Deathly Hallows Part 1 Film

thetonynator

Can't believe no one has posted about it yet!

Was it good?!

Going tomorrow night myself . . .looking forward to it!

ibarelycare

Saw it last night and I absolutely LOVED it.

BUT I think you have to have read the book to like it. Of all the reviews I'd read/heard in the past week, the reviewers who gave it the best reviews were the ones who were fans of the books, and those who hadn't read the books weren't as pushed on it.

It stays so true to the book. My sister and I have gone to see all the HP movies together along with her boyfriend, who gets pissed off because we sit through the whole movies going "that's different to the book" but we rarely had to speak to each other during this one My sister's boyfriend didn't like it (he hasn't read the books). He said it was boring. There is a good hour without a whole lot of action but that's the same in the book. The last half hour or so is full of action and that's what the whole next movie will be like I imagine.

The acting is great. Emma Watson is way more watchable than in any of the other movies, but Rupert Grint stole it for me. Obviously we don't get to see a huge amount of other characters in this movie, but I'm really looking forward to seeing more of Tom Felton in the next movie as he was outsanding in HBP.

The imagery was fantastic. I couldn't believe how similar the scenes looked on the screen as they had looked in my head when I had read the book, especially Godric's Hollow. That whole bit is fantastic and you could hear the audience draw in breath as Harry and Hermione went into Batilda's house, because they knew what was coming! The Burrow also looked a lot more like I imagined it while reading the books, than in any other movie. The scenes in the Ministry are also fantastic and really tense.

The film is incredibly dark and scary, so maybe a bit much for young children but perfect for true fans of the books.

I think it's my favourite of the movies so far. They've really done the book justice and I can't imagine how they would have fit the whole book into one movie. Can't wait for the final installment!

Br4tPr1nc3

i have to say, its a great film,
but if youve read the book, your gona be a little bit disappointed.
it leaves out a lot of details!
small ones even, that explain alot, but wouldnt have taken a lot of time to do.
i liked it, but i dont think it was as good as it could have been!

ibarelycare

Br4tPr1nc3 wrote: »

i have to say, its a great film,
but if youve read the book, your gona be a little bit disappointed.
it leaves out a lot of details!
small ones even, that explain alot, but wouldnt have taken a lot of time to do.
i liked it, but i dont think it was as good as it could have been!

What details do you mean?

I couldn't think of anything overly vital that they left out, but I'm probably wrong!

The one I did think of last night was at the start when all the Harry's are flying to the Burrow and they're intercepted, Harry says that they knew he was the real Harry because of Hedwig. But in the book they knew it was him because he used the Expelliarmus spell, and I think this is rather poignant because

it's the spell that kills Voldemort in the end.

xxshebeexx

It was absolutely fantastic, leagues ahead of any of the other films. Still never going to be Daniel Radcliffe's biggest fan but Rupert Grint and Emma Watson were fantastic.

The telling of the three brothers' Deathly Hallows story was beautiful - the art was fantastic and Emma Watson told the story perfectly.

Anyone else find the film a bit violent and a bit explicit, considering it was Harry Potter and aimed at children? Hermione and Bellatrix's torture scene more than hinted at sexual torture and Ron's vision of Harry and Hermione..

kissing naked?

Br4tPr1nc3

they never explained how they were tracked to the cafe in london.
even though in the book, they show thats its because voldemort name is jinxed.
although, that part is explained when theyre in the forest, but they didnt do it.

also, the victor krum part at the wedding was left out. fairly decent insight into the symbol lovegood was wearing.

oh and the main part i really thought they should have put in, but ruined because they didnt, the part on the stairs in the malfoy manor.
when peter petigrue is killed by the hand voldemort gives him, because he was gona help harry. instead dobby does it??

Cathmandooo

The Godrics Hallow scenes were exactly like I pictured it from the book, thought that was done really well.

Definitely the most close to the book movie of them all. Of course they had to leave out little bits but it definitely included an awful lot more than previous movies did. I'm sure people who hadnt read the books might have been confused with some things but it's about time they made a movie with secrets that the book readers would get, I think it might encourage the movie viewers to actually read the books, also it gives them a chance to go 'oh that's what it meant in the movie'.

I did find some of the tent scenes a little long, but again it was exactly like the book. I liked the idea of the dance scene, it was a moment of happiness amid the so many moments of lonliness, fear and pain, but I can understand why people are saying it should have been cut out.

