super-rushed installments, here I enjoyed feeling their psychological deterioration and slowly building frustration, making the bestfriends into bitter foes. To me, that Harry vs. Ron scene was one of the highlights of DH1-2. Finally, I just wholeheartedly disagree with you on the Dobby death scene. I mean, just no...how can you say that Man? Thats just, as you said, heartless.

Anyway, I was never a big fan of David Yates, mostly because of his tendency to breeze through the supposedly important & hardhitting moments with but a glance or a mere nod (above mentioned Ministry scene, Dumbledore / Sirious's death, Bellatrix vs. the 3 girls, then Mrs. Weasley, totally omitting the Quidditch expulsion of Harry or numerous flashbacks in HBP or even the presence of Voldy in Godric's Hollow during Nagini-attack to name a few), more infuriating is the ADDITIONS of pointless scenes which even contradicts the established rules of books (Burrow attack, what was THAT about?). But overall, I really liked Deathly Hallows, more so as a 4.5 Hr film. To each his own I guess, OotP was my least favorite Potter film, so there.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
4:02PM on 04/11/2012
From the perspective of someone who's never read any of the books but has seen all the movies, I was pretty underwhelmed by Deathly Hallows Pt. 2, and felt Pt. 1 was the better half. I'm sure there are plenty of nuances I miss out on that a fan of the books would appreciate, but seeing them with a relatively unencumbered opinion of the story, DH Pt. 2 wasn't a sufficiently interesting payoff considering all the buildup, and had more annoying aspects to it than Pt. 1.
From the perspective of someone who's never read any of the books but has seen all the movies, I was pretty underwhelmed by Deathly Hallows Pt. 2, and felt Pt. 1 was the better half. I'm sure there are plenty of nuances I miss out on that a fan of the books would appreciate, but seeing them with a relatively unencumbered opinion of the story, DH Pt. 2 wasn't a sufficiently interesting payoff considering all the buildup, and had more annoying aspects to it than Pt. 1.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+6
1:49PM on 04/11/2012
I feel almost the exact opposite way. DH Part 1 is probably my third favorite of all the Potter movies, but I was very underwhelmed by Part 2. It should have been the most emotional and enthralling of all the movies, but for some reason it felt very rote and dry to me. Like the biggest events of the book were simply being checked off a list with no heart going into it. It wasn't bad, I didn't think any movie in the series was less than watchable, but it will be a while before I feel the need to
I feel almost the exact opposite way. DH Part 1 is probably my third favorite of all the Potter movies, but I was very underwhelmed by Part 2. It should have been the most emotional and enthralling of all the movies, but for some reason it felt very rote and dry to me. Like the biggest events of the book were simply being checked off a list with no heart going into it. It wasn't bad, I didn't think any movie in the series was less than watchable, but it will be a while before I feel the need to watch it again.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
1:12PM on 04/11/2012
I am a really big fan of the books I have read them all multiple times. I enjoyed the movies as well, but not nearly as much. To be honest I thought Hallows Pt 1 was boring, but honest Pt 2 wasn't that much better in my opinion. I enjoy both of them, but they leave a lot to be desired.
I am a really big fan of the books I have read them all multiple times. I enjoyed the movies as well, but not nearly as much. To be honest I thought Hallows Pt 1 was boring, but honest Pt 2 wasn't that much better in my opinion. I enjoy both of them, but they leave a lot to be desired.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
11:45AM on 04/11/2012
Boring, anticlimactic, and incomplete. And with the contrived romantic feud between Harry, Hermione, Ron during that ENDLESSly dull 'questing' subplot the movie enters 'Twilight' territory, culminating in that WTF moment of Ron imagining Harry getting to second base with topless Hermione.

The movie certainly has its moments, and benefits from 6 previous movies worth of character development that really up the tragedy and tension when characters die or are at risk. But in the end, yes, a
Boring, anticlimactic, and incomplete. And with the contrived romantic feud between Harry, Hermione, Ron during that ENDLESSly dull 'questing' subplot the movie enters 'Twilight' territory, culminating in that WTF moment of Ron imagining Harry getting to second base with topless Hermione.

The movie certainly has its moments, and benefits from 6 previous movies worth of character development that really up the tragedy and tension when characters die or are at risk. But in the end, yes, a total cash grab. Easily could have been made into a 200 minute epic.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+0
10:46AM on 04/11/2012

100% agreement!

