I agree with imago's review. It's still good and worth seeing.

I liked it. And I loved the use of 3D in a cinematic way for the most part. People's eyes looked very lifelike because the glint was reflected with great depth since it is a reflection of something far away.

And the movie didn't have overuse of throwing stuff at you all the time (which some people think 3D is only useful for, lol), in fact it was for the most part shot like a normal movie, but just in depth filled 3D, which makes the faces and sets look more interesting.

Great music.

Good acting.

I need to read the books.

Harry Potter and the Deat...ws Part II will rewrite the record books this weekend with an opening of about $168.55 million, according to Warner Bros.' estimate released on Sunday. That's a remarkable $10 million more than The Dark Knight's debut in 2008 and more than $40 million more than the first weekend enjoyed by Deathly Hallows Part I last year. It's a fitting finish for the most successful franchise in film history, which broke the same records back in 2001 when Sorcerer's Stone posted a $90.3 million opening weekend and ushered in a new era for the industry.

Since Sorcerer's Stone, the weekend record has been broken by Spider-Man, which was the first to top $100 million with $114.8 million in 2002, Pirates of the Caribbean:...an's Chestwith $135.6 million in 2006, Spider-Man 3's $151.1 million in 2007, and thenThe Dark Knight's $158.4 million in 2008. Deathly Hallows was helped by 3D screens and IMAX (which also enjoyed its biggest weekend ever with $15.5 million), and the effects of inflation will mean that this record will be broken some day, but it will take an incredible performance to achieve the feat.

http://www.the-numbers.co...ewsID=6390

NDRU said:

Machaela said:

After the last one I bottomed out my expectations so I would not be disappointed futher

I really never took harry potter seriously, and I did not like the first book or the movies, and my expectations were so low that gradually I began to actually enjoy them by expecting utter shit.

I really enjoyed book 7. The movies are okay, nothing great, but watchable, and repeatedly so.

They don't carry much weight to me, but they are somewhat effective in telling a story and consistent in quality.

I agree, a small distraction from reality ~ mostly enjoyable because of my kids enjoyment with them

I am not certian I would have tuned in if it were not for the kids

SUPRMAN said:

Harry Potter and the Deat...ws Part II will rewrite the record books this weekend with an opening of about $168.55 million, according to Warner Bros.' estimate released on Sunday. That's a remarkable $10 million more than The Dark Knight's debut in 2008 and more than $40 million more than the first weekend enjoyed by Deathly Hallows Part I last year. It's a fitting finish for the most successful franchise in film history, which broke the same records back in 2001 when Sorcerer's Stone posted a $90.3 million opening weekend and ushered in a new era for the industry.

Since Sorcerer's Stone, the weekend record has been broken by Spider-Man, which was the first to top $100 million with $114.8 million in 2002, Pirates of the Caribbean:...an's Chestwith $135.6 million in 2006, Spider-Man 3's $151.1 million in 2007, and thenThe Dark Knight's $158.4 million in 2008. Deathly Hallows was helped by 3D screens and IMAX (which also enjoyed its biggest weekend ever with $15.5 million), and the effects of inflation will mean that this record will be broken some day, but it will take an incredible performance to achieve the feat.

http://www.the-numbers.co...ewsID=6390

Perhaps the Hobbit will pass that amount.

kewlschool said:

I agree with imago's review. It's still good and worth seeing.

Thanks!

My review is flawless.

Vendetta1 said:

formallypickles said:

I dont like when people complain about how movies are not like the book.

Movies have only 1-2 hours to summarizes a book that takes days to read.

I understand this but don't put things in that are not in the book.

I kinda hate that too but sometimes directors, writers, producers have to add stuff to get a target audience or stay within the budget.

Sometimes things in the book just can't work on screen.

[Edited 7/18/11 1:06am]

SUPRMAN said:

formallypickles said:

I dont like when people complain about how movies are not like the book.

Movies have only 1-2 hours to summarizes a book that takes days to read.

I read one of the books on a flight from Puerto Rico back to San Francisco.

I don't think it took more than four days to even read the last one.

But then I love to read and know I'm a fast reader.

[D]ays to read just sounds so laborious to me. No criticism of others' reading habits or abilities.

Im sure you're probably a fast reader but can you read a whole 500 page book in 1-2 hours! ?

If so you need to be on Ripleys and sent to be monitored by the CIA .

[Edited 7/18/11 1:05am]

imago said:

I don't know maybe I'm a psycho but this picture is making me laugh so hard.

The dead extras are killing my softly and why does Voldemort look flat and leany?

[Edited 7/18/11 1:14am]

formallypickles said:

SUPRMAN said:

I read one of the books on a flight from Puerto Rico back to San Francisco.

I don't think it took more than four days to even read the last one.

But then I love to read and know I'm a fast reader.

[D]ays to read just sounds so laborious to me. No criticism of others' reading habits or abilities.

Im sure you're probably a fast reader but can you read a whole 500 page book in 1-2 hours! ?

If so you need to be on Ripleys and sent to be monitored by the CIA .

[Edited 7/18/11 1:05am]

The flight was longer than two hours. It let me spend most of the day reading though.

