# The New Harry Potter Movie!



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 14, 2007)

Well if you have not seen it then you need to get to the theater's as it is the best of the series to date.  Simply awesome!


----------



## terryl965 (Jul 14, 2007)

I completely agree it was an awesome movie.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 14, 2007)

terryl965 said:


> I completely agree it was an awesome movie.


 
Yes it was and I am already looking forward to seeing it again.


----------



## Shuto (Jul 14, 2007)

The actress playing Dolores does a great job.  I hated her from the start.  I also really liked the actress playing Luna.  It's not often that a director captures the same image of a book character that I had but Luna is just like I imagined her in my mind.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 14, 2007)

I saw it today, in IMAX, with a 3D section for the climatic battle at the end. 

The movie really requires a knowledge of the preceeding books and movies. Not just a general sense of who Harry, Ron, and Hemoine are, but much more of the details. 

I have listened to the first four 'books on tape', as read by Jim Dale (I think) but quite a bit of time has gone by, since hearing the story. I found the movie quite a bit difficult to follow. Who was Who and Who was fooling whom is not really explained. (Live Free and Die Hard - I thought had the same problem, but handled it better).

I suppose that the way the just "Blew **** Up" made up for a lot of the stuff I missed. And it was really, really good to hear it with the IMAX sound system. There were times where the theater was shaking with low end.


----------



## bydand (Jul 14, 2007)

I can't wait to see it.  I think I am going to go this coming week if it is at the theater up here. (Mom and Pop operation who has to really watch the cash flow.)  The good thing though, is that it is their policy that no family should have to pay more than $20 to take their kids to get in a movie.  Even the popcorn and drinks are cheap, so we put up with having to wait a couple of weeks sometimes to get a movie in.  Last time we went with the 4 boys, and my wife and I, it ran a grand total of $35 including popcorn and drinks for everybody (larges for me and Laura, smalls for the boys.)  They do really well though and just may have it. 

I was hoping it was done a bit truer to the book than the last one was.  I suppose it is difficult to determine just what to edit out to keep the movie watchable.  I really like the series and am looking forward to the new book as well.


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 14, 2007)

Saw it in digital last night.

You definitely have to have a knowledge of things from the books for this film to make sense of some things.  There were a lot of holes that I think could have been reasonably filled without too much cumbersome addition.

I truthfully expected a longer film with more information on the Order - missed the painting of Sirius' mum, the vigorous confrontation with Dumbledore ....

So ... it was good, but I was slightly disappointed.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 14, 2007)

bydand said:


> I can't wait to see it.  I think I am going to go this coming week if it is at the theater up here. (Mom and Pop operation who has to really watch the cash flow.)  The good thing though, is that it is their policy that no family should have to pay more than $20 to take their kids to get in a movie.  Even the popcorn and drinks are cheap, so we put up with having to wait a couple of weeks sometimes to get a movie in.  Last time we went with the 4 boys, and my wife and I, it ran a grand total of $35 including popcorn and drinks for everybody (larges for me and Laura, smalls for the boys.)  They do really well though and just may have it.
> 
> I was hoping it was done a bit truer to the book than the last one was.  I suppose it is difficult to determine just what to edit out to keep the movie watchable.  I really like the series and am looking forward to the new book as well.



Those old mom and pop theaters (aka Sticky Shoes) ... GOD I miss them. So nice to be able to take a whole family out for 20 bucks to a movie, whereas a regular 16 plex theater one can expect to spend upwards of 50 bucks + . 

I'm on another bbs that is heavy into the Potter stories (books and film) and yes while it is/was very difficult to decide what to keep and what to throw out due to time restraints. Rowling has written a world and a tale that is full of details and little side (relevant) stories that keep a reader engaged. Just as it was difficult for Jackson to tell the full tale of the Lord of the Rings same here with the directors of the now 5 films. Goblet of Fire was a good movie yes, but likewise a disappointment because so much was left out. Now with the upcoming Half Blood Prince and the final story Deathly Hollows oh man... 
At least the actors have all committed to finishing it out. Can you imagine any of the characters not being played by their original actors? The whole thing would be denounced by fans and critics alike.  
If ya'll are interested in a deep discussion of the potter world then try www.kevinswatch.com and scroll down to the "Library" and you'll see JK Rowling forum. Eventually they'll be planning a "book dissection" where each chapter is dissected and discussed in detail. Pretty neat. One of the (hot) topics is "Is Snapes Evil?"


----------



## Hawke (Jul 16, 2007)

The sight and sound for this movie rocked.  There's quite a few missing portions from the book, but overall I had a blast.

I recommend the IMAX version but be warned that the 3D is toward the end and last only for less tahn 12 minutes (guessing the time, but it felt short).


