Didn't show it in my screening, sorry
Saw Harry Potter and I must say that it wasn't overly brilliant. The main actors just can't act, especially Emma Watson and Daniel Radcliff.
[Spoiler] There was no mention at all of Gallert Grindlewald and so we didn't get the Dumbledore back story (about his sister etc). The sequence with Harry and Dumbledore at Kings cross was also pretty crap because there was no mention of why Harry survived the Avada Kadevra in the forest (also not much light shed on Hallows and Horcruxes by Dumbledore). The worst part in the film was the 19 years later, during which I just couldn't stop laughing at how bad it was.
The only improvement in the film as compared to the book was the fight between Harry and Voldemort. In the book that scene was a huge let down. [/Spoiler]
I think that
They didn't need to incorporate Grindelvald. That would be a problem with the 1st part of the Deathly Hallows film anyway, not this one. Looking back over the book, he isn't actually that important and wouldn't have added anything to the films of any interest and if they had, then they would have also have to include loads of potentially boring detail to justify it. Same with Ariana, it wouldn't have made the film any better if they'd have included it.
Yep, 19 years later sucked, but it sucked in the books and I think the film did about a good as job as possible on it, which was difficult because it's a terrible scene.
I was dissappointed because they the chance to make it really incredible, because I think it's the best part of the book. You know how they did an amazing job on The Tale of the Three Brothers in the first part? It was really well done and I think they might have done something similarly good like that to really make it special.
Yeah, fair enough I suppose.
[Spoiler]I think the main thing you need to understand though is that Snape has been looking out for Harry all this time but did also have it in for him, because of who his mum and dad were, respectively. and it explains that.[/spoiler]
I think over the years a lot of the people who haven't read the books have been totally confused by watching the films, which is one of the reasons why I think that the films fail.
I did think that Alan Rickman was really good in the Prince's Tale.
I can understand child actors doing their first big project not being great, but ffs at this age you should be able to act and act properly.
Ending of the movie relied very heavily on knowledge of the books but in context I guess that's fair.
Originally Posted by Peter Mooresforever 63*
"All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusions is called a philosopher." - Ambrose Bierce
Langeveldt: I of course blame their parents.. and unchecked immigration!
GingerFurball: He's Austrian, they tend to produce the odd ****ed up individual
Burgey: Be careful dealing with neighbours whose cars don't have wheels but whose houses do.
Uppercut: Maybe I just need better strippers
Yeah I mean they were casted when they were like 10 or something, it's probably quite hard to tell whether they are going to be any good when they are 20. Think they all look fantastic (especially Emma Watson ), i.e they all look like I imagined.
They are the best actors though, but I don't think it's ever really made me enjoy the films less.
it was pretty entertaining! none of the 3 stars are very good actors but they have been adequate and the support cast of brilliant actors (rickman, gambon, smith, carter, fiennes etc) helps...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)