saw it yesterday, it was great, but not quite as great as the book

I saw it yesterday. And it was a disapointment.

 

 

 

+1

 

 

 

I went with low expectations already...but the movie absolutely sucked.

 

 

 

As with all the movies, they changed lots of stuff. The most annoying of which(to me anyway) was the fact that they changed the discoverer of the room of requirement to neville. WTF?

I thought it was great as well. So as to protect people who haven't seen it:

 

 

 

[hide]I thought Bellatrix Lestrange was great as well. Me being nitpicky here - wasn't it NOT the killing curse that she shot at Sirius and rather just a spell that knocked him back?

 

 

 

Sirius' death was rushed.

 

 

 

To build on that part, I thought the movie should have been a bit longer. 2hrs15mins is quite short for what had to be in it. I would have been satisfied with a movie close to 3 hours, even though that is quite long.

 

 

 

I think Michael Gambon has a great feel about him but I don't think he's right for Dumbledore. I can't get over the difference between Harris' Dumbledore and Gambon's. Even in the smallest moments, you can tell A.D. cares about Harry greatly (the sorting hat in the first movie, the end, etc. etc.). In the movies 3-5, he mentions only once or twice how much he cares about Harry - probably that last talk in Dumbledore's office in #5 was the most he ever mentioned. The scene where Dumbledore flees from the Minister, Dawlish, etc. - he has a brief talk after knocking them all out with Harry and McGonagall. Another example of where cutting out that "personal" part of Dumbledore hurts his overall image, IMO.

 

 

 

I just think that this sort of tough-guy, no crap Dumbledore won't really be right for the sixth movie where Dumbledore REALLY needs to show emotion towards Harry. I do like Gambon's portrayal of Dumbledore setting aside that part though...

 

 

 

Dementors - I always thought they looked a bit odd in 3 and 5. Their faces were too well defined, their "mouths" too visible.

 

 

 

A lot of negative comments but overall, I really did like it. I love having a visual portrayal of the series, even if certain parts are adjusted or shortened for time purposes.[/hide]

 

 

 

That's exactly what I wanted to say! The first dumbledorr was amazing. I think they should ditch this guy and get Sir Ian Mcellan. You know who I'm talking about. GANDALF!!!!!11SHIFT1!1

Is is me or did the dementors look very different in this film compared to the 3rd harry potter movie?

I thought it was great as well. So as to protect people who haven't seen it:

 

 

 

[hide]I thought Bellatrix Lestrange was great as well. Me being nitpicky here - wasn't it NOT the killing curse that she shot at Sirius and rather just a spell that knocked him back?

 

 

 

Sirius' death was rushed.

 

 

 

To build on that part, I thought the movie should have been a bit longer. 2hrs15mins is quite short for what had to be in it. I would have been satisfied with a movie close to 3 hours, even though that is quite long.

 

 

 

I think Michael Gambon has a great feel about him but I don't think he's right for Dumbledore. I can't get over the difference between Harris' Dumbledore and Gambon's. Even in the smallest moments, you can tell A.D. cares about Harry greatly (the sorting hat in the first movie, the end, etc. etc.). In the movies 3-5, he mentions only once or twice how much he cares about Harry - probably that last talk in Dumbledore's office in #5 was the most he ever mentioned. The scene where Dumbledore flees from the Minister, Dawlish, etc. - he has a brief talk after knocking them all out with Harry and McGonagall. Another example of where cutting out that "personal" part of Dumbledore hurts his overall image, IMO.

 

 

 

I just think that this sort of tough-guy, no crap Dumbledore won't really be right for the sixth movie where Dumbledore REALLY needs to show emotion towards Harry. I do like Gambon's portrayal of Dumbledore setting aside that part though...

 

 

 

Dementors - I always thought they looked a bit odd in 3 and 5. Their faces were too well defined, their "mouths" too visible.

 

 

 

A lot of negative comments but overall, I really did like it. I love having a visual portrayal of the series, even if certain parts are adjusted or shortened for time purposes.[/hide]

 

 

 

I agree 100%. The first Dumbledore was perfect. Sort of that happy, carefree, cute old man type. Exactly how I had imagined Dumbledore to be. Surprisingly, the replacement they found is the exact opposite of the original. He's much more harsh, blunt and less of a cute happy wizard :XD:

 

 

 

-----

 

 

 

And I agree, PuppyKing. In the third movie, they looked slightly more to how I imagined them - more "misty" looking. But in the fifth, they look much more like cloaked humans >.<

I was a little disappointed with the final battle scene because they left stuff out that I was looking forward to seeing. But it still was a good movie for the series.