The scene at the start with Hermione erasing her parents memories of her was very touching, a much better start to the movie than any of the others. It really set the theme of the movie well.

I have to admit I came out of the cinema thinking it was a bit boring, but the more I think about it the more I remember how detailed the film was, how much was in it, how it stuck to the book so well (a cry Potter fans have been begging for a long time)

Loved the Hogwarts Express scene, it's a good indication of part 2 with Neville taking the lead and being so brave. It was the best way to bring them into part 1 without having to do long scenes and then have to ignore them.

Hermiones mudblood incision on her arm was a nice horrible touch, I remember squirming reading the book that she was screaming in pain while Harry and Ron were in the dungeon. Thought they did it well!

I'd love to go see it again, might leave it a few weeks and go, maybe reread the book first

thetonynator

1 Hour til i see it!!! will update after . . .

Grindylow

I thought it was excellent. Emma Watson stole the show for me- such excellent acting on her behalf.

It's really dark and eerie compared to all of the other films. Especially the scene at with the snake. Excellently presented though, really keeps the viewers in suspense. It really did live up to the book, just so excellent!

ibarelycare

Br4tPr1nc3 wrote: »

they never explained how they were tracked to the cafe in london.
even though in the book, they show thats its because voldemort name is jinxed.
although, that part is explained when theyre in the forest, but they didnt do it.

also, the victor krum part at the wedding was left out. fairly decent insight into the symbol lovegood was wearing.

oh and the main part i really thought they should have put in, but ruined because they didnt, the part on the stairs in the malfoy manor.
when peter petigrue is killed by the hand voldemort gives him, because he was gona help harry. instead dobby does it??

Oh yes, I was thinking this during the film, I kept waiting for it to be explained but it wasn't!

I don't think the Victor Krum bit was entirely necessary and was something that they obviously thought was fine to cut.

I forgot about the Peter Pettrigrew thing! The last time I read the book was well over a year ago. It would have been a good scene but again, I don't think it was entirely necessary, especially considering that the non-book reading audience mightn't even have remembered that Voldemort gave him that hand.

DancingQueen:)

I absolutely loved it! Big fan of the books and re-read the 7th one recently so wasn't sure if i'd like the film or not. I thought it was great though, don't think they left out too much, bar the trace and how they knew it was Harry at the start.

I thought the acting was amazing, especially Rupert Grint and Emma Watson. Loved the subtle moments of humour, the action scenes and the suspense that was built up.

The scenes with Dobby were brillant, I was a little disappointed in the last films when he was left out so definitely happy they decided to include him again. Really added to the film imo.

It was really how I imagined it to be filmed, delighted at how it turned out and I can't wait for the next one

GodlessM

Fantastic movie.

Was true to the book. Only thing I noticed strangely off were two details in the Malfoy Manor scene near the end; one major, one not so much.

These being why Greyback was attacked by Bellatrix and expelled with the rest of the snatchers and why Pettigrew wasn't killed? (perhaps too gruesome a death?)

The Hedwig thing is a very minor change but makes perfect sense. The written word is about details, film is about emotions. It is much more fitting in film that the real Harry is noticed because of his connection to the bird than a spell he is comfortable with. From what I've heard Rowling endorsed this change also.

As for people mentioning that the taboo wasn't explained, who cares? It is not important really. What matters to the story is that they are not safe anywhere and they could found at almost any time? Why doesn't matter as much as the dread of this dire situation.

As far as Krum goes, from what I read the actor wasn't available.

Final bit left out;

the Dumbledore background scenes. I believe they kept these for one large and ultimately less annoying flashback when they meet Aberforth.

thetonynator

Great film, they did a really good job on, i think that it would have been better if they left the last 30 seconds out, but maybe the next fil will start with the same 30 seconds.

I really liked the introduction bit at the start, the bit where hermione tells the tale of the three brothers is really good, and hermione in general is very goo. I thought that dumbledores grave looked like a bad special effect from the 80's, but overall the film was really good.

