Harry Potter Finally Imax 3D

[Xiaou2]

Saw the Final Harry Potter film in Imax 3D Friday night.
(bought the ticket almost 1month in advance!)

Ive not read the books yet, but have seen all the films.

 One of my biggest complaints in the films has been the actual lacking of magic in the films.  The half blood prince was the first film where things started to really get interesting...   but the last movie was a bit of a sleeper.  Suspicion told me that since so much was left to finish up... this new movie would have to be jam packed with action & awesome...

 HELL YEAH !!!

 This movie blew past every expectation I had.  It was pretty much non stop 'awesome' all the way to the end.

 The Imax 3D was Perfect, and Jaw dropping.   The depth is immense, and really brings the movie to life in a way that you cant imagine.  Details in the very walls, feeling like your going to fall off a high cliff... and all of it was pretty much glitch-free.  Its hard to believe that the thing wasnt shot in 3D, because the 3D is that good.  And not just some scenes.. but the entire thing.

 I STRONGLY suggest you see this on a real 'Film' based Imax 3D theater.  You will have to check, because some Imax 3D theaters are pure digital, and from what I hear, its not as good as the film based Imax.   I do know for a fact, that Real-D does not compare at all to Imax3D, as Ive seen the same films on both formats.

 Anyways, its pretty rare that I ever feel the need or desire to watch a movie again without a very long gap between each sitting... but Im really thinking of seeing it again.  It was that good.

[Xiaou2]

I have no idea what the heck your talking about.

 But one thing to note, is that they are not filming on a beach in California.
Over there, from what Ive seen/heard, its cloudy,gray, or raining.. a large percentage of the time.

 Also, being that the film has many night scenes, as well as places where things are dark, and the overall mood meant to be conveyed is that of darkness (at times).. then what were you Really expecting?   This wasnt some sunny disney romp thru rainbow lit forests.

 The warmth comes from the characters.  But being that you are pretty much oblivious to other people (and maybe any emotions whatsoever)... I can understand where it would all be lost on you.

 I do have to wonder however, if part of it was your crappy ancient theaters fault.  Improperly adjusted, dirty lenses, dim dirty bulbs, low resolution out of focus projector, and it all can lead up to the equivalent of comparing a 20yr old vcr tape on an ancient standard res TV, to a HD blueray disc on an HD tv.

 In such a case, with all the vivid details lost, all you have left is color to differentiate scenes.

 Then again, you probably also need glasses.

[RayB]

I saw it in 2D and that director just has a flat out obsession with making everything dark and dreary.

Or, the theatre was too lazy to swap the lenses.

http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-pick/sony-3d-digital-projector-lenses-are-ruining-2d-movies-20110523/

[Xiaou2]

Whoops.

[Malenko]

I saw it in 2D and that director just has a flat out obsession with making everything dark and dreary.

Or, the theatre was too lazy to swap the lenses.

http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-pick/sony-3d-digital-projector-lenses-are-ruining-2d-movies-20110523/

No, PBJ is right (yes, it hurt to type that, lol). It wasn't a lack of lighting, the scene with an almost all white background was blindingly bright but a lot of that move was very dark.

The movie itself was pretty good and despite it being very predictable it kept me entertained.

[Vigo]

Overall, the movie was better than most the latter films. They kinda skimmed over the Deathly Hollows themselves, but overall, they did less butchering than usual.

The warmth comes from the characters.

Haha, are you really gonna pull out the BS Care Bears grade response? The only thing coming from the characters were random make-out sessions and obligatory cameos. Every character looked like they had David Bowie's makeup artist from back when he was Ziggy Stardust, and the school looked like Mordor from LOTR. However, it is just stuff that you end up accepting because some HP movies were so bad that they hurt your brain.

[shmokes]

The movie itself was pretty good and despite it being very predictable it kept me entertained.

Have you read the books?  Cos I've always found all of the movies to be pretty predictable, but I always figured that was a byproduct of already knowing what was going to happen.   

[Malenko]

Have you read the books?  Cos I've always found all of the movies to be pretty predictable, but I always figured that was a byproduct of already knowing what was going to happen.   

Never read the books, but they just did some stuff I thought was obvious but some things caught me off guard. I love Alan Rickman though, so I didnt mind going.

[RayB]

So it makes me wonder if any of you were in San Antonio.

      

[SNAAKE]

is it still good if I didnt watch any other potter movies?

tried watching first 2 but they were mostly...boring and couldn't finish. plus I dont know anything about the source material.

[Vigo]

tried watching first 2 but they were mostly...boring and couldn't finish. plus I dont know anything about the source material.

The first two have a completely different tone than the rest of the series. Much more geared to kids. Not saying you will necessarily like the later films - IMO the later ones get choppy and the plot gets haphazardly slapped together. So just as much gets lost as gained.

