Loved the reference to Bedknobs and Broomsticks, of the nostalgia I have for that movie. *cough* Hint! HINT! *cough*

If there is one thing about the whole franchise I would have to make a nitpick about, it would be the romance that never felt right to me. No, not Ron and Hermione. Their fine by me. No, I'm talking about Harry and Ginny. I don't know about you guys, but if I stayed around people as long as Harry and the Weasleys has, and come to consider them family, I don't think I could have those kinds of feelings for what is basically a pseudo-sister. It's just something I read in the books and immediately felt awkward about. It didn't carry well in the movies for me either.

I'm not a shipper, and I'm not saying that Harry wouldn't have any relationships, especially when puberty hit him. But, these relationships in the movies just always seemed distracting. Especially in Harry Potter and The Half-Blood Prince, aka Hormones Have Hit These Kids Hard and Something About A Wizard Dying.

I wonder what will be the next cash-cow franchise. Hmmm...

Honestly, I never cared about their relationship in the movies. I've only seen Chambers and of course Deathly Hallows 1 and 2 but just in general I never saw a connection between the two.

I guess from only seeing Deathly Hallows I kinda liked the fact that I didn't focus too much on their relationship but obviously it had to be built up in another movie.

I don't know ANYTHING about them in the books but they, to me have no chemistry whatsoever in the movies at all.

Plus there's the fact that Ginny is about as interesting and rounded as Harry's bedside lamp. Hell, Scabbers/Pettigrew got more development in Philosopher's Stone than Ginny did in the entire series... and he was a rat in that book.

Sadly, I agree with Doug. I'm tired of the franchise: it's been around since I was eight! Plot holes that bothered me back then (like the whole "Harry is saved by the power of love" crap) now have made the series hardly tolerable, and I keep noticing new ones (for example: Why is Voldemort so feared? Doesn't the Ministry of Magic have an anti-terrorism department? What happened to all the Aurors? Why does the government rely on high school kids to fight crime?). I remember that when the sixth movie came out my friends and I went to the midnight showing and dressed up like the founding fathers of Hogwarts (I was Slytherin). This time, we went the next day and just sat in the back making snarky comments and booing when the badass villains died.

Oh well, at least it was better than Green Lantern. Anyway, great review, Doug.

Don't know if you're gonna read this by now, but the books explained the situation with the Ministry of Magic- Voldemort managed to get his agents on the inside and basically take over it. He's arrested everyone that would go up against him and those who escaped are splintered and unable to communicate.

Now, as for why the Ministry didn't try to do something BEFORE all the shit hit the fan, that I can't explain. Rowling's explanation via the books seems to be that the Minister of Magic was so vehemently in denial that Voldemort could ever return, because it would mean he had to exert himself and face a lot of tough choices, that he ended up sabotaging every effort made by the organized adult wizarding world to prevent Voldemorts rise to power. Weak explanation perhaps, but it's there, at least.

Well to be fair, it's not like there's never been an Auror/Ex-Auror to go over to Hogworts and keep Harry out of trouble. Remember Moody? Yeah that turned out well, he only got kidnapped, had his identity stolen by a Death Eater, said Death Eater aiding in the revival of Voldemort's physical form, and thrown into a trunk.

Although that's still no excuse for not having an Auror or even a Hit Wizard pull a Beverly Hills Cop and go to be Harry's bff bodyguard against orders. Hell, TONKS could have done it, that seems like it'd be up her ally.

Deffinently recommend reading the books. Not because i'm a fanatic trying to get every single person to read them, but more for the points you made about the his one-dementionality in the movies. The books go way more in-depth (as you'd expect) and the characters are more well rounded with more than just 'angry harry' 'dopy Ron' and 'smart hermione'.

but unfortunately because of this "read them to create your own opinion attitude" I tell everyone, I'm having to eat my words and read the twilight series. yay. wish me luck

I'll pray for your sanity.

See that would be a valid thing for you to have to do... if Twilight was actually revered as good by anyone besides Twilight fans.

Where as Harry Potter is actually liked by people besides ones that find Harry to be teh hotz.

But hey, I'm just sort of cynical, if you want to waste your time coming to an obvious conclusion be my guest.

To me, Harry and Ginny's relationship came out of nowhere in both the movies and the books. I must have missed a huge chunk of the story where he made the transition from Cho-Chang to Ron's sister (all I remember was Harry saying they grew apart and now he had feelings for Ginny, I had to play catch-up) probably because my mind went to another place while I was reading book 5. I love the books, but that one was...meh. Besides, that relationship was boring, so lets just side-step past it.

