@Firefox1095 Presumption is a bad habit. I detest Twilight. At least the Potter books are well written. Magic and fiction do not make Potter childish, it's writing does. Maybe the books have grown up with their audience a little but there's no denying it's roots. Philosophers Stone won three Nestlé Children's Book Prizes. It says so on the front cover under the cartoony drawing of potter and the Hogwarts express. I never said Potter was aimed at 5yo's, just children.
This is my favourite Harry Potter film. Goblet of Fire, Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince all felt rushed - which is not surprising since the books are all more than 600 pages.
@@Onmysheet Not really sure what you mean by “marketing scheme”. Obviously they did it to make more money, but it also pleased the fans of the series. Some of the best character moments probably wouldn’t have been shown on screen if they didn’t split it in two parts
I thought part 1 was emotional and intense, part 2 was a disappointment, too much action, I didn't connect with old characters who were thrown around in battles which didn't feel like they really mattered
i think the film treated its audience right. They didn't make the movie for a younger generation. A generation that didn't grow up with the movies since day one. The movie really grew up with its fans, intellectually and emotionally. They didn't try to explain what happened earlier on in the stories, and that's great. The best thing about it all, is that it was very close to the story and they didn't try to rush it for peoples like Mayo. Really great review, you got it spot on.
Films 1&2 are incredibly dark. PS opens with a double murder & a is he or isn't he dead with voldemort. Harry is then oppressed for the next 11 years - he lives in the cupboard under the stairs. Is sent to his room without food when he does anything remotely magical. When he gets to hogwarts he faces a troll, a 3headed dog, a demonised Quirrell & prospect of Voldy coming back to murder him.
This is my second favorite HP movie after Azkaban - the finish was the only weak point, because it couldn't help but feel like a 'To be continued' ending for a television episode.
That was just film 1. In film 2, he is faced with a house elf who has to beat himself up everytime he tries to reveal his masters secret, Dursley's lock him up. Then there is the diary which posseses Ginny eventually tries to steal her life essence, there is a basilisk where if you look at it you die or if you see its reflection you turn into a statue. Then there is the Nazism in the muggleborn/pureblood divide. What is light about those films.
I loved hearing Snape's voice. Hermione reminded me of Dr. Spencer Reid and the way he rattles on about things, yet makes it sound so cute. I really like this show.
Im seeing it tommorow, but im a bit worried about the camping scenes. Are they really that tedious? I think, really whatever anyone else thinks they are essential, but i'm wondering if they were handled interestingly or is it just the trio walking through forests bickering for 45 minutes.
After watching Part 1 and Part 2 back to back, I'm more set on which is the better of the two. As well-made and beautifully meditative Part 1 is, it's the most un-Harry Potter-esque of all the films. The absence of Hogwarts, the melancholic score, the lack of whimsy and goofiness after the Polyjuice Potion scene, and the extended periods of dreary depression and gloomy wilderness treks make it feel more like a Gus Van Sant road feature whereas Part 2 regains the spirit of adventure that is inherited from all the prior films and makes enough excitement out of the action moments while not detracting from the dread and tragedy of the stakes. Part 2 is the one that just incites the more eager drive to get into the adventure when it's finally getting to what we'd been waiting for through that whole ten year period and easier to get buried into so it is the better one, even though watching them both feels like one grandiose four and a half epic with an intermission provided.
The film is yet again an enjoyable, emotional, effective, stylish, terrifically acted, strongly directed & is one of the best in the series. (85%) (4/5 stars) (positive)
Tbh I think Rowling lost her way a bit with the last few books... she should have introduced the Horcruxes earlier on in the story in order to intertwine them into the story and give the central characters more time to find and destroy them. Of all the Potters my favourite is number 3, since then I feel that the stories have gone down hill and have ended with this ludicrous idea that everyone we have come to love throughout the series should die. But then, that's just me...!
I remember listening to this review at the time and largely agreeing with Mayo’s criticism. But having watched it three or four times since, I’ve come to consider it one of the best two films of the series. I feel it is more successful as a film than the book was as a book, at this point of the story. The acting, direction and mise en scene at this point is superior to the need for bare exposition devices. The story now proceeds in the film through character development. The next film is padded though. Full of spectacle, shock moments and manufactured scenes for the sake of editing tension to an obvious climax (which is then handled in a manner akin to a WWF match). And don’t get me started on what they do to Ginny Weasley’s hair in the afterlogue.
@unrest655321 Right, but are they called Horcruxes and are they looking for them? No. They just seem to destroy the diary so as to kill the snake. No mention is told of what the diary actually is. It's just a shame in my opinion that Rowling kinda lost the plot a bit with the story nearing the end.
I'm a Harry Potter fan, so I couldn't not enjoy this film. I love the world and the magic and the lore, and where Deathly Hallows was good, it was really good. However, I think the middle third of the film is a little too slow paced, which would have been okay had the acting been better, but I still find the three's acting to be quite grating. I also found some of the humour inappropriate with the overall tone, and I couldn't care for "the death", as I dislike the character myself...
... This is more personal preference though. Plus, the fact that *spoilers* the character itself is CGI and his voice is quite irritating* meant I couldn't take it entirely seriously. But overall, I really liked it, and I can't wait for part two.
Seeing as Harry's angst surrounding Dumbledore's Death wasn't played up in this movie, I'm wondering if your attitude to the changes in half-blood prince remains the same?
there were several big inconsistencies. The guys who captured them, for example, are repeatedly shown in dialogue as being very cackhanded- but when they turn up, the heroes suddenly forget how to fight. And I think the killing dilemna was a bit cliched, though it would've been hard for the kids to watch Harry grit his teeth and dispose of an unconscious death eater.
My biggest problem with Harry Potter is the spell of Expelliarmus.Correct me if i am wrong,but isnt't that spell a disarming spell?..So how come it can also be used as sort of a "force push" /or a killing spell.Because,in the book,Expelliarmus killed Voldemort!
This film was pretty poor I thought, although that was mainly because of the book it was based on. The majority of the time is spent with the characters wandering around fields looking bored and depressed, and staying in a tent at night. Occasionally, one of the characters has a brainwave and they apparate off to go & check it out, before returning to the fields again - this cycle happens a few times. There were a few good set pieces, but I was bored for most of this film.
@Firefox1095 The twilight series features a C-section being performed at the teeth of a werewolf. Regardless, nobody over the age of 15 has any business reading those books. Just because the Harry Potter books now have those alternative 'grown up' dust covers doesn't mean they are for grown-ups.
I loved seeing it cinemas even though it dragged on so much and many scenes but it was great to see it in 3D while I was working in London as a bar tender
I do apologise for my poor grammar and lack of proofing, looks like I was implying that this video is "more of a debate between Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo" than a review.
I thought it was interminable, padded dribble- muddily filmed and not particularly well acted by the tiresome three teenagers. It certainly seemed to go on for a hell of a long time, especially with ITV ad breaks... But, hey ho, that's only my opinion.
