It's a pleasant irony that, just as the first installments of Rowling's oeuvre were better suited to page than screen, the final installments have reversed the relationship.
I couldn't have put it better. You are absolutely correct and I thought the same as I watch the final chapter.
Jul 23 - 11:15 AM
Awesome review!! :)
Jul 23 - 04:51 PM
I so agree with that
Jul 24 - 07:28 PM
the books was meh...the part 2 was best of all the series...as the last 150+ pages of deathly hollows was only readable part of book!
Jul 24 - 11:50 PM
Sep 15 - 12:42 AM
Are you guys kidding? I loved the movie don't get me wrong, but saying that the movie was better than the book just isn't correct.
Jul 26 - 08:28 PM
Anybody who thought that Rowling's haphazard writing was worth wading through has obviously never seen an author do it correctly before.
Jul 29 - 02:32 PM
Oh my goodness, I agree. I sorta like the books, but the films are so much better. They took Rowling's good ideas and actually pulled them off with some tact and subtlety. This movie reminded me of why I love Harry Potter.
Aug 2 - 11:45 PM
@dorothy, what a worthless comment. I really hate people who judge books based on how complex and "fancy" words the author uses. No offense, but I'd rather read a book that is exciting to read rather then some intellectual crap that maybe i'll find interesting if I can keep enough self control to actually read it.
Aug 22 - 02:25 PM
My brain, it's imploding from such stupid comments!
Sep 15 - 12:43 AM
I wouldn't say the entire movie was better, but some parts are done better in the film than in the book in my opinion. For instance, the final battle.
Aug 3 - 02:35 PM
Tineka Van Houten
The final battle was the biggest let down of the film! Talk about anti-climax.
Nov 17 - 03:44 PM
Totally true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The movie ending wasn't nearly as good as the book, though I did really enjoy it.
Jan 4 - 04:27 PM
No way. The book was exponentially better than either movie. Triple the action and triple the romance.
Jul 28 - 12:45 PM
triple the action?
triple the romance?
it had all the major action scenes
the bridge, the spiders, the giants, the chamber
of secrets etc.
and what do you mean triple the romance?
it had Ginny and Harry, Hermonine and Ron, and better yet NEVILLE and LUNA...
it improves a lot of the things in the book..
especially the final battle..
in the book it was just a long monologue, one spell, the end.
in the movie it was a fight up the stairs, to the clock tower, jumping off the clock tower, apperating to the courtyard, then a little talking and the final spell..
all the while R and H are fighting the snake and
Neville kills it..
a lot was improved from the book
Aug 2 - 10:19 AM
Crimson Ark, I completely agree with you.
Oh dear god. Go ahead and read the book again, and I guarantee you'll find that the battle for Hogwarts was 90% watered down in the movie. Remember the intense preparation for the Death Eaters' arrival? How they dropped plant pods on them from above? How all of the seventh years stayed behind to help? How Harry saved Draco multiple times? How the Malfoys ended up staying at Hogwarts(important)? How the final battle with Nagini was nothing more than Neville slicing off her head? How Luna and Neville and Ginny and Seamus saved H/H/R while the dementors were coming up the stairs? How everyone pitched in? It was like an epic LoTR battle, or the battle from Avatar, in the book. In the movie it was 20 minutes of Harry battling with a sore conscience.
So. DO NOT underestimate the difficulty that writing this book must have required. If people here are going to hate on Rowling, you need to reread the series and watch her develop as a writer, and experience the magic she tied into the first books and the emotion she tied into the last. Then judge her again, and try to do better.
Nov 14 - 07:54 AM
I think comparing the book and the movie was laughable, however this movie was very enjoyable.
Aug 1 - 09:58 PM
how is it laughable?
this movie couldn't have turned out better..
would you rather it stay 100% to the book?
no extra additions or changes to make it refreshing to the readers?
you realize that the movie crew do that for the readers right?
so that they wont guess every single thing that happens and so that they can be at least suprised and excited..
stop being such an elitist and comparing it to the book..
the movie isn't suppose to stay as faithful as possible to the book..it's suppose to contain the CORE of it that's why it's an ADAPTION...it's adapted to film and taken into different directions and different interpretations to keep it fresh and interesting...if you want something that's exactly like the book then go listen to the auto cassets of the books
Aug 2 - 10:23 AM
Disagree completely. I thought the first couple films were much more enjoyable and then the rest, especially when Yates took over and the series went completely downhill. I understand the movies are adaptations (not adaptions) but most of the changes were for the worst. Yates did not capture the magical world of Harry Potter. The Dumbledore character is terrible (with the exception of the King's Cross scene). This final film had so many opportunities to deliver remarkable scenes and failed with most of them. This is especially true for the last battle scene which barely held my attention. Voldemort dissolved into thin air in a courtyard. We see the trio standing on a bridge looking into the sunset. What a finish! A scene with all characters surrounding Potter and Voldemort verbally, and then physically, sparring would have been a huge improvement. 2.5 stars.