I agree 100%. The first Dumbledore was perfect. Sort of that happy, carefree, cute old man type. Exactly how I had imagined Dumbledore to be. Surprisingly, the replacement they found is the exact opposite of the original. He's much more harsh, blunt and less of a cute happy wizard :XD:

 

 

 

Ha, funny, I feel exactly the opposite. The first Dumbledore looked too much as if you could break him by just breathing at him. I was constantly worried he was going to drop dead in the middle... of... a... sentence. (With all possible respect to the actor, who actually did die.) Michael Gambon portrays Dumbledore as the strong and slightly weird wizard he is - from book 4 onwards we don't get to see the silly Dumbledore as much in the books anyway.

I saw the movie a couple days ago, and was kind of let down. It wasn't a bad movie, and if you didn't read the books you'd probably think it was great, but they left so much stuff out. (at least it seems like that to me) But it did have some great action scenes and the cast was great. I didn't even realize that Dumbledore was switched, though. :oops:

I saw the movie a couple days ago, and was kind of let down. It wasn't a bad movie, and if you didn't read the books you'd probably think it was great, but they left so much stuff out. (at least it seems like that to me) But it did have some great action scenes and the cast was great. I didn't even realize that Dumbledore was switched, though. :oops:

 

 

 

Excacly my thouths. It wasn't all super-duper like "WOW THAT MOVIE WAS AWESOME!!!11111eleven!!!!!oneone!!!" it was like "yea that movie was pretty cool, wanna go get a burger?". The movie left out lots of important ditails but still did a great job.

 

 

 

They switched dumbledore, what? i didn't even realise that.

 

 

 

I think the actors did a great job especially the Umbridge woman!

 

 

 

And you have to admit Hermione (emma watson) and Luna Lovegood are pretty hot :oops:

And you have to admit Hermione (emma watson) and Luna Lovegood are pretty hot :oops:

Luna? She's creepy. Funny, happy, pretty, but creepy. They did a good job on that, didn't they? They portrayed her great. And Umbridg, too - I mean, the friggin' look on her face during the fireworks scene...priceless. I've had teachers like that...whom I've wished I could do something similar to.

 

Also, I honestly didn't think anything of Harry describing Cho as "wet" until you guys pointed that out. Some people have sick minds. :notalk:

I thought it was great as well. So as to protect people who haven't seen it:

 

 

 

[hide]I thought Bellatrix Lestrange was great as well. Me being nitpicky here - wasn't it NOT the killing curse that she shot at Sirius and rather just a spell that knocked him back?

 

 

 

Sirius' death was rushed.

 

 

 

To build on that part, I thought the movie should have been a bit longer. 2hrs15mins is quite short for what had to be in it. I would have been satisfied with a movie close to 3 hours, even though that is quite long.

 

 

 

I think Michael Gambon has a great feel about him but I don't think he's right for Dumbledore. I can't get over the difference between Harris' Dumbledore and Gambon's. Even in the smallest moments, you can tell A.D. cares about Harry greatly (the sorting hat in the first movie, the end, etc. etc.). In the movies 3-5, he mentions only once or twice how much he cares about Harry - probably that last talk in Dumbledore's office in #5 was the most he ever mentioned. The scene where Dumbledore flees from the Minister, Dawlish, etc. - he has a brief talk after knocking them all out with Harry and McGonagall. Another example of where cutting out that "personal" part of Dumbledore hurts his overall image, IMO.

 

 

 

I just think that this sort of tough-guy, no crap Dumbledore won't really be right for the sixth movie where Dumbledore REALLY needs to show emotion towards Harry. I do like Gambon's portrayal of Dumbledore setting aside that part though...

 

 

 

Dementors - I always thought they looked a bit odd in 3 and 5. Their faces were too well defined, their "mouths" too visible.

 

 

 

A lot of negative comments but overall, I really did like it. I love having a visual portrayal of the series, even if certain parts are adjusted or shortened for time purposes.[/hide]

 

 

 

I agree 100%. The first Dumbledore was perfect. Sort of that happy, carefree, cute old man type. Exactly how I had imagined Dumbledore to be. Surprisingly, the replacement they found is the exact opposite of the original. He's much more harsh, blunt and less of a cute happy wizard :XD:

 

Yes! It bothers me so much, but I try to deal with it. :P

I agree 100%. The first Dumbledore was perfect. Sort of that happy, carefree, cute old man type. Exactly how I had imagined Dumbledore to be. Surprisingly, the replacement they found is the exact opposite of the original. He's much more harsh, blunt and less of a cute happy wizard :XD:

 

 

 

Ha, funny, I feel exactly the opposite. The first Dumbledore looked too much as if you could break him by just breathing at him. I was constantly worried he was going to drop dead in the middle... of... a... sentence. (With all possible respect to the actor, who actually did die.) Michael Gambon portrays Dumbledore as the strong and slightly weird wizard he is - from book 4 onwards we don't get to see the silly Dumbledore as much in the books anyway.

 

Yeah. Dumbledore 1 was way too croaky. More importantly, he becomes more energetic and involved in the later books.