Br4tPr1nc3

ah no, the minor details werent absolutely needed! but would have been good to have them in there.
i remember them parts of the books very clearly, because they explained quite a bit.
and made ya think. because of the krum part missing, the voldemort parts made a little less sense. grindlewald, and gregoravich (???) ya know nothin about them unless you read the book, except you know gregoravich is a wand maker.

another part of the story i would have liked, would have been the dursley's part, when they leave. and dudly wants to know if harry will be alright.
that would have been good in there, cause in every film you see him treat harry like dirt. but then in the book, hes genuinely concerned for him.


i really enjoyed the film either way.
and i know the second part will be a lot better.

thetonynator

Br4tPr1nc3 wrote: »

i really enjoyed the film either way.
and i know the second part will be a lot better.

There shouldn't be a really boring action free hour in the middle of the 2nd part!!!

Kells...

I thought it was class cant wait to see part 2

GodlessM

Br4tPr1nc3 wrote: »

because of the krum part missing, the voldemort parts made a little less sense. grindlewald, and gregoravich (???) ya know nothin about them unless you read the book, except you know gregoravich is a wand maker.

Have to give it to you, you are right about that. Whereas I think Grindleweld's bits made enough sense (he is this guy and he took the wand now Voldemort is going after him for it), and I think they will expand on his story in part 2, how Harry knew Gregoravich was a bit out of the blue.

Otacon

Was the taboo not explained, or at least hinted at when Luna's father said his name to summon the death eaters?

GodlessM

Otacon wrote: »

Was the taboo not explained, or at least hinted at when Luna's father said his name to summon the death eaters?

That was meant to be assumed yes, but to fair it could just have easily been a coincedence for one of those typical cinematic scenes.

Revolution9

xxshebeexx wrote: »

The telling of the three brothers' Deathly Hallows story was beautiful - the art was fantastic and Emma Watson told the story perfectly.

+ 1
Very pleased with that segment of the film.

Also +1 on the Godric's Hollow scenes.

It was very good, although obviously not a patch on the book.

nommm

It was perfect. I've been a fan of this series since I was a kid so it's very sad to see it all ending. I cried... a lot.

Great to see they're finally doing the books justice.

Br4tPr1nc3

GodlessM wrote: »

Have to give it to you, you are right about that. Whereas I think Grindleweld's bits made enough sense (he is this guy and he took the wand now Voldemort is going after him for it), and I think they will expand on his story in part 2, how Harry knew Gregoravich was a bit out of the blue.

another thing i remembered, its not as important in the first part for obvious reasons,
but in the book it was started to be explained.

how wands act, when there is a new owner.
in the book its done with sparks,

in the book, ron gives harry the snatchers wand, but its really weak for him, because harry didnt win it. and in malfoy manor, he knocks drako out for his wand, and the sparks come out of it.

but it didnt do this in the film,
the reason im bringing this up is because they will need to explain it for the end of part two.

Dave_The_Sheep

Honestly, I thought it was quite poor.

The opening scene with Hermione having to use obliviate on her parents was very well done, but after that it rarely did the book justice. If you hadn't read the book you'd be pissing into the wind trying to understand it - fair enough if they're expecting people to have read the books, but still.

The wedding scene was glossed over, with just enough included to point Potter towards Godric's Hollow and plant a seed of doubt about Dumbledore. However, the doubt part wasn't follow up enough, and there's little or no sense of the doubts they start having about Dumbledore being God (practically).

It seemed rushed overall. The death of Hedwig was practically ignored after it happened, and the reaction of Harry to his wand being broken was downplayed.

One of the best scenes in the book was where they are all waiting for them to come back from the rescue Harry/flee scene. The tension and fear there was palpable in the books, but really didn't seem that way in the film. The security question side of things was adhered to for one or two people, but it's ok to take it for granted that everyone else is who they say they are? Not what you'd call consistent.

On the positive side, the story of the Deathly Hallows was very well told. At least that was made clear and didn't rely on you having read the book. The acting wasn't half bad either, though Ron looked a bit moany the whole way through (not just the bits where he was supposed to look moany). The snake scene in Godric's Hollow was also well done, quite creepy. The soundtrack was also quite good (though underused), even though it reminded me a lot of the Dark Knight score.

It just seemed like it was far too condensed to give it a decent going over, even though it's been split into two films. It also didn't explain enough to have the finale of the 2nd part make a lot of sense.

maximoose

Went to see the film Saturday and my first feelings were mixed.

It is DEFINITELY the best instalment, actually makes some sort of an effort to keep to the story instead of skimming over it like the other films. Direction is brilliant, acting is pretty damn good imo (Hermione is finally likeable!), and all the parts with Voldemort are brilliantly dark.

