# Harry Potter movie



## Armaetus (Jul 16, 2009)

It's garbage, do not bother with it..

A watcher saw it and had this to say:



			
				Someone I watch said:
			
		

> 1. Cut out way too much shit, and most of it was all CRUCIAL TO THE SEVENTH MOVIE!
> 
> 2. Altered way too much shit.
> 
> ...


----------



## Vintage (Jul 16, 2009)

this will be the first movie i see when i get back to the states.  the feeling of being in an actual movie theater for a change will overpower whatever terrible things this movie does.


----------



## Beta Link (Jul 16, 2009)

I honestly can't say I'm surprised by this, considering how horrible 4 and 5 were. It seems like they're just getting worse and worse. The first two are still my favorite in the series as far as the movies go.


----------



## Idlewild (Jul 16, 2009)

I actually loved the 5th movie and had high hopes from the director, but I had the exact same problems that the OP posted. Yates, you have failed me.

The one thing that may have redeemed it in my eyes would have been Dumbledore's funeral at the end. But NO! They didn't even show that! Overall, I'd say it wasn't a bad movie, just a disappointing Potter movie. What made it hurt the worst was that I stayed in line for 7 hours for the premiere. Ugghhh.


----------



## RoqsWolf (Jul 16, 2009)

I heard the Seventh book will have 2 movies for it. And it was one of the smaller books! Well as for harypotter 6, i say it was ok, not the best movie of the summer but not the worst. It felt like it had harldy any information in it anddid nothing much for the series.


----------



## Dreamerwolf (Jul 16, 2009)

Well, I don't think the movie was /that/ bad, although I was disapointed. It was just..anti-climactic. I was very surprised that the battle out of Hogwarts was left out of the film. Why would a director choose not to include a major action sequence? The movie seemed to builfd up to these potentially great moments and then leave them out. I get why they added the part about the burrow in this film since the wedding likely won't be in the final two, but that scene seemed to be building up to some great fight at least between Lupin and Greyback, which I woul have loved! But no...nothing. Even Snape and Harry's last moments on the grounds were dull. It needed something more. I also wanted more of Voldy's past.

On the positive notes, Harry under the Felix was /Classic/! All the character interaction/ romace stuff was hillarious. I personally loved that. All in all, I'm glad  saw it, but still was a let down overall.


----------



## AlexInsane (Jul 16, 2009)

Yates took too many goddamn artistic liberties.

Also: The Slughorn in the film was more like an Alzheimer's patient than anything else.


----------



## Idlewild (Jul 16, 2009)

Dreamerwolf said:


> Well, I don't think the movie was /that/ bad, although I was disapointed. It was just..anti-climactic. I was very surprised that the battle out of Hogwarts was left out of the film. Why would a director choose not to include a major action sequence? The movie seemed to builfd up to these potentially great moments and then leave them out.



*THIS*. It was like the Death Eaters stopped by, did their business, and then realized they left the stove on at home. The only real "action" was the scene with the Inferi. But I enjoyed the Felix scenes as well, they had me rolling in my seat!


----------



## FelldohTheSquirrel (Jul 16, 2009)

I never saw any of the more recent movies, I lost interest after Goblet of Fire.


----------



## Teracat (Jul 16, 2009)

"Oh. Sorry. I didn't mean to offend. He killed my parents."

Best line in the movie.


----------



## NerdyMunk (Jul 16, 2009)

I disagree. This was one of the best of the series. The last few movies were crowded with action and never had some character time. This movie redeems it. There was a lot of time to know the characters. And the time Ginny stepped in to Harry's life was played very well. And also, a movie doesn't have to be exciting to be good, and for most book movies it will ruin the book and have fanboys bawwwing anyway. >>


----------



## Arcadium (Jul 17, 2009)

Fuck.
Harry.
Potter.
Movies.


Books are great though. I love the 5th. But the Films are just shit fest after the 3rd in my opinion.