Aug 2 - 08:18 PM
Nov 17 - 03:45 PM
Please. Don't talk about things you don't know.
The book was a thousand times better than this film - if only based on the fact that there was not a smile the entire run. Harry Potter, the book series, has heart and depth that this Twilight-look-a-like was completely devoid of, if not entirely ignored.
I definitely agree with this review. This guy nailed how I felt about Deathly Hallows (both parts).
Aug 3 - 02:37 PM
Completely agree. I do like the final book, but this movie did so much more with the core story. Particularly the final battle was improved, it was far more compact and filled with emotion. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Aug 5 - 04:42 PM
I agree part 2 really is the best one of the series but i dont think it is considered as reversed, more of a equal... I would prefer
Aug 29 - 06:50 AM
I grew up with harry potter. As a child, the books were read to me until I learned to read them myself. They're not the most challenging books, not the most sophisticated, but they certainly succeeded in capturing the imagination of an entire generation of children. For that, I will always love them. The movies, on the other hand, share no place of affection in my heart. Nearly all of them are poorly acted, overdone, and utterly unsuccessful in capturing Rowling's magic. Half Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows (pt one) deserve a seat above the rest, but in general it's difficult for me to sit through a harry potter movie. I had high hopes for the last movie. The movies had seemed to be getting better each time around, so perhaps the final film would live up to expectations. But I was truly saddened to see that the film makers returned to making the same cliche garbage that made me disdain the movies in the first place. How can people like this? It's cheesy, it gives insufficient attention to great sections of the book, it entirely ignores others; no, this film outshine the book. In fact, it tarnished the entire series. When I was leaving the theater I couldn't keep myself from being angry at the movie for giving something so integral to my childhood such a lackluster conclusion. Nay, Mr. Orr, the relationship between the books and films never reversed itself. Only someone distantly concerned with harry potter could make such a claim.
Sep 26 - 04:42 PM
"The words fall from your mouth like shit from ass."
This movie was unbelievably cheesy, and the acting was so, SO, bad. Unless you are a caveman there is no way in hell that you could even begin to think the movie was better than the book. But hey, seems like these days people just finger themselves to one-liners, horrible dialogue, and a couple of cool action scenes.
Nov 10 - 01:01 AM
Reese. Shut up.
Nov 15 - 11:01 PM
Noah Abraham Goucher
People shouldn't argue about this. When it gets right down to it, what works in the book doesn't work on film. The final battle? Fine for the book; gives closure, makes Harry seem more likable. It'd be stupid in the movie.
Nov 12 - 11:11 AM
What a dumb thing to say.... You obviously don't get Harry Potter at all.
Nov 17 - 03:42 PM
My Black Friday target is buy one Harry Potter 1-7 DVD Boxset.So I search it online stores,finally I get it,and it costs only $34.99!
By the way,here it is that nice website-www.dvdsetshop.net,maybe you can check it out!!
Nov 25 - 08:28 AM
Amaury Lopez Cazessus
I completely agree with you, all those little details, the depiction of the final battle in the book was, in my opinion, far better. I just laughed when, in the movie, Harry just jumps out of Hagrid's arms for everyone to see. Another let down was Snape's death, much more epic in the book.
Jan 22 - 11:50 PM
While I'm a huge, huge fan of the books, and while I was thoroughly unsatisfied with the 6th movie's adaptation (I blame Michael Gambon, who, while a talented actor, does not play the lovable Dumbledore from the books, and rather plays some reincarnated Gandalf), I agree that the last book plays out much better on screen. It's all action, angst, and slogging along in the wilderness, which can actually be interesting onscreen but makes for, in my opinion, the worst book of the series. But I love all of them like children, so....
Jul 1 - 07:19 PM