Greyback is horribly underused, I wish they had kept to the book and had him be the "head" of the snatchers (which were the only thing I thought should have been explained better, or at all) instead of that made up Noel Fielding lookalike character.

I had always been more on the skeptical side of thinking that WB split the book into two movies as a cash cow rather than to fit in all the details.....and I still kind of, although a lot less, think the same. It just felt like a really long intro movie, and instead of making a decent 2hr first episode followed by what I hope will be an awesome 2hr finale, they could have just made one absolutely epic 3hr film.

That said, maybe my expectations were just too high. I went to see it again yesterday and I enjoyed it a lot more!

PS... I've never been the type to well up at films but that Dobby scene holy sh*t it almost had me going haha

The soundtrack was also quite good (though underused), even though it reminded me a lot of the Dark Knight score.

I thought the exact same thing, and then when I thought about it some more I think that since the Dark Knight, the score of every "big" film has been very very similar...big bass noise, mental strings

I went back and watched the 6th Film, and realised they made a bit of a mess of one thing... the Ravenclaw Tiara Horcrux. Isn't Harry supposed to see that in the Room of Requirement when he's hiding his potion book and thats how he remembers where it is? Wonder how they'll bring that back in the next film

GodlessM

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

One of the best scenes in the book was where they are all waiting for them to come back from the rescue Harry/flee scene. The tension and fear there was palpable in the books, but really didn't seem that way in the film. The security question side of things was adhered to for one or two people, but it's ok to take it for granted that everyone else is who they say they are? Not what you'd call consistent.

And you really think it would be better for 20 minutes of Guess Who on screen instead? From the perspective of film you have to keep things moving once the point is across. There was no need to show every one of them being questioned one after another.

Dave_The_Sheep

GodlessM wrote: »

And you really think it would be better for 20 minutes of Guess Who on screen instead? From the perspective of film you have to keep things moving once the point is across. There was no need to show every one of them being questioned one after another.

No need for the whole lot of them to be questioned, I know. But one of the best parts of that scene - Arthur Weasley demanding to see his injured son and threatening Kingsley (I think) - was completely left out. It would have added so much to have that simple part in there - shown how on edge they all really were.

GodlessM

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

No need for the whole lot of them to be questioned, I know. But one of the best parts of that scene - Arthur Weasley demanding to see his injured son and threatening Kingsley (I think) - was completely left out. It would have added so much to have that simple part in there - shown how on edge they all really were.

Faor enough on that point.

davetherave

Saw it last friday when all the horrible little shouting kids were still in school.

I haven't watched the previous films (other than HBP) in a good while, but this one is definitly up there.
Agree with most above that Emma and Rupurt portrayed Hermoine and Ron excellently. It seemed to me that Ron turned dark/depressed/moany in the space of one sentence in the film.
My dad, who hasn't read any of the books, but has seen the films didn't have any problem following it, for the most part.

Things that should have been gone into more detail:
* Dumbledores will and how the minister keeps pressing them for information about what he was doing the night he died.
* Krums scene at the wedding explaining the symbol/Gregoravich/Grindelwald
* The tabbo on the word. Seems a bit convienent that two DE can find them in a random cafe in London.
* Dudleys goodbye to Harry, after years of kicking him up and down the street it would have been nice for a bit of emotion/redemtion
* I forgot that it was MadEyes eye stuck on Umbridges door. And Harry doesn't take it.
* No use of the invisability cloak either though, unless they wanted to make it a "OMG wait harry, you've got one of the Deathly Hallows" moments in part two. Or was the story telling in the Lovegoods house was it, they didn't seem that excited about it.


I thought the dance scene was a bit unnecessary but maybe it was just meant to show that all is not lost or something.

EDIT: P.S The biggest gripe that I have with the film is that in the book, when the DE attack at the wedding the trio disapparate to Tottenham Court Road, they go somewhere is in the film........I have little else to be worrying about...

Liam O

I went into it today with my critical hat on because I only watched HBP for the first time last week and thought it was terrible, I nearly wasn't going to see it but it actually held up quite well for me. I was honestly expecting another disappointment but this definitely exceeded any expectation I had. I'd give it 4 out of 5 overall.

pocketvenus

I have to say I really enjoyed this film and think it is the best of the series to date. The dark and menacing tone of the book was translated into the film and it did not shy away from this. The direction was top notch as was the cinematography was beautiful along with the Desplat's score.