I loved the first Dumbledore. At the same time, I believe that the fight between D and V was (although awsome visually) a bit of a letdown. I imagined Dumbledore really kicking Voldemorts [wagon]. In the book he does such Gandalf sort of moments (if that makes sense). The scene where he freezes the room and erases the girl's memory after talking to Harry seemed cooler in the book.

And you have to admit Hermione (emma watson) and Luna Lovegood are pretty hot :oops:

Luna? She's creepy. Funny, happy, pretty, but creepy. They did a good job on that, didn't they? They portrayed her great. And Umbridg, too - I mean, the friggin' look on her face during the fireworks scene...priceless. I've had teachers like that...whom I've wished I could do something similar to.

 

Also, I honestly didn't think anything of Harry describing Cho as "wet" until you guys pointed that out. Some people have sick minds. :notalk:

 

he does describe it as that though...but the person who said about it got it wrong, he didnt describe it as wet because they kisssed badly or anything he said it was wet because she was crying...

Luna was played perfect. Literally.. just perfect. She was like the Dumbledore of the first movie. Was a main character, didn't say too much, the words said though made up for the lack thereof. I didn't really like the movie, too much was missing. Honestly, from here on I think the movies will be absolute rubbish considering all that happens in the sixth, and what is obviously going to happen in the seventh. Disappointed. Enjoyed it nonetheless.

They changed the director :x this one is bad, or so I've heard. the second movie was 3-4 hours... why isn't this one? by the time they make the seventh movie the guy who plays harry will be waaaaaaayy to old.

 

 

 

still gonna see it :mrgreen:

I'm disappointed that they didn't show the Weasley twins' swamp :cry:

i saw it today, it was alright but the fighting scenes at the end where way too confusing too much going on at once but other then that an ok movie

Ron didn't say "Bloody Hell." :cry: Oh well, it wasn't bad. I thought they left out a few key parts, which Tripsis pointed out. 7/10

 

"Bloody hell Harry, she's torturing you!"

 

Pretty good movie imo. I loved how they did Hagrid's halfbrother :D

I saw it yesterday. And it was a disapointment.

 

 

 

+1

 

 

 

I went with low expectations already...but the movie absolutely sucked.

 

 

 

As with all the movies, they changed lots of stuff. The most annoying of which(to me anyway) was the fact that they changed the discoverer of the room of requirement to neville. WTF?

 

 

 

Thank you =D> finally someone with a little movie sense. That movie was horrible. They really destroyed the book plus all the bad acting. If it wasnt for Emma Watson and the promise of a magic battle I wouldnt have gone. I say dont bother watching the movies the books are supremely better.

They changed the director :x this one is bad, or so I've heard. the second movie was 3-4 hours... why isn't this one? by the time they make the seventh movie the guy who plays harry will be waaaaaaayy to old.

 

 

 

still gonna see it :mrgreen:

 

 

 

He'll be 20

 

 

 

The actor that plays ron will look too old though. I think he's going to be around 23?

i liked it a lot...

 

 

 

[hide=details]

 

well, its a movie, and they have limited time, but lord of the rings was longer, and they were awesome movies :D so i wish they had made it longer. also, everything seemed to be little dips into the book, hardly any of the scenes were very in-depth, and i can understand that if you dont know whats going on, it would be confusing...i didnt realize which character was supposed to be lupin until i saw a pic of him with harry after i saw the movie :P also, i didnt like the dementors...bleh...the book says they wore black robes with hoods that concealed their faces, that they had grey decayed-looking skin, and they hovered a few inches over the ground, i dont remember them flying...so i hated the movie dementors, but that scene over all was good. the entire movie just seemed to skim a few of the best pages of the book, not much was substantial...[/hide]

I can see the 7th book being split into two movies, because even thought it have a little more text than the 6th, it wad twice as much content. When I was finished, I felt like I read two books because of how much happened in that one book.

 

 

 

I only saw the trailer, and cho looks ugly as [cabbage], I imagined her to be 5x prettier than that.

i think it was pretty good although there were very annoying parts

 

[hide]the fact that Chos friend didn't tell about the DA and Cho did

 

 

 

The Dementors looked weird and I imagined them different and to me they looked different to the dementors in the 3rd movie, like the 1 on the train compared to the ones in the tunnel, maybe because the one on the train didnt have its hood off, anyway need a smaller mouth, looked weird

 

 

 

When sirius died when the killing curse hit him he looked stunned and looked at harry, and in the 4th movie when cedric died he flew through the air, and died straight away[/hide]

Saw it last night, I enjoyed the most out of the films, but looking back on it it did feel a little rushed. It might have been necessary but it seemed like it was a quick once over summary in motion for those who've read the book, instead of a proper treatment.

 

 

 

That said, I enjoyed the final battle, it was very climatic. The main actors have all matured quite well, I thought Daniel Radcliffe might have been a bit forced but that doesn't matter too much, he got better towards the end. I thought that Luna girl was lovely, she came across as a bit annoying to me in the book but I loved her portrayal in the film.

 

 

 

All in all, good and worth watching, but not brilliant.