Harry Potter 7.2 - SPOILER ALERT

[Riverwind (imported)]

Well Paolo was right, it did not follow the book at the end of the movie which I found disappointing, they got everything in but in the wrong order or wrong place. As for special effects they were off the chart in 3D, as I said in an earlier post which cant find or I would have posted this on that thread, if a movie based on a book is 80% its a good move this was about 95% so I would call it a great finish, I did miss a couple things that were left out, they may have been left on the cutting room floor and not added to the final cut.

Things I liked, in HP7.1 where they talk about the sword not being subject to rust but will only take things that add to it, I don't remember that in the book but it was a great add.

Things I missed, in HP7.2 when Harry and gang arrive at Hogwarts and nobody said to him, "did you really break into Gringots and escape on a Dragon?"

All in all it was a good flick, one worth watching it was all action and got everything in even if not in the right place.

I did like the movie and will add it to my collection when it becomes available.

I can see it being nominated for a few awards, special effects being one of them, that dragon was great as were most all the effects at the final battle.

But like Paolo said, if your a purest you will be disappointed.

River

[Slammr (imported)]

I just saw the movie, and I liked it, but it's been so long since I read the book I don't remember the differences. Movies are always only approximations of the book, anyway. I've never seen a movie that was as good as the book.

[Paolo]

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/07/17/b ... ?hpt=hp_t2

Records for opening of a new movie broken.

[curious_guy (imported)]

I just saw the movie, and I liked it, but it's been so long since I read the book I don't remember the differences. Movies are always only approximations of the book, anyway. I've never seen a movie that was as good as the book.

I think the first Harry Potter movie was better than the book.

The zoo scene was better because his cousin Dudley was trapped in the snake cage instead of the snake just being released.

The reason for Hagrid putting the tail on Dudley was better. In the book he did it because he was angry at the Dursleys. In the movie he did it because Dudley ate some of Harry's cake.

I also liked how Hagrid took Harry directly to the train station. The book did not explain how Harry got to the Dursley's house. I am sure they did not have a train station in the house.

[Riverwind (imported)]

No the first book did not tell how Hagrid got Harry back to the Dursley's, but the movie did not explain what they did for a month because Hagrid picked up Harry on his birthday July 31st and the train for Hogwarts does not leave until September 1st.

In the movie just before Hagrid puts the tail on Dudley he says Never insult Albus Dumbledor in front of me. So I think he did it because he was angry with the Dursley's in both the book and movie.

I must agree that the snake scene was good but in the book Dudley had his friend with him the movie left him out.

I found the first two movies went along with the books very well, very close but then in the third movie they took a left turn, the book was all about Quidditch and the movie dropped it completely, the forth book and move were maybe my favorite but the movie never mentioned the 1000 gold prize or that Harry gave it to the Twins. Book 5 was one of the worst books I have ever read, the movie was not any better but they had little to work with, Book 6 looked to me like it was written by a ghost writer, then the movie started all wrong, and they set fire to the borrow, neither happened and it left out many things that were in the book which were needed. I found that they were looking for more special effects then keeping to the story. Book 7 was a nice wrap up, did everything it was excepted to do and the two movies I thought did it justice.

River

[curious_guy (imported)]

No the first book did not tell how Hagrid got Harry back to the Dursley's, but the movie did not explain what they did for a month because Hagrid picked up Harry on his birthday July 31st and the train for Hogwarts does not leave until September 1st.

I think that in the movie, Hagrid picked up Harry on the day the train left. There was no month for Harry to wait. Hagrid arrived at the lighthouse just after midnight on September first. He took Harry to Diagon alley in the morning and got him to the train station just before the train left.

[jab (imported)]

Just saw the movie. I keep wondering if you'd be confused if you saw the movies - and only the movies. There is so much story and background that isn't in the films, and they're remarkably good movies.

They messed a bit with the pacing, in the Battle of Hogwarts. (I could give details, but it would sound like the type of bitching that Peter Jackson left out two hobbits in Lord of the Rings.)

The last two Harry Potter films, Part 1 and Part 2, should be considered together. As such, they're a very long film that does a pretty fine job presenting Harry's seventh year in the Hogwarts world.

They don't cheap out on the story line, and there is real danger: you see bodies of characters you love, laid out on the floor, dead. It's great work.

Agree, I have all the Lord of the Rings movies, they are great, I have never read the books, not that I don't want to I just cant find them in a print size I can see. Like I said, I thought they were great movies, then again my friend Talula watched the last one with me and was pissed at how bad it was. He read the books.

River

[Riverwind (imported)]

I think that in the movie, Hagrid picked up Harry on the day the train left. There was no month for Harry to wait. Hagrid arrived at the lighthouse just after midnight on September first. He took Harry to Diagon alley in the morning and got him to the train station just before the train left.

You need to go back and watch the movie again, in the shack at the sea when Hagrid gets Harry, Harry first says as he draws a cake with candles on the floor, "make a wish Harry" then blows out the dust, it was July 31st. Hagrid then knocks down the door, they leave for London to get his stuff, that would mean they went July 31st. When buying his wand Hagrid buys him his owl, and says "happy birthday Harry". There is a missing 31 days in the movie, and a how did Harry get home after he got all his school stuff in the book. The book does go on to say what happened over the month Harry had to wait right to the point of telling his uncle that the train leaves from 9 3/4 which puts them into a laughing gig.

River

[Dave (imported)]

Strange day -- I got a call from the Gal hat cuts my hair and she wanted me to get my haircut earlier (at 2pm rather than 4pm). Today of all days, the township was working to repair the bottom of my driveway so when I got up, I went down to the bottom (300 feet) and asked if I could drive out at 2pm instead of 4pm. They said yes. So I agreed to get the haircut earlier and then I could go out to see a movie after (think Harry Potter part 2.

then, then

I go to my car and the battery is dead as a doornail. I have to call the AAA and get it jump started.

I'm back to getting my hair cut at 4pm.

I went to see Harry Potter anyway. I'm seldom out after 9pm but I made an exception. Deathly Hallows Part Two is good. All action. So I wouldn't be out until 11pm, I went to the 3D version. Now I gotta tell you. They can stick 3D where the sun don't shine. It's nice but I wear glasses and to have a second set of lenses in front of my prescription lenses feels goofy and the 3D effect gives the movie a darker shading. So night gets darker and dark grey gets darker. It was interesting in 3D but no great dramatic wonderful new thing.

BUt I liked the movie. THe movie hits all the right points and works well.

Dave

[Riverwind (imported)]

Dave, I agree about 3D, never again for the same reasons plus it gives me a headache. I also liked the movie.

River