----------



## AceHBK (Jul 19, 2007)

Ok I finally saw the movie after much anticipation and I must say...............

I was disappointed!!

I listed to all of the books on my ipod  and as we all know books provide so much detail compared to movies.  Now don't get me wrong I liked the movie but after all the anticipation I felt like I was still missing something as I went home.  I didn't like the way the director handled Sirus' death.  Listening to the book I was in tears (yes a grown man in tears) when Sirius died.  But the movie itself didn't make it seem like a serious tragic event for Harry.  After reading the book an(well lsitening) you have in your mind how it plays out and what all is going on but then u watch the movie and feel like too much was left out.

I was glad to see they put creature in the movie..it wouldn have been nice to see Dobby though.

So little time in a movie and so much had to be cut out to keep it within time constraints but i feel some stuff they could have put in.

I would recommend the movie to anyone to watch but if you are a true HP fan more than likely you will feel cheated.  How could you not put in Ron's success in Quidditch?!?!?!  "Wesley is our king!!!"


And was it just me or did the guy who played Tom Riddle also play Harry's dad when Harry went into Snape's mind and saw how his father messed with Snape????

And Michaeledward...yes, Jim Dale is the best.  Nothing like laying down with your eyes closed and listening to a Harry Potter book and letting your mind be the movie theatre.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jul 19, 2007)

:lol2:


----------



## Shaderon (Jul 19, 2007)

I am an avid Harry potter fan and I loved the film, I've loved all of them.  

my husband who is very picky and isn't a fan, has not read the books and has only seen the films, says that he also loved the last film, I believe the films stand up alone without the books, they tell the same basic story, albeit condensed, it's true that some of the details aren't quite correct, like the finding of the room of requirement, but they don't need to be, as long as they work.   You have to think of the films and the books as seperate entities, you can't fit the whole of a "door-stopping" book like Order of the Pheonix" into a film or it'd be an epic and people would get fed up with 7 epics in a row.   

For the people who never read the books, I think that they would be quite happy with just the films, many things that aren't explained don't need to be, or will be explained later.


----------



## Kreth (Jul 19, 2007)

I saw it last weekend at the drive-in with 1408. Two movies for $6. I understand they left out quite a bit from the books. For example, the movie made it look like Cho was the one who betrayed Dumbledore's Army. But I haven't read the books yet, and I was able to follow things.


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 19, 2007)

True the movies stand on their own, but I *gotta* say ... it's not the LOTR trilogy but if felt as though it were treated that way. (LOTR:  Let's make tons of money filming how people in costume hike, climb, camp, fall, climb again, hike some more.)

I could have and would have sat through a longer movie if there had been the further character development of Ron, Hermione, Ginny.  And how about when the order confronts the Dursleys -  another key element discarded?  The visit to St. Mungo's and the potentially crucial facts about the Longbottom family?

I also remain in longing for that which we cannot have ... Richard Harris in his calm, confident, reserved manner combating Voldemort.

I kinda feel like the movies and the books are ... divorcing.



			
				AceHBK said:
			
		

> And was it just me or did the guy who played Tom Riddle also play Harry's dad when Harry went into Snape's mind and saw how his father messed with Snape????



I don't know, but he did look a tad different, no?


----------



## Kreth (Jul 19, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> True the movies stand on their own, but I *gotta* say ... it's not the LOTR trilogy but if felt as though it were treated that way. (LOTR: Let's make tons of money filming how people in costume hike, climb, camp, fall, climb again, hike some more.)


I think this will happen anytime you try to condense a rich story with complex sub-plots into a movie or movies. I have the LOTR box set with a lot of additonal footage. The whole trilogy is about 12 hrs long, and that's *still* leaving out subplots like Bombadil or Saruman taking over The Shire.


----------



## AceHBK (Jul 19, 2007)

Shesula.....I agree with across the board but especially with Richard Harris.

Richard Harris did such a great job that the new guy as Dumbledore seems so out of place to me.  He doesn't have that calm presence that Harris had.  From reading the books, Dumbledore was calm and relaxed at all times and never yelled or anything and Richard Harris showed that but this new guy doesn't.  Ian McKellan was begged to take the role after Harris passed but turned it down cause he felt that he would have been terrible at it.

I totally would have sat thru 3 hours or 3.5 hours of it it the plot would have added somethings.  Lord knows I sat thru Lord Of The Rings and that is time in my life I will never get back.


----------



## Lynne (Jul 19, 2007)

I loved the movie but I haven't read the books.

It's always nice to see Gary Oldman and Alan Rickman.  The woman who played Delores Umbridge was something, wasn't she? That sadistic giggle and smile.  She must be a stage actress.


----------