I don't think Hallows Pt 1 is the worst HP movie ever made (that honor belongs to HBP), but it still a trial to get through. And the reason for that is because of the producers' lie that they had to split this movie up to do the story justice. Bullshit. They split this cash cow up to make twice as much money, pure and simple. If they wanted to do the story justice, then why in Pt 1 did we get endless tent scenes, Ron running away and coming back for no reason, the whole Godric's Hollow
I don't think Hallows Pt 1 is the worst HP movie ever made (that honor belongs to HBP), but it still a trial to get through. And the reason for that is because of the producers' lie that they had to split this movie up to do the story justice. Bullshit. They split this cash cow up to make twice as much money, pure and simple. If they wanted to do the story justice, then why in Pt 1 did we get endless tent scenes, Ron running away and coming back for no reason, the whole Godric's Hollow scene where nothing happens, and dancing? Seriously, you had to break up the movie into two parts and charge me two tickets to show me Harry and Hermione DANCING?! What a waste of time.

What they could, nay SHOULD, have done was take the half-hour or so of good stuff from this movie (including the Three Bros animation!) and made it into one movie with everything from Pt 2. Then you would have had a nice, complete-unto-itself 3-hour epic to cap off the otherwise iconic series. Instead, they went the half-assed route for the sake of more profit. It's the same thing they did with Breaking Dawn, and they'll probably do the same thing with Mockingjay.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
-1
10:33AM on 04/11/2012

Good points man!

Yeah, I wasn't crazy about Part 1. It's just weird how well Part 2 works, you'd think the same care would have been given to the first half's scripting.

I found the whole horcrux hunting to be painfully paced and awkwardly episodic.

The third and sixth films are the best ones IMO.
Yeah, I wasn't crazy about Part 1. It's just weird how well Part 2 works, you'd think the same care would have been given to the first half's scripting.

I found the whole horcrux hunting to be painfully paced and awkwardly episodic.

The third and sixth films are the best ones IMO.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
10:11AM on 04/11/2012

Nope.

Harry Potter and TDH:P1 Transcends the film "in and of itself" rule, because of the scope, and everyone is invested in the story. No one is casually going to watch this movie.
Harry Potter and TDH:P1 Transcends the film "in and of itself" rule, because of the scope, and everyone is invested in the story. No one is casually going to watch this movie.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
7:43AM on 04/11/2012
Good film, however, it just happens to be sandwiched between two great Potter films: Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows Part 2.
Good film, however, it just happens to be sandwiched between two great Potter films: Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows Part 2.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
7:01AM on 04/11/2012

A few reasons why Part 1 HAD to suck...

First off, I agree. Also, since it seems relevant to other posters in this thread, I've read all of the Harry Potter books, twice.

Part 1 was a mess of a movie. But I think it had to be, and here are some reasons you didn't mention:

1) The whole trend of breaking the last story in a series into 2 films is not about making 2 good movies at the end, but about money. Kill Bill, Harry Potter, Twilight all had no *natural* break in the middle. The same goes for the upcoming The Hobbit. So
First off, I agree. Also, since it seems relevant to other posters in this thread, I've read all of the Harry Potter books, twice.

Part 1 was a mess of a movie. But I think it had to be, and here are some reasons you didn't mention:

1) The whole trend of breaking the last story in a series into 2 films is not about making 2 good movies at the end, but about money. Kill Bill, Harry Potter, Twilight all had no *natural* break in the middle. The same goes for the upcoming The Hobbit. So there should not be an expectation that the film stands alone as one story. It's an artificial business move with no need based in story telling.

2) The material upon which this film was made, frankly sucked. The first half of Deathly Hallows is a long boring muck about in England, and seems to serve no primary purpose EXCEPT for JKR's artificial self-imposed limitation that every book should last for one school year. So, take a horrible beginning to a very long book and make a movie about it and voila, you get a shitty movie.

So I agree with you, in general, though for slightly different reasons.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
5:23AM on 04/11/2012

That Damn Tent

Alejandro, HOW can you write disparaging comments about Hallows 1 without mentioning that DAMN TENT? I liked the film, but to me it seemed like every other scene had the three kids hanging out in Hermione's magic tent. Even the dance scene they added to the movie - inside that damned tent - seemed like they were deliberately stretching out the narrative so the book could be spread across two movies. Rather glad I didn't read the books; everyone else who did read the books realized that they
Alejandro, HOW can you write disparaging comments about Hallows 1 without mentioning that DAMN TENT? I liked the film, but to me it seemed like every other scene had the three kids hanging out in Hermione's magic tent. Even the dance scene they added to the movie - inside that damned tent - seemed like they were deliberately stretching out the narrative so the book could be spread across two movies. Rather glad I didn't read the books; everyone else who did read the books realized that they accomplished very little in this movie and were saving the real adventure for part 2.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
-6
3:05AM on 04/11/2012

