Saw the movie this morning. Probably the best of the series that I can remember. For whatever reason, I remember not being that impressed with the book, but I thought the movie did a good job. Maybe I'll have to revisit the book to see how it holds up. The movie did feel a little rushed though, which is weird since it's the final chapter to a film series over 10 years in the making. Still not bad. I've never been a huge fan of the Harry Potter movies, but I have to admit I am feeling a little depressed that the whole thing is over. Grade: A-
I had a lot of problems with this and there were countless missed opportunities and anti-climaxes but I don't feel like paying them too much heed. David Yates is rubbish but thankfully Harry Potter is grand enough for the both of 'em. It's too bad they didn't get John Williams back to score this one but thank god they at least used his music more than the last couple films, especially during the last scene. Fiennes and Rickman were particularly great. It's also a shame they didn't do a grand, series-encompassing end credits sequence like the final Lord Of The Rings did. Anyway, the film is still just epic enough and I did tear up a bit on the Hogwarts express at the end. I look forward as-ever to whatever more comes out of the series, as well as going back to the beginning someday soon and reading all the books, playing all the videogames and watching all the films all over again.
Saw it opening night and really dug it. I usually avoid post-converted 3D, but I figured they probably took care to do a good job with this one, and they did. Loved Alan Rickman, again, and he made me tear up a little bit, more so than the actual ending, 'cause I knew it from the books and everything.
The one problem I had was also a problem with the book:
the whole thing with the wand-juggling. It was convoluted and unnecessary. Why not just have Voldemort be weakened enough by the destruction of the horcruxes so that Harry could actually go toe-to-toe with him? And the movie basically broke its own established rule about the wands, unless I missed something. Voldemort tells Snape you inherit the full ability to use someone's wand when you kill them. So, since Snape had killed Dumbledore, who owned the Elder Wand, Snape became its owner, therefore Voldemort had to kill Snape to become the next owner. But in the end, Harry says that line of succession was wrong because ... Malfoy disarmed Dumbledore before Snape killed him, making Malfoy the rightful owner of the wand. So, wait, you only have to disarm them? Was Voldemort just misinformed?
Saw it opening night and really dug it. I usually avoid post-converted 3D, but I figured they probably took care to do a good job with this one, and they did. Loved Alan Rickman, again, and he made me tear up a little bit, more so than the actual ending, 'cause I knew it from the books and everything.
The one problem I had was also a problem with the book:
the whole thing with the wand-juggling. It was convoluted and unnecessary. Why not just have Voldemort be weakened enough by the destruction of the horcruxes so that Harry could actually go toe-to-toe with him? And the movie basically broke its own established rule about the wands, unless I missed something. Voldemort tells Snape you inherit the full ability to use someone's wand when you kill them. So, since Snape had killed Dumbledore, who owned the Elder Wand, Snape became its owner, therefore Voldemort had to kill Snape to become the next owner. But in the end, Harry says that line of succession was wrong because ... Malfoy disarmed Dumbledore before Snape killed him, making Malfoy the rightful owner of the wand. So, wait, you only have to disarm them? Was Voldemort just misinformed?
it was that you earned the wand by taking it from its master, which is why Harry couldn't use the snatcher's wand (which Ron had taken from the snatcher), but he could use Malfoy's wand and the Elder Wand (Harry took Malfoy's wand when they were captured in the book). Malfoy overpowered Dumbledore and disarmed him, but didn't kill him. Intrinsic to Voldemort's character is that he always assumes that power is most fully expressed in cruelty, hate, violence, and murder. That's been his greatest weakness all throughout the series and the way that Harry defeated him pretty much every time: because love, courage, loyalty, friendship, etc have proven to be more powerful than hate and violence. So he assumed the power over the elder wand belonged to the person who killed its previous master, but he was wrong.
i agree that it's a bit of a convoluted concept, especially for the movie, but it fits with Voldemort's character as it's been developed through the series (more so in the books).
I just saw it. I really liked it, one of the best movies I've seen this summer. (I haven't seen Cap yet, that's coming this week). I gave it an A - 4.5/5
The one problem I had was also a problem with the book:
the whole thing with the wand-juggling. It was convoluted and unnecessary. Why not just have Voldemort be weakened enough by the destruction of the horcruxes so that Harry could actually go toe-to-toe with him? And the movie basically broke its own established rule about the wands, unless I missed something. Voldemort tells Snape you inherit the full ability to use someone's wand when you kill them. So, since Snape had killed Dumbledore, who owned the Elder Wand, Snape became its owner, therefore Voldemort had to kill Snape to become the next owner. But in the end, Harry says that line of succession was wrong because ... Malfoy disarmed Dumbledore before Snape killed him, making Malfoy the rightful owner of the wand. So, wait, you only have to disarm them? Was Voldemort just misinformed?
it was that you earned the wand by taking it from its master, which is why Harry couldn't use the snatcher's wand (which Ron had taken from the snatcher), but he could use Malfoy's wand and the Elder Wand (Harry took Malfoy's wand when they were captured in the book). Malfoy overpowered Dumbledore and disarmed him, but didn't kill him. Intrinsic to Voldemort's character is that he always assumes that power is most fully expressed in cruelty, hate, violence, and murder. That's been his greatest weakness all throughout the series and the way that Harry defeated him pretty much every time: because love, courage, loyalty, friendship, etc have proven to be more powerful than hate and violence. So he assumed the power over the elder wand belonged to the person who killed its previous master, but he was wrong.
i agree that it's a bit of a convoluted concept, especially for the movie, but it fits with Voldemort's character as it's been developed through the series (more so in the books).
I watched all 8 movies with my kids and we really liked them. I think the only real weakness is that it's obvious that there was a LOT cut from the books, and I say that not having read any of them. Specifically, relationships between characters seemed glossed over. Especially Harry/Ginny and Hermione/Ron. It never felt like they portrayed the struggle in coming together between Hermione/Ron. And Ginny seems glossed over to the point that she really is just Harry's girlfriend instead of a meaningful character. Dobby was another one; sure, it was sad when he was killed but it should've meant more and been more tragic. I also felt like we never really saw the internal struggle in Draco.
It seems like if they had taken some of the more pointless special effects scenes down a notch and focused more on stuff like that then certain events would've been more meaningful.
Alan Rickman and Ralph Fiennes were awesome throughout. Harry watching Snape's memories in the last film were so well done.