I found the visuals very entertaining, especially for somebody not into the whole HP genre, and whose knowledge comes from the 1st 2 movies and a bit of public osmosis. But they did spend a lot money so I guess it would.

I agree with your criticism of glossing over Fred's death (especially, but Tonks and Remus too) and therefore Mrs. Weasley's scene with Bellatrix not being quite so impactful but overall I LOVED the movie. I also think they could have done more to explain the Deathly Hallows but folks who saw the movie with me who hadn't read the books said it was sufficiently understood, so I'll leave that one be.

I really did love everything about it. The dragon scene was amazing. I got teary the first time McGonagall stepped out in front of Harry to face Voldemort. Damn right, McGonangall!! I loved every scene she was in.

And yes, Alan Rickman deserves every last bit of praise he's receiving for his portrayal of Snape.

The memory scenes were beautifully done.

CarrieMpls said:

I agree with your criticism of glossing over Fred's death (especially, but Tonks and Remus too) and therefore Mrs. Weasley's scene with Bellatrix not being quite so impactful but overall I LOVED the movie. I also think they could have done more to explain the Deathly Hallows but folks who saw the movie with me who hadn't read the books said it was sufficiently understood, so I'll leave that one be.

I really did love everything about it. The dragon scene was amazing. I got teary the first time McGonagall stepped out in front of Harry to face Voldemort. Damn right, McGonangall!! I loved every scene she was in.

And yes, Alan Rickman deserves every last bit of praise he's receiving for his portrayal of Snape.

The memory scenes were beautifully done.

Looking back, I preferred the instructors to the students. Harry and Co., were ok, at times unrealistic. In each of the movies, the professors and Voldemort were more intriguing.

^I agree, the adults were much more interesting. Honestly I don't know why Harry was able to defeat anyone, hell from what recall he barely learned anything in class and basically cheated his way out of any problem put before him.

formallypickles said:

I dont like when people complain about how movies are not like the book.

Movies have only 1-2 hours to summarizes a book that takes days to read.

totally agree...of course they cant fit EVERYTHING into a 2 hr movie. I have seen all the HP movies & am looing forward to the last one (just waiting for the crowds to die down)