As for the movies, they'll always be very special to me, they are always top of the list when they came out and I respect that they are always so true to the books story-wise. The action is fun, the villains are interesting and the atmosphere in theatres is always brilliant. But, just like the HarryXGinny love, part 7 part 2 likes to bring things out of nowhere to keep us on our toes (such as Lupins son...thanks for mentioning him twice over 3 movies and then erasing him from the face of the planet guys, it's not like people who haven't read the books will get confused or anything).

Also, what's sad is that you could probably sum up the films very quickly because, although they were close to the books, they didn't always take the time to focus on the emotion and depth which made the books so popular.
Look:

Harry potter and the mental bloke in the turban shouting "TROLL IN THE DUNGEON!"

Harry potter and the high-pitched house-elf

Harry Potter and the family connection

Harry Potter and the sudden darkness in tone

Harry Potter and Helena Bonham Carter

Harry Potter and the sexual tension

Harry Potter and the running through woods

Harry Potter and the awesome battle before an anti-climactic final showdown.

He sort of didn't want to seem like a dick by swooping in after you know, her boyfriend died. They had a scene in book five where he sort of realized a relationship would not work out, it wouldn't have a lot of love behind it, just lots of projecting from Cho. Cho-Change was always sort of that first crush he had. And hell I don't even remember her being in the movies.
Ginny always had a crush on Harry, and it sort of developed out of her own school girl crush on him to an actual relationship as time passed, and they started to spend more time together, and Harry realized that getting that hot Scots-Asian was sort of not happening anyways. I didn't get a chance to see the Order of the Pheonix, and by all accounts I don't even know if a damn Half-Blood Prince movie even exists based on the fact nobody talks about Half-Blood Prince ever- so I don't know if there was any development of Harry and Ginny in that time because that's where most of it is in the books. Before Book 5 she was still just the sister that tried to gain Harry's attention and was like the fourth wheel to the main three characters when they were doing detective work in the Library.

Oh geez Bedknobs and Broomsticks? No. Ugh. XD

I've seen that movie too many times. But it would be great to see a NC about it... *cough*

I've only read the books (okay, I've watched one or two of the movies,) but Harry/Ginny always felt really off from the moment it became apparent it would happen. If you read book 5, by the end you'll probably have the impression that Harry's got a sweet little thing going on with Luna Lovegood. By book 6 Ginny is essentially the Hogwarts version of the bitchy mary-sue cheerleader and Harry is her dumb jock boyfriend. It felt really forced and stale - there was no passion, no tenderness or bond. Just two teenagers making out every so often...which is fine, teenagers do have relationships like that... but for them to get married in the end? Based on what? Physical attraction and Quidditch? That's one of Rowling's biggest failures, imho.

Great review. I was also wondering why he didn't die all the way. I have the stone that brings people back to life but will drop it in the woods and then be killed. The stone will bring me back but I left it over there. Oh poo.

Except it won't. It's established that the Resurrection Stone only bring backs a person as a spirit that can't remain in the world of the living. That's why Harry couldn't touch the spirits of his parents in the forest.

Unless Harry's plan was to come back as a spirit and shout taunts at voldemort while he killed people, I don't think using the Stone would have worked well.

Both great reviews, though I was a bit surprised that the Bum review seemed longer. And don't worry Doug, nobody likes Harry.

@R_I: If you remember a few years back, JK Rowling had announced that at the end of the series she was going to kill off Harry. For good. Then there wouldn't be anymore books. This outraged the fans of course and the studio putting money into her films because killing the hero isn't "fair". So she changed it and Harry lives. I guess for the movie Rowling gets the last laugh by "killing" Harry but then brings him back so as not to piss off anyone.

Sort of like Star Trek 2 when news of Spock's death was leaked during production.

For those who don't know, check out SFDebris's Wrath of Khan review.

He voluntarily sacrifices himself, yet it didn't take, in the BOOK. You're speaking like it's a change for the movie, it isn't. (I think she NEVER made it clear that Harry would die beforehand, by the way. At least it's how I remember it. Tell you the truth, though, I only got into the books about a week before DH was released, and I had the advantage of being able to read them straight through, but the disadvantage of not really being up with the hype beforehand.)

And I guess I like Ginny, Harry, and Ron better than a lot of people here, but you know what? Your opinion, people. Mine is that the books were damn awesome, and the movies... are not the same, but they're decent to good. Haven't seen the final two though... yet.

I like Harry >:

Also what JaylaClark said.
Besides, even if she did kill Harry, I REEEEALLY doubt that WARNER BROS would give a shit. And if they did, they have no power to make Rowling actually change her opinion or how the story goes. Or do you not recall the story of how Dumbledore's homosexuality was announced? She doesn't give a shit about what the movies have to say to her.