[Hoopz]

The books are much better than the movies.  I stopped watching the movies when they started adding a bunch of stuff that wasn't in the movies.  For as much stuff as they left out of the movies, I don't see the need to create crap to go in the movies.   

[Hoopz]

Personally I thought the books got screwed up because they started filming movies before the series was finished.  Particularly in the last book, there was a lot of stuff where I'm thinking "this'll look good in the movie, but it's dumb as hell in the book."

I didn't like that there's been so much CGI in the last ones, either.  The first couple of movies had a lot of prop effects and looked a hell of a lot more realistic.

Ah well, can one of you rainman types fill me in on how exactly they got the sword in the last book?   I don't remember it warping around like it did in the movie.

 

Harry woke up (this is awhile after Ron left) and thought he heard noises outside of the tent.  He saw a doe and followed it.  I don't recall the details now but he found a frozen pond/lake and saw the sword in the bottom of it.  He broker the ice and swam down to get it with the Horcrux locket around his neck.  Ron had to pull him out of the water.
At least, that's what I recall.  I'm sure the movies f'd it all up.

[Hoopz]

They talk about how Snape cast the spell to get the doe there?

I haven't seen one of these movies in a few years and probably won't.  Seems like there's so much background stuff in the last book that it'd be hard to fit it into two movies while explaining all that's going on.

[Xiaou2]

Bah.  If you want to see Dark, watch  "The Crow".

[shmokes]

Yeah, Snape was watching out for Harry all along.  Snape's Patronus changed to a Doe when he fell in love with Harry's mom (that was Harry's mom's Patronus).  Snape put the sword there and led Harry to it with his Patronus.  Harry followed it cos he thought it was some sappy thing his mom was somehow doing from beyond the grave or something.

[Howard_Casto]

Saw the Final Harry Potter film in Imax 3D Friday night.
(bought the ticket almost 1month in advance!)

Look at your avatar Icon.... now look at your quote.... now look back again. 

I'll give you a few minutes to let the shame sink in. 


Don't misunderstand, there is absolutely positively nothing wrong with a grown man watching Harry Potter films or films like them.  Likewise there is nothing wrong with getting so excited over a film franchise that you get your ticket a month in advance. 

But getting excited over such a hum-drum movie franchise like Potter as if you are a 10 year old girl... yeah, there might be something a little wrong with that. 


And I don't want to to misunderstand.  I've seen all of the films myself except for the last two... but I see them when they come on tv, if nothing else is on (and they re-run those things to death once they hit tv and eventually there comes a day when nothing else is on).  They are just pretty generic, run-of-the-mill films and not worthy of such high praise.  Now if I were 10 I'm sure I would feel different. 

[Xiaou2]

Look at your avatar Icon.... now look at your quote.... now look back again.
I'll give you a few minutes to let the shame sink in.

 I have no shame in praising something good.

 If anyone is to feel shame, maybe it should be someone who tells others to not take their children on a plane... because far be it for the family to have vacation fun, rather than upset others who dont have children.

 Actually, my friend felt the same way about others kids in restaurants.  He now has 3 kids, and his attitude has vastly changed.

But getting excited over such a hum-drum movie franchise like Potter as if you are a 10 year old girl... yeah, there might be something a little wrong with that.  Wink

And I don't want to to misunderstand.  I've seen all of the films myself except for the last two... but I see them when they come on tv, if nothing else is on (and they re-run those things to death once they hit tv and eventually there comes a day when nothing else is on).  They are just pretty generic, run-of-the-mill films and not worthy of such high praise.  Now if I were 10 I'm sure I would feel different.  

 I dont remember, but Im fairly certain I didnt watch the 1st few potters till they rolled on TV.  Even then, they were a bit cheezy.  However, as time has passed, the characters grow on you.  The acting has gotten better as well...   and finally, with movies like the Half Blood Prince, they have gotten top notch in quality and re-watchability.  Most especially exciting, is the 3d, which is jaw droppingly awesome... and only to be 'neared' by avatar.

 All this and not even mentioning things like the detailed artistry in the castle, intricate sculptures, creatures, great score, and well done effects.

 The only comparable magical fantasy adventure masterpieces that springs to mind, of anywhere near comparable quality, might be "The Neverending Story", "Willow"?... or somewhat less, Labyrinth. LOTR was OK, but a bit boring and awkward.  Hmm, maybe Clash of the Titans belongs in there too.  But any of those really make me excited to see immediately again?  Nah.
(edit: kinda have to throw "Goonies" in there... even though its not really magic related. Its a great adventure film)

 "The Last Samuri" ,for example, might be a more grown up movie... and I Love(d) it, but.. I hold the same kind of entertainment value of it as compared to this and the half blood prince.