definitely

Let me start by saying that I never got into reading the Potter books so I can only judge the movies as their own entities. I have seen all of them though, liking most of them. I had my problem at the start since they were aimed at a much younger audience than I was, but the movies rew up with the cast and it's somewhat amazing to see. However DH part 1 was really a dissapointment. It even made not want to watch part 2, because I just stopped caring. Suffice to say I haven't seen the sequel in
Let me start by saying that I never got into reading the Potter books so I can only judge the movies as their own entities. I have seen all of them though, liking most of them. I had my problem at the start since they were aimed at a much younger audience than I was, but the movies rew up with the cast and it's somewhat amazing to see. However DH part 1 was really a dissapointment. It even made not want to watch part 2, because I just stopped caring. Suffice to say I haven't seen the sequel in the cinema. Part 1 was just so... uninteresting, uninspired, without any sense of importance or closure to the film. The lack of thrills and drama really killed it for me. Thankfully I caught part 2 on DVD and it was much much better. It had a great story to tell, a compelling ending to basically a saga, and was a nice throwback to the movies prior. SO much that it even made me appreciate the early "kiddie" movies a hell lot more (!), as they truly are the introduction to this fantastical world by means of the Potter character, and they are also the first steps of the protagonist's (and Granger's and Weasley's) journey. That wasn't the case with this movie, as I think it has the least to add and to tell and works terribly as a stand alone. In my opinion it is the series all-time low. I would rank them:
1) Prisoner of Azkaban (I know, uninspired, but I had a ton of fun with this one)
2) DH part 2
3) The Goblet of Fire
4) The Chamber of Secrets
5) The Half-Blood Prince
6) The Scorcerer's Stone
7) The Order of the Phoenix
8) DH Part 1
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+13
2:36AM on 04/11/2012

Disagree

Ive read every instalment of the Harry Potter franchise, and i don't think theres a single thing wrong with the entire films works. Granted, films will never be as wonderful or as detailed as the novel. However i think they did a terrific job as far as novel to film go.
If Yates included what certain ppl decide is more important then others. we might have had a part 1 of 3. I think its a lot harder to determine whats necessary for the audience, in accordance to story telling, and flow of
Ive read every instalment of the Harry Potter franchise, and i don't think theres a single thing wrong with the entire films works. Granted, films will never be as wonderful or as detailed as the novel. However i think they did a terrific job as far as novel to film go.
If Yates included what certain ppl decide is more important then others. we might have had a part 1 of 3. I think its a lot harder to determine whats necessary for the audience, in accordance to story telling, and flow of the film. I think all in all every single film together works as a whole.
Oh and Dobby's death is much more significant then portraying a children's movie in the chamber of secrets. Dobby's death is far from laughable, when a slave is freed, and is forever in that persons debt, and risks his life to save Harry. Along with even Hedwig's death as well, its so Harry becomes COMPLETELY isolated from the world. He's always force to go it alone, thats what makes the trio so strong. This is done in every single instalment. This was evident in your favourite instalment, when Luna Lovegood points it out to Harry, and he then looses the only new found family member he has. Its also is to show that Harry has an almost heart of gold.
(also show in DH pt2 when he cares for Severus when he's dying. Before he knows the truth about Snape, and even wants to help Voldermort at kings cross).
Anyways, with this story theres to much to tell, and not enough time. Unlike a lot of films that make it into 2 parts to cash in on the final instalment, this film if stayed closer to the novel could have easily been done in 3 parts. Not to say your assessment of the infiltration of the ministry could have been done better, theres just too much information to cover.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+24
1:58AM on 04/11/2012
Dobby's death laughable? Cold bro...
Dobby's death laughable? Cold bro...
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
1:38AM on 04/11/2012
i saw this in theatres and too was disappointed, to me it was nothing but 3 british kids running away from some guy with no nose
i saw this in theatres and too was disappointed, to me it was nothing but 3 british kids running away from some guy with no nose
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
-5
1:02AM on 04/11/2012

I was extremely

disappointed by Goblet and Phoenix and I actually ended up being surprised by this one. I didn't love it but I thought it was WAY better than either of those two (my review: [link]
disappointed by Goblet and Phoenix and I actually ended up being surprised by this one. I didn't love it but I thought it was WAY better than either of those two (my review: [link]
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
View All Comments

Latest Movie News Headlines


Top
Loading...
JoBlo's T-Shirt Shoppe | support our site... Wear Our Gear!