Written on: 22/07/2012 by Tom_Lima (3 reviews written)
Disappointing to say the least. Was it worth the wait between parts one and two? No. I struggle to see how there was a post-potter obsession. Im sad to say that I think Rowling's writing started to lose its touch toward the latter of the series, and I believe Hollywood know all directors also took some charm from the book itself, which was a good read.
The film itself felt to 'up-itself'. I originally went to a screening with friends, but me and Harj were wrongfully kicked out (And after watching it again the next day with the family) I feel I can say it was a blessing in disguise.
I say, I was talking to my cousin about Harry Potter a while ago, and felt I was trying to be a 'hipster' gosh knows what that is, but what I do know is that the money spent on the ticket would have been better re-invested in a take away.
Back on topic: The special effects had done well to keep the audiences attention, that was well done by the fat cats in Hollywood. The acting... Alan Rickman did a great job with Snape, I don't know anyone who could act that depressed and lonesome. Old Danny Radcliffe was a bit stale, Im mean good for a mediocre film like 'the woman in black', but for the super mega blockbuster Harry Potter? He didnt sell the part to me.
I dont quite know what they tried to do with Dumbledore with this film, they kind of tried to make him look wise, but this was unsettleing to the 'friendlier' Dumbldore seen before. In fact the film has been one of those rare instances, when the blockbuster hasnt lived up to the film.
In summary: The only good the film will serve me is any future trivia quiz in 10 years time. (The falling shot of Emma Watson wasn't missed either ;)) Was the film worth a bucket of KFC? Unfortunately not.