Yep she sends them to Australia because she thought her parents might get tortured for information about her whereabouts.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part I
- Thread starter RDCR07
- Start date
Yep she sends them to Australia because she thought her parents might get tortured for information about her whereabouts.
saw it today with the family. I enjoyed it.
yeah some parts were left out but that's to be expected.
yeah some parts were left out but that's to be expected.
btw, I know this is not news but I have to mention that Hermione is all grown up now....
This movie is doing pretty good compared to the others given the fact that it was released only two weeks ago. It has made $608,256,129 so far including both domestically in the States($219,056,129) and internationally($389,200,000).
They did the Tale of the Three Brothers very, very well.
I'm so glad they included the whole tale, if they'd had it just in one film I bet they'd have cut it down and just told the gist... I'm glad they had it in word for word, and it was a great idea to do it with animation. I love the tale and how it links in with the Deathly Hallows, I'm very glad they had the whole sign being drawn in which shows how it became the symbol.
I'm so glad they included the whole tale, if they'd had it just in one film I bet they'd have cut it down and just told the gist... I'm glad they had it in word for word, and it was a great idea to do it with animation. I love the tale and how it links in with the Deathly Hallows, I'm very glad they had the whole sign being drawn in which shows how it became the symbol.
I reckon it was quite crucial to split this into 2 movies, money aside. Harry and whatever never go back to Hogwarts where a lot of stuff happens that isn't critical to the main story so it can all be thrown out for the sake of a non 8 hour movie. So with the last book, unless they completely butchered the story more than 1 movie was necessity. I haven't seen this one yet mind you.
how did it cost to make?
I thought the tale of the brothers was fantastic. Enjoyed the movie more than the previous ones barring the first one.. thought HP 2 to HP 6 were all rubbish.
Watched this last week and I was pleasantly surprised.
It was the first film since the third film where it stayed pretty true to the book. Many have critcised the film as ponderous, but personally it conveyed the feeling of helplessness that Harry is supposed to be experiencing very well.
I liked the mission into the Ministry of Magic, was exciting but also contained an element of humour... quintessential Potter at its best.
The Story of the Three Brothers was class, but did anyone else feel the Elder Wand looked a tad dildoish or kinda like a stick form of those healing beads lasses pop into their bits.. yep probably just me.
The slight gripes I have is that Voldemort just isn't very scary, no where near the menacing vibe that you associate with him in the books and that worries me because the final film rests on Fiennes' ability to potray the Dark Lord at his most powerful and to make the audience feel all hope is lost. Not a patch on Sauron for me, his equivalent in the LOTR films and we barely even saw him.
Another issue was the death of Mad Eye, just 'yep' he's dead now and it just got glossed over. Surely there were some good scenes to be made over his death, but I guess the death of Dobby kinda made up for it.
As for the cast, I thought Emma Watson was quality as per usual, same goes for Rupert Grint .. as for Radcliffe, he was better in this film.. but I still find him a tad too awkward and queer for the role, also his chemistry with Ginny is feckin laughable.
All in all good film, better than the last few even though it had less action material to work with.. hope the last one continues in the same vein, whether it lives up to the hype rests on Fiennes and Radcliffe's shoulders.
It was the first film since the third film where it stayed pretty true to the book. Many have critcised the film as ponderous, but personally it conveyed the feeling of helplessness that Harry is supposed to be experiencing very well.
I liked the mission into the Ministry of Magic, was exciting but also contained an element of humour... quintessential Potter at its best.
The Story of the Three Brothers was class, but did anyone else feel the Elder Wand looked a tad dildoish or kinda like a stick form of those healing beads lasses pop into their bits.. yep probably just me.
The slight gripes I have is that Voldemort just isn't very scary, no where near the menacing vibe that you associate with him in the books and that worries me because the final film rests on Fiennes' ability to potray the Dark Lord at his most powerful and to make the audience feel all hope is lost. Not a patch on Sauron for me, his equivalent in the LOTR films and we barely even saw him.
Another issue was the death of Mad Eye, just 'yep' he's dead now and it just got glossed over. Surely there were some good scenes to be made over his death, but I guess the death of Dobby kinda made up for it.
As for the cast, I thought Emma Watson was quality as per usual, same goes for Rupert Grint .. as for Radcliffe, he was better in this film.. but I still find him a tad too awkward and queer for the role, also his chemistry with Ginny is feckin laughable.
All in all good film, better than the last few even though it had less action material to work with.. hope the last one continues in the same vein, whether it lives up to the hype rests on Fiennes and Radcliffe's shoulders.
I think the whole production budget cost $250,000,000.
Is Emma Watson supposed to be a good actor?