The acting was great by all 3 of the leads and it was great to see Ron not being just the comic relief. Even the opening with Hermonie wiping her parents memories was really sad and shows the scarfice needed - I love the way they even used Emma Watson's own baby and childhood pictures in the film.
The way they illustrated the story of the 3 Brothers was excellent and a really novel idea which added to the film.

I agree with other posters and say this is not a film for younger children as there are some intense and scary scenes. For adults I think the parallels to the Nazi's with the way the Ministery of Magic is being run, Muggles killed and finally was Bellatrix did to Herimone really would have had an impact. On that note Emma Watson was outstanding in the scene - her screams sent a shiver down my spine, and her crying and pleading god it was so realistic.

I loved the addition of the dancing scene. Some people may hate it but I think it added to the film by showing for a brief moment there can be some albeit breif light and hope and a chance to smile and cheer your friend up.

Really left the cinema going I can't beileve we have to wait till July to see finale. I have to say though I won'e be going to see it in 3D as I think it is unnecessary.

gfgfgf14

Best Hp film EVER!

off.the.walls

**** me much as a I hate to admit it, the bit where dobby dies made me cry.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Best Harry Potter movie by far but it was still shíte. I'm hating this whole dark theme to the movies (isnt the theme of the books hope, freindship and resistance?), and the actors are just brutal. Also, it does nothing to capture the complex storyline of the books, they've simplified everything.
I really hope some one remakes these movies because its a terrible way to leave the best series of books of our (well, my) generation.
Dosent help either when the characters that are supposed to be 17 look like they're 25....

Otacon

THFC wrote: »

Best Harry Potter movie by far but it was still shíte. I'm hating this whole dark theme to the movies (isnt the theme of the books hope, freindship and resistance?)

OK firstly, the books are dark, and get progressively darker as they series go on. The themes of friendship, hope and resistance still exist but this is the 'Empire Strikes Back' of the HP series. Everything seems to be against Harry and co.

THFC wrote: »

and the actors are just brutal.

If anything, this film has some of the best performances from the leads, especially Emma Watson [who has stopped acting with her eyebrows] and Rupert Grint [who has more to do this time, than just being the comic relief]. Granted the supporting cast are under used, but that is dictated from the book.

THFC wrote: »

Also, it does nothing to capture the complex storyline of the books, they've simplified everything.

While I would agree with you if we were talking about the earlier films, this one seems to have gone out of its way to include everything, even the superfluous wedding scenes!

THFC wrote: »

I really hope some one remakes these movies because its a terrible way to leave the best series of books of our (well, my) generation.

After reading the books through a number of times now, I could see the series working as an animated TV series myself.

THFC wrote: »

Dosent help either when the characters that are supposed to be 17 look like they're 25....

But the actors are actually very close to that age... unless you have a specific example?

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Otacon wrote: »

OK firstly, the books are dark, and get progressively darker as they series go on. The themes of friendship, hope and resistance still exist but this is the 'Empire Strikes Back' of the HP series. Everything seems to be against Harry and co.

Ya, I suppose, but the books bring us into the close friendship that develops between Harry and Hermione, the movie definitely does not.

Otacon wrote: »

If anything, this film has some of the best performances from the leads, especially Emma Watson [who has stopped acting with her eyebrows] and Rupert Grint [who has more to do this time, than just being the comic relief]. Granted the supporting cast are under used, but that is dictated from the book.

This will alwasys be subjective but I think the acting is atrocious, perhaps with the exception of Hermione. Daniel Radcliffe is just appaling - the worst of the lot imo, Rupert Grint seems shy and timid whenever he tells a joke, or does anything for that matter, Snape and Voldemort are seem far too much like the stereotypical villain, almost like somthing you'd see in one og the old Batman movies. And without going into too much detail the rest of the cast just seems wrong too, maybe with the exceptions of Malfoy(s), Lupin and Bellatrix.

Otacon wrote: »

While I would agree with you if we were talking about the earlier films, this one seems to have gone out of its way to include everything, even the superfluous wedding scenes!

Yes, this is perhaps one of the highlights of the movie, but it just doesnt do it for me.

Otacon wrote: »

After reading the books through a number of times now, I could see the series working as an animated TV series myself.

Why animated?? It would be great as a TV series with proper actors.

Otacon wrote: »

But the actors are actually very close to that age... unless you have a specific example?

