And now for the questions...
Will Part 2 be any better than Part 1?
For those of you who have been reading me since the last film came out, I'm sure you'll recall that I didn't review Part 1 very favorably. I found it to be rather dull, and it took leaps of faith that I would know everything that was going on, choosing to show bits of the story rather than explain what was happening. Having not read any of the novels, I felt that Deathly Hallows: Part 1 was truly for fans of J.K. Rowling's series rather than for fans of the film franchise. Ultimately, it just didn't prove to be entertaining in the slightest. As one can imagine, I received a lot of negative feedback for my review, but I still think I'm entitled to my own opinion. I've
been a fan of the franchise since its start, but the most recent installment just didn't do it for me. Here's hoping the final chapter will be a step up.
That being said, will Part 2 be accessible to Harry Potter fans who haven't read the novels?
This has always been one of the problems for me since I'm not familiar with every single detail of the plot as exposed in Rowling's books. I believe that film adaptations of novels should hold true to the source material while being completely accessible and understandable to the audience who may not have read the original stories. With a prolonged franchise such as this, it's difficult to remain approachable to the casual fan because so much needs to be said. That's probably why they decided to split Deathly Hallows into two parts (although I assume monetary gain was also a huge driving factor). But if I can't figure out what's going on, I'll be forced to view Part 2 as another failure.
Will there be too much happening in the film?
It's the final chapter, the end of a franchise. You're not going to get any legitimate, off-handed sequels after this one, so everything has to be summed up. Every question has to be answered. Will there be enough time to do so in an orderly fashion, or are we going to be thrown so much information that it'll be difficult to keep it all in focus?
Will the level of acting be stronger than previous films?
I've never had major beef with the level of acting brought to the screen in the Harry Potter franchise. The filmmakers have managed to draw a large number of big-name stars to aid our three young heroes (in case you're unfamiliar, you can expect the likes of Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham Carter, Gary Oldman, Alan Rickman, Michael Gambon, Jason Isaacs, John Hurt, Emma Thompson, Timothy Spall, Maggie Smith, David Thewlis and Jim Broadbent in the upcoming film). The aforementioned actors are generally great, but the overall acting appeal
truly lies on Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint. If they don't bring their A-game, I'm not going to believe them as the characters they've played seven times before.
And now for some off-beat questions:
Who's gonna die?
Fans of the series will already know this answer, but I personally don't know exactly who's going to bite the dust by the end of Part 2. I'd prefer if you didn't tell me - I'd like to go into the theater not really knowing what's going to happen - but my money's on Voldemort (obviously) and Harry driving the final nail into their respective coffins. I'm sure a slew of smaller characters won't make it - in the trailer, it looks like one of the Weasley boys dies - but I won't even attempt to guess who else won't make it to the final credits.
Why 3D?
The final chapter in the Harry Potter franchise will be the first and only one released in the third dimension. Warner Bros. had every intention of releasing Part 1 in 3D as well, but time didn't allow for the possibility. I know that 3D is the big thing right now, but this film was not shot with 3D - rather, the third dimension has been added after the fact. As many of us know, when the effect is added later, it generally doesn't look as crisp as it does when it's shot in 3D, so I'm a little worried about the visual aspect of Part 2. The special effects have been a driving force in the franchise, so to have them sullied by 3D at the end seems a little disappointing.
Snakes, dragons AND Voldemort?! Harry's in for a bumpy ride...
Harry already has to deal with the ultimate bad guy, but you're going to throw some snakes and dragons his way as well? This all just doesn't seem very fair for our young hero! But bring it on, I suppose.
I honestly hope that Deathly Hallows: Part 2 will give us a legitimate ending to this saga. Anything would be better than Part 1, but I've still got my fingers crossed.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 will hit U.S. theaters on July 15, 2011.
Will Part 2 be any better than Part 1?