However if she did change it because of fans, I MIGHT believe that. Keyword being MIGHT because it's really unlikely.

That and hearing some things I hear, she was probably being sarcastic when she said she was killing Harry. And then when fans threw a fit actually changed it to Harry raising like Wizard H Christ instead of having an actual climactic battle that discovered a loophole in the Horcruxes (I mean, the Gryffindor sword being stolen was a copout but also was written almost like she had a plan to get it back and use it later but had to scrap it for "And then Harry went to heaven for five seconds").

haha love the review! Bum Reviews always make my day :) And I will admit that if you aren't a fan of the books the movies are a little confusing with some of the events.

That was one of the best Bum reviews I've seen so far. =D

I totally agree on the point where anyone else is a better character to focus on over Harry.

I'm not a fan of the series, but I made the decision to read the Potter Books and Twilight so I could know what I was I talking about when I mocked them. I had to do it one book at a time, and tempered with good fantasy like Dresden Files inbetween.

Harry Potter is good for getting kids to read. Twilight is good for nothing, and to say that it deserves to be burned is an insult to fire.

Twilight was used as reason for book burning in the Fahrenheit 451 universe.

I went LARPing about two months ago and when getting a fire going before it got dark we BURNED the Twilight books as we were making the fire!! >:D

To be honest, I enjoyed Twilight more than Harry Potter because of its awfulness(It's easier to make fun of and it didn't make me fall asleep like HP7ATDHP23D[Thanks Snob]). But as story standpoint, yeah Potter is better.

If Harry was a Horcrux...why didn't he just stab himself with the Sword of Gryffindor or a Basilisk fang?...
0_o

Meh, who cares? It's FUCKIN' 'ARRY POTTER!!!

He didn't have the sword, and it had to be Voldemort that had to kill him.

Yes! I've been waiting for this one.

The reason he doesn't die is fully explained in the books. Overall pretty good movie.

It is. But it's pretty complicated even there.

And the finale of Moldy Voldy really needs a chalkboard play like Back to the Future 2 to explain it, at least in the book.

It would have been a great movie if Doc Brown just came out of no where with his chalkboard to explain everything to us! That would have been the greatest movie ever! :D

I agree, the movies are all meh. Didn't leave much of a movie storytelling impact as much of a money making impact. Read the books people.

Anyhoo, watched a midnight showing. Loved every minute of it. The Bum's right on this one : this is the greatest movie he's ever seen in his life.

Why do people compare Twilight and Harry Potter? they are on such different levels, Harry in opinion has always been good to me, there were some movies in the franchise I didn't like but they weren't bad, its a great franchise, Twilight on the other hand SUCKS. I guess the books are better but the movies are not.

They're compared merely because they're the most popular fantasy franchises at the moment.

Sort of like how back in the day (back in the day being before Twilight was written) people compared LotR with Narnia.

Except those are both actually good.

I used to be a huge HP fan when I was like 10, I kinda lost interest by the time they released the 5th book. I actually LOATHED HP series by then b/c ppl kept comparing them to the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

After reading the later books, however, I had to agree that Harry Potter was actually pretty damn good. The most remarkable part was that Rowling had already laid out the pathway towards the end of the series from the very start, dropping hints along the way like breadcrumbs for the readers to follow.
I was astonished as I read the Hobbits and saw Bilbo picking up lil golden magic ring that would literally change everything in the history of the LOTR series. I had the exact same feeling as I read through the previous HP books after seeing the last film. The grey lady ghost, mention of a dark wizard's name on Dumbledore's chocolate frog card description, Harry's invisible cloak, the chamber of secrets, etc etc. They were there and I never knew they'd play far more important role later. (Especially realizing the true story behind Snape and Dumbledore was by far the greatest enlightenment Harry has in the series, and I think the part was beatifully depicted both in the book and the movie)

Maybe Rowling already had grand plans for them as she made all those characters and places, or maybe she made things up throughout the stories, I don't know, but I simply admire the author's cleverness. Now I believe that LOTR and HP are equally great masterpiece describing different magical worlds in their own brilliant way.

Ooh btw, Bum mentioned that HP war scene reminded him of the Return of the King, and I felt exactly the same. I do think the director, SE staffs, stunts, actors, and everyone else who brought scenes to life should appreciate such great compliment. So many films since LOTR bluffed that their action scenes compare to LOTR, and almost everytime I was utterly disappointed (except for Avatar war scene - that was pretty cool). Anyways, action scene in HP 7 pt2 is BRILLIANT. It's something BIG. It's not some faint magic little kids do. It is a war, and those violent spells and curses are meant to hurt and kill. I was thrilled just like I was when I saw the biggest war scenes in the LOTR trilogy.