----------



## Doctor Timewolf (Jul 18, 2009)

I can't wait to see it. I'll enjoy it, as I did every one of the others except for 3. 3 was too artsy.


----------



## Potato (Jul 18, 2009)

I thought it was alright, the effects were good and it stuck (very roughly) to the book. The only complaint is the lack of the Battle at Hogwarts. The substitute scene kinda pissed me off when the director had said in an interview "We couldn't get enough action in"


----------



## FluffMouse (Jul 18, 2009)

The only thing I'd be pissed about is if they took out Dumbledore's death completely, 
or if the scenes of 'Tom Riddle' as a child are short and sucky.

Those scenes are really the only ones I was looking forward to seeing in live-action. ._.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 18, 2009)

oh great... and i have to watch it on the 27th >_> im really looking forward to this now ._.


----------



## gigglingHyena (Jul 18, 2009)

The end was soooo lame. >:


----------



## ramsay_baggins (Jul 18, 2009)

ChipmunkBoy92 said:


> I disagree. This was one of the best of the series. The last few movies were crowded with action and never had some character time. This movie redeems it. There was a lot of time to know the characters. And the time Ginny stepped in to Harry's life was played very well. And also, a movie doesn't have to be exciting to be good, and for most book movies it will ruin the book and have fanboys bawwwing anyway. >>



I'm sorry, what?
Hardly anything interesting happened!

Also, I cringed every time the actress who played Ginny had to speak:
"I'm going to say everything the same way and do my best not to act! 8D"
*shudder*


I agree with the OP


----------



## Benjamin Foxtails (Jul 18, 2009)

Anyway, sequels suck. 

Except for _Terminator 2_.


----------



## Kommodore (Jul 18, 2009)

The movie was alright. No better or worse than what Hollywood usually produces. The popcorn and soda on the other hand, while expensive, was great.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 18, 2009)

im free! i dont have to watch it on my sister's birthday X3


----------



## NerdyMunk (Jul 18, 2009)

ramsay_baggins said:


> I'm sorry, what?
> Hardly anything interesting happened!


??? Spoilers Below!



Death Eaters attacked London, toppled a bridge.
Harry meets Slughorn.
Draco discovers the Vanishing Cabinet
Mrs. Malfoy and Snape seal an unbreakable vow so that Snape can protect Draco.
Draco is assigned to kill Dumbledore.
Death Eaters attack the Weasley's house.
Dumbledore assigns Harry to get to know Slughorn and obtain a memory hopefully hinting on how to defeat Voldemort.
Hermione shows her true feelings about Ron.
Malfoy bewitches a girl.
Dumbledore has Harry look at his memories.
Ron gets poisioned.
Harry and Dumbledore go on Horcrux mission.
Snape reveals he is the Half Blood Prince
Dumbledore is killed.  



If you step back, you'll realize everything happens in this movie.


----------



## Sinister Exaggerator (Jul 18, 2009)

A movie adaptation of a book/game/comic book sucked?

SHOCKING.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Jul 18, 2009)

Sinister Exaggerator said:


> A movie adaptation of a book/game/comic book sucked?
> 
> SHOCKING.



Why would I go to see the movie when everyone knows what happened? 



I say, I think I've outsmarted Hollywood at their own game


----------



## Sinister Exaggerator (Jul 18, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> Why would I go to see the movie when everyone knows what happened?
> 
> 
> 
> I say, I think I've outsmarted Hollywood at their own game



I think you have. Good show.

btw, wb bro


----------



## NerdyMunk (Jul 18, 2009)

Narnia wasn't all that bad. The Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe, of course.


----------



## ramsay_baggins (Jul 19, 2009)

ChipmunkBoy92 said:


> ??? Spoilers Below!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




All of those things should have kept me interested, but they *didn't*. That's where the problem was. Everything that should have kept me riveted just didn't. I was bored through the whole thing. Shows that something was very wrong with the movie.


