aka Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1. There be spoilers in this post.
Holy s*** that movie is boring, and by far the worst movie in the series. This was a rare movie where it seemed that the climax was in the first half(Ministry of Magic). Once we got past there the remaining 90 minutes was a complete snooze. We literally had to watch camping/wandering sequences for nearly an hour! Then, an almost exciting scene followed the boredom for about 3 minutes in time for the movie to abruptly stop with Harry accomplishing nothing.
I know they wanted to stay faithful to the book, but couldn't they have kept the movie going til it reached some sort of resolution? Or cut it short so that it ended right after destroying the horcrux? I can't imagine ever seeing this one again, might as well just skip to Part 2. I guess this was mainly a money-grab, though. Artistically, it would have been best to reduce Part 1 to 45 minutes and tack it on to the beginning of Part 2. Argh.
Anyway, going to see Part 2 tonight, which I am sure will be a lot more exciting.
--
My Japanese alter-ego. Hey all this is Bartz btw.
I liked it a lot, actually, and there was enough about Part 2 that irritated me for it to actually be close as to which one I prefer. Probably 2, but it's close.
It's certainly not the worst film in the series though. The first two...really aren't very good at all.
--
"My goal is to make this s*** cool again." - CM Punk
It's weird because I think both parts of Deathly Hallows are so much better than all the other movies, it's not even close, and I can't fathom why people would feel differently.
Yeah the first two are awful, unless you're doing Wizard People, Dear Reader with the first one, in which case you're doing it right. The second one is all-around unwatchable.
-- chumbucketeer fills cups like double-Ds. http://img.imgcake.com/chumpngej.png - Art by BIGPUN9999
Paratroopa1 posted... It's weird because I think both parts of Deathly Hallows are so much better than all the other movies, it's not even close, and I can't fathom why people would feel differently.
HBP and POA run them both pretty close imo, but on the whole I agree, yeah. The acting from the "kids" just improves immeasurably. It took until 5 for Radcliffe to be bearable, and by 7 he had it nailed.
I'll agree that HBP is pretty damn good in its own right but I thought POA was one of the weaker adaptations of the books. All of the movies are fun in their own right, and being the 23-year-old that I am I was able to grow up as the movies grew up so that's good as well. But DH is just on another level. Part 2 is oscar-nominee caliber as far as I'm concerned.
I know the kids acting in the first few movies was lackluster, but at least the movies had an interesting story to back that up. DH1 doesn't really have that. It was just too boring.
I am interested in what people liked about DH1, though.
--
My Japanese alter-ego. Hey all this is Bartz btw.
The only thing I didn't like about HBP was Bellatrix burning down The Burrow. Like where the hell did that even come from?
Both of the TDH movies bothered me for just pointless inconsistencies, probably moreso since I finished the book about two weeks before I watched the movies back to back so it was all fresh. Like when they broke into Gringotts and Ron used the imperious curse, even though only Harry did that. And how Harry stabbed the Diadem and then kicked it into the Fiendfyre even though he never stabbed it in the book. Cutting stuff out I can forgive, but small inconsistencies that are there for no good reason are irksome. The first part is probably more faithful to the book than any other movie, but as you said, it is just boring camping for way too long.
Kind of like Rifftrax or MST. I don't think it's very funny but a lot of people here like it. just do a quick youtube search and you can find some clips easily.
Actually, Harry stabbing the diadem before kicking it in was great, just because I hated the Fiendfyre in the books. It's this evil spell, one of the few things that can destroy a Horcrux, and there is absolutely no mention of it previously, iirc. Hermione just says "it must have been Fiendfyre!" afterwards. And it's Crabbe that casts it. That was one of the stupidest things in book 7. Harry stabbing it in the movie with a proven Horcrux-buster before kicking it in there was far better, imo.
--
Oops! I'm breaking the fourth wall! http://imgon.net/di-CFMD.gif
She said she had read about it, but didn't want to use it because of how out of control it gets. It would make sense that she didn't want to tell Ron and Harry about it because they're both a lot more wreckless than she is and may try to use it. Though admittedly Crabbe casting it was really stupid unless he made some dramatic offscreen improvements in Year 7.
MarvelousGerbil posted... She said she had read about it, but didn't want to use it because of how out of control it gets. It would make sense that she didn't want to tell Ron and Harry about it because they're both a lot more wreckless than she is and may try to use it. Though admittedly Crabbe casting it was really stupid unless he made some dramatic offscreen improvements in Year 7.
