The Glade 4.0

Good flick.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I'll end up Netflixing it, but I wanna see this myself.

Interested in seeing how they do the Hogwart's battle scene.

Don't think you'll see that for another year. Remember, this is Deathly Hallows: Part 1.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Yeah that's gonna be part 2 sadly.

I just hope they cut some of that damn running around camping in the woods Harry and crew did early on. /snooooore

I enjoyed it, but I was concerned about all the 6 year old's in the theater. It's pretty damn dark.

Rodahn, the camping segment was as long and boring in the movie as it was in the book. Purists will probably have a hissy-fit, but I'd have done a cut scene instead.

After seeing this, I'd have been good with passing on it and watching the next film.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I didn't actually think the camping felt long. Any longer and it might have been, but it wasn't bad.

Disappointed. I was expecting them to cut it after the Gringott's scene. Instead we get two hours of camping with no bloody payoff.

Also, WTF was with the dancing scene in the tent? So bloody wrong.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I actually really liked the dancing scene.

People in my theater laughed when Dobby died. I wished they all died instead.

Having never read the book (or any of them for that matter), I found it boring. In the middle part, I nearly fell asleep. And it really felt like unless you read the books, there's vital information being left out. At times I felt lost in the film, even though I've seen all the previous films. I would give this one a 2 out of 4. I will still see the second part, but color me unimpressed. I thought this may have been the worst Potter film to date with the previous one being one of the best.

_________________

Heh, heard it called Harry Potter and the Deathly Plot Holes.

And I don't entirely disagree.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

They're all like this. I really feel the movies are nothing more than a fancy way of illustrating the books -- good acting, great casting, wonderful sets -- but most of the substance from the books (which are rather light fare to start with) is missing.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

It occurs to me that it's incredibly ironic that a **** Harry Potter book has to subtitle its movie adaptation "Part 1"... Return of the King didn't even get split into two parts.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

It's called bilking the one trick pony. Kinda the same reason Hobbit has to be split into two parts.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

How long was Ben-hur? People won't stay that long in a theater watching a movie... paying attention to one thing for that long.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Deathly Hallows is a much, much longer book than The Hobbit.

I'm not sure if splitting HP&tDH is necessary, although I think by the time a book reaches 700 pages, as an average, assuming it's not all description (each writer is different --the late Robert Jordan could write 850 pages and not have a single notable event happen), it's probably time to consider that option. Splitting each of the LotR movies into a 2+ hour film would have been a better choice, but then PJ had a hard enough time finding someone who'd let him make the movie in 3 parts, let alone 6.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I'm just suspicious that it's 1. The last book in the series. 2. Apparently the first half is largely fluff.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

I don't think you can say "all." I watched the first movie without knowing a thing about Harry Potter. Hell, I didn't even know there was a Harry Potter phenomenon happening around me.

I enjoyed the first movie thoroughly and did not feel there was any information being kept from me, or that "If I had read the book, I'd understand this part better." It was well done and I enjoyed the whole ride the movie took me on.

The first movie is what prompted me to start reading the books. From that point forward, I wouldn't be able to say if my experiences with the other movies would have been the same. But reading the first book after having seen the movie first, while the book did explain some things more in detail there was never a single moment where I said to myself, "Oh.... that makes sense now!"

_________________
Les Zombis et les Loups-Garous!

I enjoyed it, not my favourite of the series but still pretty sweet. Who else was surprised at how cool the "Three Brothers" story was? Best part of the movie by far!

I thought it was pretty well done overall. The dancing scene seemed odd to me as well. I know what they were going for there, but it seemed really forced.

This. I'm glad the movies stayed true to the increasingly dark tone of the books as the series progressed, but I'd be very reluctant to let kids under about 10 watch this one, at least in the theater where the experience is so intense. So hard to say no, though, when all their friends are going....

I took my nieces to the midnight opening and it was fun. I'm a big fan of the books and I'm always disappointed by movie adaptations of good books; this one was no exception. Rupert Grint finally learned to act a little bit but all the teens are still woefully inadequate in scenes with the adult actors. I, too, thought the Three Brothers story was well done. My nieces loved it and went to see it again the next night.

The theatre was packed and about 70% where young women aged 18-25. I didn't see anybody within 10 years of my age. Some people laughed when Dobby died but that was because a few women were sobbing uncontrollably.

It's amazing how much they have to leave out despite only getting through 2/3 of the book. The Battle of Hogwarts will probably take up half of Part 2. *cring*