----------



## Kuekuatsheu (Jul 19, 2009)

ramsay_baggins said:


> All of those things should have kept me interested, but they *didn't*. That's where the problem was. Everything that should have kept me riveted just didn't. I was bored through the whole thing. Shows that something was very wrong with the movie.


same here, the film was pretty mediocre compaired to the other ones


----------



## AlexInsane (Jul 19, 2009)

ChipmunkBoy92 said:


> ??? Spoilers Below!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, but there are things that don't happen at all in the book, and there are things that don't happen in the movie.

For one, I don't remember Harry going to a subway diner in HBP. I don't remember him flirting with a girl and having Dumbledore meet him there. No, in the book they were at the Dursleys, discussing Harry's protection for the next year. 

For that matter, where was the meeting between the Ministers of Muggle England and the Wizarding England, respectively? Where was the introduction of Scrimgeour? 

Luna Lovegood finding Harry on the train, while entertaining fanservice, was a flat-out lie. Tonks found him in the book. 

The Burrow was never attacked, not in ANY of the books. The Weasleys vacated the Burrow in Deathly Hallows, but it was never attacked. Another flat-out lie.

I could go on and on, but if you have to make shit up that's completely non-canon to put into a movie to catch the audience's attention, you're obviously a shitty director.


----------



## ramsay_baggins (Jul 19, 2009)

Alex, I agree.

Also, I know some people who hadn't read the book and were throughly confused by the movie. And it'll be interesting to see what the director does in the next movie when he realises he's left out so much that's critical to it.


----------



## Internet Police Chief (Jul 19, 2009)

You people are still going to movie theaters and seeing film adaptations of books and expecting them to be the same?

You're all crazy or something.

Whatever. Couldn't have been as bad as what they did to I Am Legend.


----------



## KaiFox (Jul 19, 2009)

Arcadium said:


> Fuck.
> Harry.
> Potter.
> Movies.
> ...


 
The 3rd movie was a shit fest, too.  That movie was ruined for me by the first scene of the movie, where Harry's using Lumos to read under the sheets of his bed.  THAT'S UNDERAGE MAGIC!!!  I went, "he can't do that.  WTF?!"  And was pissed off for the rest of the movie.


----------



## NerdyMunk (Jul 19, 2009)

ramsay_baggins said:


> All of those things should have kept me interested, but they *didn't*. That's where the problem was. Everything that should have kept me riveted just didn't. I was bored through the whole thing. Shows that something was very wrong with the movie.



Wow. If those aren't interesting, I don't know what is...



ramsay_baggins said:


> Alex, I agree.
> 
> Also, I know some people who hadn't read the book and were throughly confused by the movie. And it'll be interesting to see what the director does in the next *movie* when he realises he's left out so much that's critical to it.



Movie*s*...


----------



## Azbulldog (Jul 19, 2009)

Spoiler: Luna is a lion furry
lol


----------



## Azure (Jul 19, 2009)

BETTER HURRY UP, HARRY POTTER IS LOSING ALL OF HIS JAIL BAIT CHARMS!  I never bothered to see any of the Harry Potter movies, unless they were free.  I never read any of the books, as I've never recieved them for free.  And I never will, because teenage themed books about a bunch of gay wyzzrds are boring.


----------



## Asswings (Jul 19, 2009)

Baron Von Yiffington said:


> Whatever. Couldn't have been as bad as what they did to I Am Legend.



THIS.

I was very upset at !Movie I am Legend. 

The book was amazing. Why did they have to change it? It wasn't even the same theme anymore. D:<


----------



## Renton Whitetail (Jul 19, 2009)

I actually didn't think the sixth film was all that bad. Looking back on it, overall, I would have to admit that it may not have been as strong as the last films in the series were. I mean, the whole time I watched it, I kept trying to remember what I read in the book while piecing every element in the movie's storyline together at the same time. At least it all helped build up to what is going to happen for the finale (which, BTW, will be in two parts instead of one film).