Ya, buts thats my point, it doesnt help when they're so old.

norrie rugger

THFC wrote: »

Ya, buts thats my point, it doesnt help when they're so old.

But they are not. They are meant to be playing 17 year olds and most actors, playing that age category, seem to be mid 20s

Radcliffe is 21, so was around 19/20 shooting
Grint is 22 now, so was around 20/21 shooting
Watson is 20 now, so was around 18/19 shooting


How are they "So old"??

Otacon

norrie rugger wrote: »

Watson is 20 now, so was around 19/29 shooting

norrie rugger

Otacon wrote: »

Stupid touch screen

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

norrie rugger wrote: »

But they are not. They are meant to be playing 17 year olds and most actors, playing that age category, seem to be mid 20s

Radcliffe is 21, so was around 19/20 shooting
Grint is 22 now, so was around 20/21 shooting
Watson is 20 now, so was around 18/19 shooting


How are they "So old"??

Did they not just finish like a month ago for part II?? So presuming the latter in each case. There is a big difference between a 17 year old (dont forget he's supposed to be 16 at the start) and a 20 year old.
And besides, its just my opinion.:o

JJ

davetherave wrote: »

Things that should have been gone into more detail:
* Dumbledores will and how the minister keeps pressing them for information about what he was doing the night he died.
* Krums scene at the wedding explaining the symbol/Gregoravich/Grindelwald
* The tabbo on the word. Seems a bit convienent that two DE can find them in a random cafe in London.
* Dudleys goodbye to Harry, after years of kicking him up and down the street it would have been nice for a bit of emotion/redemtion
* I forgot that it was MadEyes eye stuck on Umbridges door. And Harry doesn't take it.
* No use of the invisability cloak either though, unless they wanted to make it a "OMG wait harry, you've got one of the Deathly Hallows" moments in part two. Or was the story telling in the Lovegoods house was it, they didn't seem that excited about it.

Those are some good points there but maybe after we see Part 2, we might understand better why certain parts were omitted. Also, I think they did a reasonably good job adapting the film and condensing it to 2 1/2 hours on screen. I don't think I can sit longer than that in the cinema without an intermission. One detail they omitted which I thought was interesting was Harry, Ron and Hermione's conversations with the Slytherin portrait. This was an important point in the book because it led to Snape finding out where the trio were so he could indirectly give them the sword of Gryffindor. I presume they'll have an alternate way of explaining this in Part 2.

Also, I think the dance scene with Harry and Hermione was really well done and a nice touch to the film adaptation. I think that and the Minister for Magic's speech at the beginning were very poignant considering everything that's going on right now in the world.

ibarelycare

JJ wrote: »

Those are some good points there but maybe after we see Part 2, we might understand better why certain parts were omitted. Also, I think they did a reasonably good job adapting the film and condensing it to 2 1/2 hours on screen. I don't think I can sit longer than that in the cinema without an intermission. One detail they omitted which I thought was interesting was Harry, Ron and Hermione's conversations with the Slytherin portrait. This was an important point in the book because it led to Snape finding out where the trio were so he could indirectly give them the sword of Gryffindor. I presume they'll have an alternate way of explaining this in Part 2.

Also, I think the dance scene with Harry and Hermione was really well done and a nice touch to the film adaptation. I think that and the Minister for Magic's speech at the beginning were very poignant considering everything that's going on right now in the world.

I thought that too I felt like the takeover of the Ministry was like a metaphor for the IMF :D

Pigwidgeon

THFC wrote: »

Ya, buts thats my point, it doesnt help when they're so old.

That's the case with nearly everything nowadays. Take Glee for example, all the leads for that are in their 20's, with the ages ranging from 20 (Chris Colfer) to 28 (Corey Monteith and Mark Salling), yet they all play characters in the same year in high school.

In comparison to that, the actors of Harry Potter's ages are very close to what they are in the movies.

ibarelycare

kateos2 wrote: »

That's the case with nearly everything nowadays. Take Glee for example, all the leads for that are in their 20's, with the ages ranging from 20 (Chris Colfer) to 28 (Corey Monteith and Mark Salling), yet they all play characters in the same year in high school.

In comparison to that, the actors of Harry Potter's ages are very close to what they are in the movies.