 The "Joy Luck Club" is as adult as you can get.  Its one of the most best movies I ever rented on a whim... and it made me cry like a baby.   But, its a different kind of movie.   Just like Chicken is different from Steak.

 Im the kind of guy who has no problem saying that I probably equally listen to both Megadeth and Mariah Carey.   And I find people that limit themselves generally do so out of the things like Ego and poor reasonings. Unwilling to try new things. Wanting to stick to some sort of Cool or impressive 'image'.  Its quite sad really.

 Some would say that playing Video games is childish.  Some say that watching cartoons is childish.  That anything older than an x-box is a relic.  That FPS games are the only games you should be playing. Having long hair makes you a hippy.  Having a Tatoo makes you a thug.  Dressing in jeans & a t-shirt makes you white trash... I could go on and on...

 Well, I dont really give a crap what they say.. Cause I dont live for them.  I live for me. And I enjoy a good HP flick, a cartoon (animae, standard, or CGI), and many other so called Childish Activities or Media.  Just as well, I enjoy what you might call more of 'adult' material as well. Sci-Fi, action, horror, comedy, drama, romantic, tragic, horror.. you name it, and I probably like it, and have seen it.

[CCM]

 Actually, my friend felt the same way about others kids in restaurants.  He now has 3 kids, and his attitude has vastly changed.

My new favorite restaurant:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/13/earlyshow/living/parenting/main20079118.shtml



I have never read a Harry Potter book or watched one of the movies... And I don't plan on starting now.

[fallacy]

[ChadTower]

I have not read the books.  I read a lot, and my whole family has read the books many times over, but I left them alone.  I liked the movies up until Deathly Hallows 1.  I didn't want to spoil them.  My family was nice enough to not spoil them for me.

Deathly Hallows 1 made little sense.  If you hadn't read the books they just kept boucing from random place to place with no explanation, then someone got married without any preamble, then some other stuff happened that was sort of implied but not really explained.  It wasn't a fun movie.

Deathly Hallows 2 was better but the ending just absolutely destroyed the whole series for me.  

The bait and switch classical ending ticked me off.  Either kill Harry and make it right or don't kill Harry and make sequels and spinoffs.  You could hear the record scratch and the publisher's scream of "WHAT THE ---fudgesicle--- NO WE HAVE 3 NEW PRODUCTS IN DEVELOPMENT HARRY IS NOT GOING TO DIE!"  I had fully intended to go back and read the books but now I'm not sure I care enough to bother.

BTW, if you have any issues with 3D and your vision, do not see the Imax version.  I had serious issues making out the action sequences in Deathly Hallows 1 and in a good chunk of 2 I could clearly see the two separate images.  My kids both said the 3D was awesome but it was worse than useless to me.  This might be the last 3D movie I bother to see.  I've seen quite a few of them now and most of them just look like complete crap to me.

[Hoopz]

I have not read the books.  I read a lot, and my whole family has read the books many times over, but I left them alone.  I liked the movies up until Deathly Hallows 1.  I didn't want to spoil them.  My family was nice enough to not spoil them for me.

Deathly Hallows 1 made little sense.  If you hadn't read the books they just kept boucing from random place to place with no explanation, then someone got married without any preamble, then some other stuff happened that was sort of implied but not really explained.  It wasn't a fun movie.

Deathly Hallows 2 was better but the ending just absolutely destroyed the whole series for me. 

The bait and switch classical ending ticked me off.  Either kill Harry and make it right or don't kill Harry and make sequels and spinoffs.  You could hear the record scratch and the publisher's scream of "WHAT THE ---fudgesicle--- NO WE HAVE 3 NEW PRODUCTS IN DEVELOPMENT HARRY IS NOT GOING TO DIE!"  I had fully intended to go back and read the books but now I'm not sure I care enough to bother.

BTW, if you have any issues with 3D and your vision, do not see the Imax version.  I had serious issues making out the action sequences in Deathly Hallows 1 and in a good chunk of 2 I could clearly see the two separate images.  My kids both said the 3D was awesome but it was worse than useless to me.  This might be the last 3D movie I bother to see.  I've seen quite a few of them now and most of them just look like complete crap to me.

I haven't seen the most recent movies but have read the books.  It sounds like, in the quest for the almighty dollar at the expense of making a good movie, that the story doesn't explain enough or at all who or where the 7th Horcrux "was".  That context makes the scene you are describing make more sense.

[ChadTower]

I haven't seen the most recent movies but have read the books.  It sounds like, in the quest for the almighty dollar at the expense of making a good movie, that the story doesn't explain enough or at all who or where the 7th Horcrux "was".  That context makes the scene you are describing make more sense.

Actually, it did explain who the horcrux was and why.  What they did not explain is why every other horcrux had to be totally destroyed but Harry only had to get hit in the face.