I always knew snape was a good guy..love alan rickman. i read about the ending on a spoiler site & i teared up....

~~~GRIFFINDORE!

lazycrockett said:

^I agree, the adults were much more interesting. Honestly I don't know why Harry was able to defeat anyone, hell from what recall he barely learned anything in class and basically cheated his way out of any problem put before him.

Yeah, I never really liked Harry and Ron. I loved Hermione, though.

Alej said:

lazycrockett said:

^I agree, the adults were much more interesting. Honestly I don't know why Harry was able to defeat anyone, hell from what recall he barely learned anything in class and basically cheated his way out of any problem put before him.

Yeah, I never really liked Harry and Ron. I loved Hermione, though.

Harry is by far the worst actor in the movies. Ron is okay

NDRU said:

Alej said:

Yeah, I never really liked Harry and Ron. I loved Hermione, though.

Harry is by far the worst actor in the movies. Ron is okay

Oh, I meant the characters but yeah, it applies to the actors as well.

I only really liked Emma Watson out of the three.

What has always annoyed me is if Harry was a Horcrux and Basilisk poison was one of the few things to destroy them why wasnt the part of Voldemort in Harry (which made him a horcrux) destroyed when Harry was bitten by the Basilisk in the second book

b3xy said:

What has always annoyed me is if Harry was a Horcrux and Basilisk poison was one of the few things to destroy them why wasnt the part of Voldemort in Harry (which made him a horcrux) destroyed when Harry was bitten by the Basilisk in the second book

because Harry did not die? I think that was part of the deal in this last book, that Harry had to die?

b3xy said:

What has always annoyed me is if Harry was a Horcrux and Basilisk poison was one of the few things to destroy them why wasnt the part of Voldemort in Harry (which made him a horcrux) destroyed when Harry was bitten by the Basilisk in the second book

HA HA!

She forgot . . . .

My guess is she wanted a way for Harry to 'die.' Then when he came to, he'd have justification for killing Voldemort. So she made him a horcrux forgetting his encounter with the the basilisk.

Alej said:

lazycrockett said:

^I agree, the adults were much more interesting. Honestly I don't know why Harry was able to defeat anyone, hell from what recall he barely learned anything in class and basically cheated his way out of any problem put before him.

Yeah, I never really liked Harry and Ron. I loved Hermione, though.

I never got the big idea of either of them but I had a soft spot for hairy ass Dan.

Voldamort is stupid as hell why would he make harry a horcux and want to kill him knowing he need harry's inner Horcux?

NDRU said:

Alej said:

Yeah, I never really liked Harry and Ron. I loved Hermione, though.

Harry is by far the worst actor in the movies. Ron is okay

Harry is not that bad.

formallypickles said:

Voldamort is stupid as hell why would he make harry a horcux and want to kill him knowing he need harry's inner Horcux?

Voldermort is not aware of that Harry is one of his horcruxes. Nobody but Dumbledore was aware.

This is why Dumbledore wants Harry to die. When Harry has his near-death eperience

the fetus of Voldamort under the chair in his dream is that part of Voldamort's sould

finally freed from Harry. When Harry comes back to the world of the living, that

part of Voldamort soul does not, thereby freeing Harry of being a Horcrux.

With the snake killed, Voldamort becomes vunderable, and Harry moves in for the kill.

In the final epic battle, the version in the book has Harry revealing that the wand

did not belong to Snape but to Malfoy just an instant before Harry kills Voldamort.

This bit of dialogue should have been revealed during the epic battle thereby

being a final, fatal and suprising sendoff to the dark lord. However, the movie

fales to do this, and the audience just sits through a Jedi style lightning battle

that makes no sense until the following scene when Harry reveals in a very anti-clamatical

manner that the wand was Malfoys.

I know, I know.... Movies are different from books and shouldn't be compared to them.

But, the movie as it stands by itself is still not very good.

imago said:

formallypickles said:

Voldamort is stupid as hell why would he make harry a horcux and want to kill him knowing he need harry's inner Horcux?

Voldermort is not aware of that Harry is one of his horcruxes. Nobody but Dumbledore was aware.

This is why Dumbledore wants Harry to die. When Harry has his near-death eperience

the fetus of Voldamort under the chair in his dream is that part of Voldamort's sould

finally freed from Harry. When Harry comes back to the world of the living, that

part of Voldamort soul does not, thereby freeing Harry of being a Horcrux.

With the snake killed, Voldamort becomes vunderable, and Harry moves in for the kill.

In the final epic battle, the version in the book has Harry revealing that the wand

did not belong to Snape but to Malfoy just an instant before Harry kills Voldamort.

This bit of dialogue should have been revealed during the epic battle thereby

being a final, fatal and suprising sendoff to the dark lord. However, the movie

fales to do this, and the audience just sits through a Jedi style lightning battle

that makes no sense until the following scene when Harry reveals in a very anti-clamatical

manner that the wand was Malfoys.

I know, I know.... Movies are different from books and shouldn't be compared to them.

But, the movie as it stands by itself is still not very good.

OOOH OK thanks for clearing that up.

I still havent seen the movie but i read a summary of what happen in the book on some website.

They skipped that part

b3xy said:

What has always annoyed me is if Harry was a Horcrux and Basilisk poison was one of the few things to destroy them why wasnt the part of Voldemort in Harry (which made him a horcrux) destroyed when Harry was bitten by the Basilisk in the second book

the tears of the phoenix healed both harry and voldy.

but I forgot what was the deal with DD expression of triumph in book...4(i think) when Harry told him

Voldy touched him or took his blood?

EDIT: Book 4 GOF i am pretty sure anyway.

I think it was addressed but in 6 or 7 but i forgot.

if not. could be that DD realised one of his guesses was correct.

[Edited 7/20/11 8:57am]

formallypickles said:

imago said:

Voldermort is not aware of that Harry is one of his horcruxes. Nobody but Dumbledore was aware.

This is why Dumbledore wants Harry to die. When Harry has his near-death eperience

the fetus of Voldamort under the chair in his dream is that part of Voldamort's sould

finally freed from Harry. When Harry comes back to the world of the living, that

part of Voldamort soul does not, thereby freeing Harry of being a Horcrux.

With the snake killed, Voldamort becomes vunderable, and Harry moves in for the kill.

In the final epic battle, the version in the book has Harry revealing that the wand

did not belong to Snape but to Malfoy just an instant before Harry kills Voldamort.

This bit of dialogue should have been revealed during the epic battle thereby

being a final, fatal and suprising sendoff to the dark lord. However, the movie

fales to do this, and the audience just sits through a Jedi style lightning battle

that makes no sense until the following scene when Harry reveals in a very anti-clamatical

manner that the wand was Malfoys.

I know, I know.... Movies are different from books and shouldn't be compared to them.

But, the movie as it stands by itself is still not very good.

OOOH OK thanks for clearing that up.

I still havent seen the movie but i read a summary of what happen in the book on some website.

They skipped that part

yeah the wand beloged to Malfoy but when harry beat him up and took it the wand became harry's so it would not kill harry. but what about when it did 'kill' harry? now that is said to be because harry was ready to die...but it could also be that it did not kill harry but the part of voldy in harry. I do not thin volddy knew harry was a Horcrux. (but Jo knew that is why his scar hurt when voldy was is a pissy mood)

formallypickles said:

NDRU said:

Harry is by far the worst actor in the movies. Ron is okay

Harry is not that bad.

He doesn't actually ruin the movies the way Haydn Christiansen did to Star Wars II.

Something about him, though, I don't know. He always has that tense jawed heavy breathing thing going on, even when he's happy.

NDRU said:

formallypickles said:

Harry is not that bad.

He doesn't actually ruin the movies the way Haydn Christiansen did to Star Wars II.

Something about him, though, I don't know. He always has that tense jawed heavy breathing thing going on, even when he's happy.

Hayen did not ruin star wars George fricking Lucas did