Yeah, but you can still foreshadow this kind of thing through other ways. There was none of that with Fiendfyre iirc.
It's probably better to see it with Part 2 and not by itself.
I didn't think it was bad, I mean, I was interested for the entire movie, even though it barely had any action, but it was definitely anticlimactic and Part 2 was much better.
--
Give up some love for the Guru! Ladies and gentleman, the Incredible Black Turtle!
The Half-Blood Prince was the most movie. It was Harry Potter and The Teen Drama, with exactly two or three mentions of the Half-Blood Prince. He finds the book, reads it, and then never mentions it hardly till the end when
*Spoilers*
Snape pops out and says, "I'm the half-blood prince!" All of a sudden. Before that it looked like it was trying to compete with Twilight.
You think you're late? I still haven't seen half-blood prince!
--
"Principally I hate and detest the animal called man, although I heartily love John, Peter, Thomas and so forth" - Jonathan Swift BT with the victory!
XIII_rocks posted... Paratroopa1 posted... It's weird because I think both parts of Deathly Hallows are so much better than all the other movies, it's not even close, and I can't fathom why people would feel differently.
HBP and POA run them both pretty close imo, but on the whole I agree, yeah. The acting from the "kids" just improves immeasurably. It took until 5 for Radcliffe to be bearable, and by 7 he had it nailed.
You're joking, right? Or, based on what you said later, did you mean to say "OotP" when you said "PoA"? Because PoA was definitely the worst movie; it was as though they rewrote the entire book.
--
Ulti (in one of his Post-Contest Analyses): God of War turned a 5 hour deadlock into a total laugher Anagram: Oh God, Tidus and Yuna were involved?
TsunamiXXVIII posted... You're joking, right? Or, based on what you said later, did you mean to say "OotP" when you said "PoA"? Because PoA was definitely the worst movie; it was as though they rewrote the entire book.
Eh, I don't mind so much. Movies 1 and 2 were the most faithful to the books and were, for me, by far the worst movies.
PoA was just a hugely enjoyable movie for me, even though it did change a lot.
--
"I'll tell you Sess' placement in an hour" - l3fty "OK, Ryan f***ing Seacrest" - Sess
I feel obligated to use this thread to post my personal ranking of the books and movies. So...
Books: 6>3>7>2>4>1>5
Movies: 7p2>6>5>3>7p1>4>1>2
--
Will not remove this line of my signature until the Seahawks, Jazz or Rockies win a title (Started 5-16-09) Yes, I know I'm never getting rid of this signature
From: XIII_rocks | #003 I liked it a lot, actually, and there was enough about Part 2 that irritated me for it to actually be close as to which one I prefer. Probably 2, but it's close.
It's certainly not the worst film in the series though. The first two...really aren't very good at all.
This is pretty much exactly how I feel, except for the very last part. I think the first two movies were good for what they were, they followed the books closely. HBP was by far the worst. That movie was so horribly put together, it jumped all over the place, it was very erratic and didn't flow smoothly in the slightest. OotP was also a disappointment, as that used to be my favorite book and I was hoping the movie would hold up, but it was meh. GoF was good.
I for one liked the slower, more character driven approach of Part 1. It was certainly the best at characterisation of the films, though it had its own problems. That said, I preferred the faster paced part 2, and felt that it and HBP (my favourites of the series) managed to provide both good characterisation without forsaking the main plot or the action.
Would have been nice if they'd added 10 minutes each to not cut out 90% of the backstory, but hey, I never said they were perfect.
--
Something something something ^Poorly disguised anti-caps sig
I was actually ok with the epilogue in the book, if for no other reason than because Ron had some good lines. But then the movie managed to cut out half of it still.
I hate that Hermoine ends up with Ron. Ignoring the books for a second, Emma and Daniel have ten times more chemistry. As for both the books and movies, Ginny is a waste of a character and Ron is too much of a little whiner that does nothing worthwhile; easily the worst of the big 3 characters.
Anyway, DH Part 1 isn't bad at all. It's just different from the rest of the films which have to condense a lot of stuff into 2 and a half hours. It focuses on the characters rather than flashy action.
When you watch it back to back with DH part 2, it won't seem that boring. It's a set up. It doesn't feel like it has any climax because it doesn't have one. DH2 is the climax.
--
http://www.last.fm/user/VinnyMendoza "This is all we have... when we die.."