It's weird. No one has mentioned Harry Potter for years, and yet as soon as the film comes out everybody is its biggest fan. I admit, it's been so long after the books that I probably won't go and see it of my own accord, but if other people are going I'll probably tag along.
I was never a completely obsessive fan, I'vre read all the books and seen all the films bar the sixth, but for some reason I kind of feel obliged to see it. Harry Potter is the thing I grew up with, it was the big thing when I was a kid. Kids younger than me aren't likely to want to see it in the same way, as I doubt they've read the books or seen many of the films. They're counting on the Harry Potter generation here.
By any accounts, it's better than Twilight. That's my reasoning. Cedric Diggory came before Edward Cullen.
[Edited by xxjjrockerxx, 11/21/2010 4:12:59 AM]
i like books more than movies.
i like movies for one reason: Daniel Radcliffe
he is a chelsea fan
[Edited by GORDONFREMAN, 11/21/2010 5:12:56 AM]
If you are a cynic, watch it. I was, and I saw it, and I didn't regret it. The 4th film put me off but this new one has left me craving more.
Four main problems with the fourth film:
Cedric Diggory - I'm sorry, but Rob made an awful Cedric. I never liked him in the role.
Hermione's hair/wardrobe - Where did the big hair go? What happened to being the smart girl who didn't care about appearance? YOU WERE MY ROLE MODEL HERMIONE! Ok, but seriously, in the book it was a big deal. She has her hair in a bun, she's in a beautiful turquoise dress, Ron is in awe of her. He sees her as a girl properly for the first time. The film cheated us with this scene.
Hagrid is a half-giant - In the book, this was a big deal. The film barely touched on the subject.
Not enough Sirius - Sirius was supposed to go to Hogsmeade to see Harry. Instead all we got is the fireplace scene (I think). It robbed me of seeing the ever wonderful Gary Oldman being amazing. Curses.
They definitely provide more details and events.
For example the 6th part (half blooded prince) was really the best as a book. But it wasn't "the best" as a movie. It was decent because they removed all the great details and focused on the main ones. (I think it's because if they had to put all details the movie's length would be very long..)
But I really think Goblet of fire was amazing, unlike some of you guys. Maybe even the best as a movie.
[edit: I did not watch deathly hallows yet.]
[Edited by Night-Ghost, 11/23/2010 7:18:43 AM]
They totally had that scene in the movie. She comes walking down the staircase wearing pink to meet Victor. Harry is staring off at Cho, then he sees her after he notices Ron's been staring.
Anyway, this movie was pretty good. I'm glad they split it into two. Otherwise, a lot more would have been cut out. They didn't miss a single from what I remember of the book. As far as sticking to the book, I'd say this movie has done it very well compared to some of the others.
No. It wasn't the same.
Hermione no longer had the big hair, and they styled it wrong for that scene. It was a pivotal moment, it was seeing her as a young woman, and they ****ed it up. They destroyed her, Emma Watson was an awful Hermione after Chamber of Secrets.