Not just nowadays! Remember Beverly Hills 90210? :pac:

Otacon

ibarelycare wrote: »

Not just nowadays! Remember Beverly Hills 90210? :pac:

pocketvenus

JJ wrote: »

Those are some good points there but maybe after we see Part 2, we might understand better why certain parts were omitted. Also, I think they did a reasonably good job adapting the film and condensing it to 2 1/2 hours on screen. I don't think I can sit longer than that in the cinema without an intermission. One detail they omitted which I thought was interesting was Harry, Ron and Hermione's conversations with the Slytherin portrait. This was an important point in the book because it led to Snape finding out where the trio were so he could indirectly give them the sword of Gryffindor. I presume they'll have an alternate way of explaining this in Part 2.

Also, I think the dance scene with Harry and Hermione was really well done and a nice touch to the film adaptation. I think that and the Minister for Magic's speech at the beginning were very poignant considering everything that's going on right now in the world.

It is great to see someone else who thought the dance scene between Harry and Hermione was nice and well done. I have heard there has been alot of mixed views on it. Personally I thought it was a beautiful scene between two best friends who for a short time want to believe there is a bit of light left in the world and just laugh and smile. Great choice of song too.

I think as well the subtle parrelles between the take over of the Minstery and the whole cleansing of the magical world to Nazi Germany was also very well done. Obviously it will go over the heads of children but for adults I think it was there to get them more into the film and the darkness, terrifying time Harry and co are living in.

thetonynator

THFC wrote: »

Best Harry Potter movie by far but it was still shíte. I'm hating this whole dark theme to the movies (isnt the theme of the books hope, freindship and resistance?), and the actors are just brutal. Also, it does nothing to capture the complex storyline of the books, they've simplified everything.
I really hope some one remakes these movies because its a terrible way to leave the best series of books of our (well, my) generation.
Dosent help either when the characters that are supposed to be 17 look like they're 25....

Obviously theres no denying that daniel radcliffe is brutal, but both grint and watson ( especially watson in this one ) were great in this film, and have been in all of the more recent ones.

pocketvenus

thetonynator wrote: »

Obviously theres no denying that daniel radcliffe is brutal, but both grint and watson ( especially watson in this one ) were great in this film, and have been in all of the more recent ones.

I actually think Daniel Radcliffe was great in this one and has really excelled since the 5th film. My friend says he is an excellent stage actor as she saw him in Equus in London & was extremely impressed with his performance. Even in the Half Blood Prince I thought his comedic part was excellent.
Emma Watson I always though was a brilliant actress but they all have improved as the franchsie has gone on and this is be expected considering none of them had any huge acting experience when they started at the young age of 11.

All of them I think deserve praise for their performances in HPDH Part 1

Patricide

pocketvenus wrote: »

I actually think Daniel Radcliffe was great in this one and has really excelled since the 5th film. My friend says he is an excellent stage actor as she saw him in Equus in London & was extremely impressed with his performance. Even in the Half Blood Prince I thought his comedic part was excellent.
Emma Watson I always though was a brilliant actress but they all have improved as the franchsie has gone on and this is be expected considering none of them had any huge acting experience when they started at the young age of 11.

All of them I think deserve praise for their performances in HPDH Part 1

I think although he gets better every film. I woulnt consider him good in this. He was neal there though.

Have also heard hes a fantastic stage actor strangely enough. Maybe after this he should stick to it.

Davabo

I was very dissapointed with his film,

I re-read the book one day before i saw the film, and they leave so many little parts out. (The parts that make the book).

*They needed to show stan stumpike and expelliarmus (Spelling?).
*They needed to show the dursleys departure, the way dudley and aunt pentuna actually cared for harry.
*They went to aunt muriels in the book after moving harry, in the movie they went straight to the burrow
*And a MAJOR factor for me was how at the wedding, Harry was not harry!, He was barney weasly, under pollyjuice potion. Krum needed to be included too.
*They also left out the ginny and harry scene in the bedroom?
*Wormtails death?

Thats all from the top of my head, I honestly had to turn off the film and rewatch it at another stage, I lost interest and i am a huge potter fan.

I can only hope part 2 will be amazing.

thetonynator

Davabo wrote: »

*They also left out the ginny and harry scene in the bedroom?

They had that scene in the kitchen though which was better . . .although they left out some of it.

DancingQueen:)

Davabo wrote: »

*And a MAJOR factor for me was how at the wedding, Harry was not harry!, He was barney weasly, under pollyjuice potion.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that part! Should have been included really, would have liked to have seen him as a Weasley