[Vigo]

I haven't seen the most recent movies but have read the books.  It sounds like, in the quest for the almighty dollar at the expense of making a good movie, that the story doesn't explain enough or at all who or where the 7th Horcrux "was".  That context makes the scene you are describing make more sense.

Actually, it did explain who the horcrux was and why.  What they did not explain is why every other horcrux had to be totally destroyed but Harry only had to get hit in the face.

The didn't really touch the importance of having the 3 deathly hollows either. The fail to mention that the stone from the first story is one hallow, and Harry's magic cape is another. They pretty much use the whole hallows thing to point out how bad-ass the wand is. So just like in Order of the Phoenix, where they only casually mentioned the Order once really quickly, we have another movie titled after something that is not pivotal to the rewritten plot.

[Rando]

Dang, Harry Potter hate, so sad!

I'm 40, married, with kids, gainfully employed, normal.  Read all the books after an Intern of mine recommended them.  Loved reading them, felt that each was better than the last, and bought the last few on their release dates, but had to wait until my wife finished them to read them myself.  We've seen each movie in the theaters, have the DVDs, and will occasionally stop on them when flipping the channels.  We had to wait a week after release to see the last one cause we couldn't get a babysitter, but saw and loved that one as well.  Saw it in 3-D as well at a Dine-In theater, thought that was pretty sweet too. (only seen a couple of the recent batch of 3-D movies, this and Green Lantern, effects on this much better)

Yes we've given a bunch of money to this mass market hype machine, but I think both the written and visual returns have been well worth it and I've personally enjoyed the ride. 

Are the movies completely true to the books?  Not so much, but having only read the books once, I don't really have a problem with the differences.  My wife does more than me, but she has the time to reread the books and focuses on the changes.  But she loves the movies as well.

Quickly regarding some of the comments above:
- The Sorcerer's Stone wasn't a Deathly Hallow (I don't think), that was a man-made item. The Resurection stone was the little stone that was in the Snitch that Harry dropped (can't remember why, so he would in fact die?) when going to face Voldy.
- They don't NEED wands to cast all spells I don't think, and they can learn to non-vocalize spells, but the wands help to focus their energies and depending on the qualities of the wand, make them stronger.  The Elder wand would make its wielder sligthly more powerful than its foe, assuming all other variables were equal.
- I was never really clear on why Harry didn't actually die (or stay dead at least), but the Snape reveal is so good (especially in the book where you were going back and forth on him) that I don't care.

Thumbs-up on overall series from me. 

[Vigo]

- The Sorcerer's Stone wasn't a Deathly Hallow (I don't think), that was a man-made item.

You are probably right on that, but they still didn't really cover it's significance at all. They nargle bargled up the whole point of the title.

[ChadTower]

the Snape reveal is so good (especially in the book where you were going back and forth on him) that I don't care.

That was another weirdly done thing.  The movie implied multiple times that Snape is Harry's real father.  It sure looked like it did.  It only said that he loved Harry's mother for sure.  Going to that much effort to protect the kid is a pretty heavy implication that the kid really was his.  The whole thing in the movie was ambiguously articulated and that point really needed to be clear.  The fact that he was really a double agent was implied so often throughout the movies that it would have been more surprising if he really was a bad guy.  Either way, that's cool, just wish they had revealed the truth more clearly than a bunch of incoherent flashbacks and mumbling.

[Rando]

That was another weirdly done thing.  The movie implied multiple times that Snape is Harry's real father.  It sure looked like it did.

Wow, that never even crossed my mind.  I can see why it could though.  Maybe it was conveyed different visually than it was written, but I never never got that impression.  Interesting.

The fact that he was really a double agent was implied so often throughout the movies that it would have been more surprising if he really was a bad guy.  Either way, that's cool, just wish they had revealed the truth more clearly than a bunch of incoherent flashbacks and mumbling.

Agreed.  I can't remember how exactly, but I do think it was communicated better in the book.  But maybe because I knew and was waiting to see how they would do it, I was okay with how it happened in the movie.  And true that it would have been surprising had he actually turned out to be bad, but there was (for me anyway) a twinge where I wasn't 100% sure which way he would go in the end.

And yes the Resurection stone was basically an unused afterthought.


I like typing in spoiler text.  Rarely am I able to convey information that is not widely known!

[Vigo]

That was another weirdly done thing.  The movie implied multiple times that Snape is Harry's real father.  It sure looked like it did.

Wow, that never even crossed my mind.  I can see why it could though.  Maybe it was conveyed different visually than it was written, but I never never got that impression.  Interesting.

Yeah, now that I think about that, I can easily see where someone would get that impression from the vague flashbacks.

[eds1275]

So did Harry finally learn a third spell in this one?