----------



## Digitalpotato (Jul 20, 2009)

I hear it'll be classified as a "Romance" when it coems out on DVD.


----------



## Liam (Jul 20, 2009)

I can't name any good movies in the past 3 months.  It's somewhat depressing.  I hope I don't have to see any more harry potter movies again.


----------



## Internet Police Chief (Jul 20, 2009)

Ticon said:


> I was very upset at !Movie I am Legend.
> 
> The book was amazing. Why did they have to change it? It wasn't even the same theme anymore. D:<



Yeah, they completely ruined the underlying story. It went from a deep meaning you had to think about to LOL HUMANS WIN VAMPIRES R BAD ^____^


----------



## NerdyMunk (Jul 20, 2009)

gulielmus said:


> I can't name any good movies in the past 3 months.  It's somewhat depressing.  I hope I don't have to see any more harry potter movies again.



All the good movies are in limited release.


----------



## Morroke (Jul 23, 2009)

I just saw this movie today.

The popcorn was delicious.

Oh yeah...the movie was good too.


----------



## VirtualFox (Jul 23, 2009)

I never, EVER expect book->movies to follow the books.

When a medium changes from non-visual (imaginary, books depend on the users imagination to "make the scenes"), to audio/visual (when a director makes scene for you), there are -bound- to be changes, from a scene to the exact contents of the book with disagreements between what is viewed and what is read, mainly because you have to fit it all within a timeframe (paying for actors, keeping to schedule, keeping it lengthy, but limited), and if it the particular scene important to the director or not... 

If you want to "watch" a book, read it, you're -always- going to dissapointed with the movies, as they will not, specifically agree with your own imagination

Harry Potter Half Blooded Prince, was a decent film. But definetly not the best.


----------



## SailorYue (Jul 23, 2009)

well i wstched it... im disapointed the wholesome family stuff was removed (Bill & Fluer) Lupin & Tonks angst was removed, and HOW the deathscene went out. (again with the slowmo!) but atleast it wasnt as anticlimactic as the 5th one was. now THAT movie SUCKED. and atleast this one was the full 2 hours. the 5th one wasnt even 90 minutes >->

thank god theyre making the 7th book into two 2hr movies! potential to be the best of the series


----------



## ramsay_baggins (Jul 23, 2009)

ChipmunkBoy92 said:


> Wow. If those aren't interesting, I don't know what is...
> 
> 
> 
> Movie*s*...



The book is interesting, when those things happen (or don't happen) in the books, they *are* interesting but the director failed at making them so in the movie. They could have made it awesome, but they didn't. They settled at mediocre.

And yeah, I know. I think the filler movie must be for cramming in all the very important things that they left out of all the other movies so it makes sense in the end.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jul 23, 2009)

Digitalpotato said:


> I hear it'll be classified as a "Romance" when it coems out on DVD.



The only thing that will make me laugh harder than what you just said is if it actually happens.


----------



## rawrsome wolf (Jul 23, 2009)

I went to see it the other night, i quite liked some of the previous movies, but i thought this one was a bit lame. 

I haven't read the books, but apparently there much better than the movies


----------



## SailorYue (Jul 23, 2009)

rawrsome wolf said:


> I went to see it the other night, i quite liked some of the previous movies, but i thought this one was a bit lame.
> 
> I haven't read the books, but apparently there much better than the movies


you shoul;d. theyre real y great, and you actually CRY at the death scenes.


----------



## AlexInsane (Jul 25, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> BETTER HURRY UP, HARRY POTTER IS LOSING ALL OF HIS JAIL BAIT CHARMS!



He's a lucky bastard, to be twenty but still playing roles of 17 and 18 year old kids. I bet after he's done he'll use half of what he's earned on the films for therapy sessions, where he will be trained not to wave sticks at people and scream strange things at them. 



> And I never will, because teenage themed books about a bunch of gay wyzzrds are boring.



Shut up. You totally get hard for RonxKrum.


----------

