to be rather disappointed with the new Harry Potter film?

[juicychops]

i think i ruined it for myself really as i re read the second half of the book (from where part 1 ended) before i went to see the film. I have been so so excited all weekend and went today to see it

i have to say it was rather a let down. Mainly the battle at the end. i had built this magnificent battle up in my head and the film just didn't do my imagination justice.

after 8 films building it up, the death of voldermolt was pretty rubbish. in the book it happens in the great hall with all the students surrounding the two of them, and Harry is explaining important things to V. In the film this happens in the court yard with no one else in sight, and then HP just strolls in through the great hall - it was just all wrong. It wasn't the big climax i was hoping for.

In the book i liked the whole diadem search and the bit with the Carrows in the Hufflepuff common room but that wasn't in the film.

Also, i thought the death of the snake wasn't all that dramatic like in the book or when Bellatrix is killed in front of V in the book. I thought that should have been in the film. Also in the book is Percy's return and his apology for being a knob in all other books which i thought would also happen - especially as Fred dies, but he didn't turn up.

i still thought it was quite good, just a bit of a let down to what i was expecting. Dont get me wrong, the special effects were brilliant, and im sure it was the film those who haven't read the books expected, but for me after reading the books it wasn't what i had hoped for.

and also why on earth does Harry snap the elder wand? where did it show him repairing his own and mentioning the return of it to Dumbledores grave?

I'm NOT reading this.....NO SPOILERS!

I haven't seen it yet......ssSShhhhHH!

I agree Juicy, though it must have been SO difficult to fit such a long book into a movie-size chunk. I would have been happy if they had made enough films to cover every tiny detail of the last book - maybe 3 or 4 films?

yeah me too! but it was still quite short really too compared to some of the other ones. it was 2h 10mins im sure some of the others were almost 3 hours long?

It was very short but I felt it tied everything up. I found myself very frustrated with Part one though

i liked it and i dont really like harry potter................but then maybe thats why i liked it. didnt have as much invested as others.

I liked the wand being snapped. I thought it worked and gave a finality that putting it back with Dumbledore wouldn't have given so much to anybody who didn't know the books well. Lots of people see the films who won't have read the books and to expect EVERYTHING to be exactly as the books are is a bit naive, I think.

I do agree that it was a shame not to see the fall of the Carrows though, as that scene is really funny - but the lack of it certainly didn't spoil the film for me.

Percy has been quite a minor character in the films overall, so bringing him in with a big fuss might have over-complicated things, even though it is a lovely scene in the book.

They should have made it into a series thing.

I was also a little disappointed with the final battle scene - Harry explaining to Voldemort why he was going to be killed before killing him was, to me, a fantastic (and very cinematic) part of the book, so I didn't really understand why they watered it down; it seemed eminently filmable!