Yes I think she is a good actor. I ll throw in the old football line. She is young, she has potential and hence she WILL improve in the future.
expensive - but what a return on the investment.....
I've always liked her in the HP series so I'd say yes.
Ralph Fiennes, Alan Rickman and Helena Bonham Carter are usually superb. They usually stand out from the others; sometimes by a bit, sometimes by a mile.
All the top movies today cost a lot of money to make. The Transformers, Harry Potter, Inception, Dark Knight etc. all cost no less than $175,000,000.
Not to mention Michael Gambon, Brendon Gleeson, John Isaacs and Gary Oldman - who is one of my favorite actors.
The adult cast is second to none, Radcliffe and Watson have always irritated me though, either over or under acting at any given moment. Plenty of time to improve though of course, lernin and all that.
tbf, I think Watson does a good job. She's playing a teenage girl and you know how much of a roller coaster they can be so that might explain the OTT and/or under acting bits.
Radcliff has never had the balls to hold the role of Harry. When you read the books, while tentative at times, Harry has always been confident. Radcliff just makes him feel completely inept and when he does something that would suggest needing a set, its a shock.
It was ok. At least there was no more Michael Gambon as Dumbledore. It was a travesty watching him screw up that role.
So true, not a patch on Richard Harris.
I think Michael Gambon is a very good actor but he played Dumbledore far too harshly. Dumbledore is really kindly; he's eccentric and cheerful... Gambon played him as quite nasty!
They didn't do Voldemort's confrontation with Grindelwald quite right, although I think it had some good parts to it. Grindelwald actually doesn't tell Voldemort where the Elder Wand is, he starts to feel some remorse later on in life and he tries to throw Voldemort off the scent of where the Elder Wand is, even telling him that it'll never be his. Although I suppose this is easier to potray in the book because otherwise the audience would be wondering how Voldemort knew Dumbledore had it. It was good how they showed how he's completely not scared of Voldemort though.
Harris was a bit too frail to pull it off right, Gambon's a bit too angry. War Dumbledore. Get Gary Oldman to do it in the remake in 20 years.
One thing that I think summed it up was the bit at the end of the Half Blood Prince, Snape comes up to the tower, does his thing, and Harry just kind of stands there with his mouth open, being very quiet. Partly the writer's fault because the way they changed it from the book didn't make much sense, but still. He also says "may" instead of "me".
Is the bit with Dumbledore not in this half of the film then? Where's the cut-off? After Harry dies?
One thing that I think summed it up was the bit at the end of the Half Blood Prince, Snape comes up to the tower, does his thing, and Harry just kind of stands there with his mouth open, being very quiet. Partly the writer's fault because the way they changed it from the book didn't make much sense, but still. He also says "may" instead of "me".
To be fair to Gambon, Dumbledore's serious-at-all-times portrayal is probably the fault of the director and the writers.
Agree 100%.
Agree 100%.
He's said he never read the books so I doubt he has any idea what Dumbledore is supposed to be like.
Even more reason for it to be the directors fault.
Did they include a gay scene between Dumbledore and Grindlewald?
You can't really complain about the Harry Potter being made into a TV series rather than movies because they are the biggest film franchise in Hollywood today. They overtook the Star Wars franchise when the 6th film came out. Bloody James Bond is in third with 23 films. How they are not in first, I will never know.
I can, because it would suit the stories better. Money can bugger off when I'm judging what I'd prefer to watch. It's obvious that's why they made them like that, but I'll still complain about it.
Finally got to see this the other night. Really enjoyed it, and found it pleasantly scary. Ron probably stole it as always.
RIP MadEye, Hedwig and Dobby.
Finally got to see this the other night. Really enjoyed it, and found it pleasantly scary. Ron probably stole it as always.
RIP MadEye, Hedwig and Dobby.
I m happy at least one person enjoyed it. And like you said Ron was pretty good in this movie.
He is hilarious in that tent scene after he comes back to them and he agrees with Hermoine all the time.
One thing that has always bugged me about the films is that the main actor, Daniel Radcliffe, has always been over shadowed by Ron and Hermione. If they had chosen better and had a more dynamic actor that doesn't look awkward, forced and wooden all the time it would have been so much better.
It wasn't bad but suffered a bit from having to set up the finale.
The choice was made when the actor was 9 or 10. Obviously they can just cast another actor with real acting abilities midway through the series, but that would destroy all the fanboyism (fangirlism too?) that the franchise built through the years. So the filmmakers probably made the conscious choice of sticking with their cast all the way through. Considering each instalment make more or less of a billion dollars, it's not all that bad.
Yep. The first six films of the franchise have made $6.3 Billion, which is absolutely staggering. The franchise will easily reach $7 Billion when the last film is released.