For those of you who have been reading me since the last film came out, I'm sure you'll recall that I didn't review Part 1 very favorably. I found it to be rather dull, and it took leaps of faith that I would know everything that was going on, choosing to show bits of the story rather than explain what was happening. Having not read any of the novels, I felt that Deathly Hallows: Part 1 was truly for fans of J.K. Rowling's series rather than for fans of the film franchise. Ultimately, it just didn't prove to be entertaining in the slightest. As one can imagine, I received a lot of negative feedback for my review, but I still think I'm entitled to my own opinion. I've
been a fan of the franchise since its start, but the most recent installment just didn't do it for me. Here's hoping the final chapter will be a step up.That being said, will Part 2 be accessible to Harry Potter fans who haven't read the novels?
This has always been one of the problems for me since I'm not familiar with every single detail of the plot as exposed in Rowling's books. I believe that film adaptations of novels should hold true to the source material while being completely accessible and understandable to the audience who may not have read the original stories. With a prolonged franchise such as this, it's difficult to remain approachable to the casual fan because so much needs to be said. That's probably why they decided to split Deathly Hallows into two parts (although I assume monetary gain was also a huge driving factor). But if I can't figure out what's going on, I'll be forced to view Part 2 as another failure.
Will there be too much happening in the film?
It's the final chapter, the end of a franchise. You're not going to get any legitimate, off-handed sequels after this one, so everything has to be summed up. Every question has to be answered. Will there be enough time to do so in an orderly fashion, or are we going to be thrown so much information that it'll be difficult to keep it all in focus?
Will the level of acting be stronger than previous films?
I've never had major beef with the level of acting brought to the screen in the Harry Potter franchise. The filmmakers have managed to draw a large number of big-name stars to aid our three young heroes (in case you're unfamiliar, you can expect the likes of Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham Carter, Gary Oldman, Alan Rickman, Michael Gambon, Jason Isaacs, John Hurt, Emma Thompson, Timothy Spall, Maggie Smith, David Thewlis and Jim Broadbent in the upcoming film). The aforementioned actors are generally great, but the overall acting appeal
truly lies on Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint. If they don't bring their A-game, I'm not going to believe them as the characters they've played seven times before.And now for some off-beat questions:
Who's gonna die?
Fans of the series will already know this answer, but I personally don't know exactly who's going to bite the dust by the end of Part 2. I'd prefer if you didn't tell me - I'd like to go into the theater not really knowing what's going to happen - but my money's on Voldemort (obviously) and Harry driving the final nail into their respective coffins. I'm sure a slew of smaller characters won't make it - in the trailer, it looks like one of the Weasley boys dies - but I won't even attempt to guess who else won't make it to the final credits.
Why 3D?
The final chapter in the Harry Potter franchise will be the first and only one released in the third dimension. Warner Bros. had every intention of releasing Part 1 in 3D as well, but time didn't allow for the possibility. I know that 3D is the big thing right now, but this film was not shot with 3D - rather, the third dimension has been added after the fact. As many of us know, when the effect is added later, it generally doesn't look as crisp as it does when it's shot in 3D, so I'm a little worried about the visual aspect of Part 2. The special effects have been a driving force in the franchise, so to have them sullied by 3D at the end seems a little disappointing.
Snakes, dragons AND Voldemort?! Harry's in for a bumpy ride...
Harry already has to deal with the ultimate bad guy, but you're going to throw some snakes and dragons his way as well? This all just doesn't seem very fair for our young hero! But bring it on, I suppose.
I honestly hope that Deathly Hallows: Part 2 will give us a legitimate ending to this saga. Anything would be better than Part 1, but I've still got my fingers crossed.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 will hit U.S. theaters on July 15, 2011.
I agree with your comment that the first installment was meant for fans of the books/movies. I personally very much enjoyed the first installment and have probably seen it a dozen times or more. Secondly I really feel to actually fully comprehend that greatness of the series you HAVE to read the books...especially since you have not read them to this point if you like Harry Potter then after reading the books a whole new world of wonder and magic will be made apparent in your life
ReplyDeleteuse diqus for comments and is hp 3d NOT going to be nice !! I am gonna cry !
ReplyDelete