As for Twilight, I saw the first movie then read the book. I was almost certain that the author must have had a cheesy romance dream involving vampires and that turned out to be true. I KNEW IT. I mean, the background story for each vampire was charming, but the whole plot just doesn't prove to be anything more than teenage romance novel about "I'll protect you" "I love you but we shouldn't do this" "But I want this" blah blah blah. Everyone's taste should be respected, so I do not hate the whole Twilight fever or whatever, but NO. IT DOES NOT COMPARE TO HARRY POTTER, LET ALONE THE LORD OF THE RINGS.

You haven't read the books yet? I'd definitely read them before touching the movies.

I liked this movie a lot. My favorite is still Chamber of Secrets, but this one comes close. I loved the entire castle battle scene, and the Snape memory was done perfectly.

Harry Potter, and the Curse of the Therapy Bills. I'd watch it XD

woot on first page derp

I wished Bum saying "Spoliers" singing the theme song of Harry Potter movies. AND HE DO IT!!

Pretty fun review, by the way.

I think of Maggie Smith more as Granny Wendy from Hook than I do the nun from Sister Act.

Harry is a bit of an Inspector Gadget to Hermione's Penny, especially in the movies.

One comment on your note about length and spacing and books versus movies. In terms of strict plotting, you're right. And for movies, that's a problem. Movies just don't have the space for lengthy world building the way books do. You build the world through images, which can be done very, very quickly. Books sometimes need to take time to build an atmosphere and world to give it verisimilitude.

Which is to say, the Potter series needed seven books, IMO. It didn't need eight movies. The story could have been done in less, and extraneous bits cut further and the movies would have been much better. Books have less of a need for tightness, and the extraneous is often some of the most fun, so I'm fine with the books taking their time to get there.

Hello TGWTG!! :D I just registered to say that as a Harry Potter fan, this movie was really entertaining. It beat Prisoner of Azkaban as my favourite HP movie, and there wasn't TOO much stuff changed from the books to cut shorter unlike the other movies, therefore I really enjoyed it. It was a really awesome farewell to this film series, but I am pretty sure in about 20 or so years we'll definitely see remakes of the Harry Potter movies and I can't wait to watch them. :D I've already seen DH P2 twice in IMAX 3D and am planning to see it again. :D
PS: The Bum Review is my top favourite one yet. :D

Great review. I agree; it was not slow-paced at all. and everyone will like it. It's making a killing right now. I liked it, but my wife, who's a big HP fan, totally loved it. Snape was always my favorite, so HBP was my favorite. Alan Rickman did a great job, and Snape was very well developed in the last few movies.

It was literally like 3 sentences in the book. That's why it was so short. God it was horrid. Just watch "A Very Potter Musical" and "A Very Potter Sequel" if you want incredible Harry Potter related stuff.

Okay Doug,

I get you never read the books and saw the movies but if you read them, I think you'll enjoy it more. I mean this is a series of books that defined a generation and I recommend them.

You thought Harry was boring? I haven't heard that one before (really, that's new). I found him to be a great character along with Ron and Hermione, along with all of the characters, but again, if you read the books, you get a deeper sense of character development when you combine the books with the films. And Hermione does not do ALL the work, but yes she is essential to the team but if it weren't for Harry's connections to Voldemort, Hogwarts and the wizarding world would have been in danger for
Yes, Hogwarts can be dangerous at times but let's not forget that Voldemort was behind most of the bad things that happened so the danger probably drops after his defeat.

I will always love this series, but how you feel about it is fine, to each his own. I'm just suggesting you look at it closer should you get the chance, you may like it more.

I totally agree with what you said. Deathly Hallows Part 2 is critic proof. I've read all the books so naturally I loved it, and even if the critics slammed it (which they're not actually), I'd still be a fan.

Voldemort's not always behind the dangers. Hogwarts has a carnivorous tree, giant spiders lurking in the woods, sports played at vertiginous altitudes, students all armed with potentially deadly weapons... whereas in my school, if you brought a pair of scissors to school or fake-punched someone, you were suspended.

Then again, all the potential danger is part of the fun. Public high schools might actually benefit from a carnivorous tree or two; they could eat the stupid people.

Hogwarts has pretty much been described as incredibly dangerous even before Harry got there. One of the founders stuck in a room with a Basilisk, for christ's sake! The halls always change, so the potential to get lost, especially for first years, is ridiculously high. They have a tree which punches hard enough to trash a car. Not to mention that the bullying there is magical, so the potential for death/permanent damage is enormous. Besides, let's not forget that the Triwizard tournament itself had nothing to do with Voldemort, and that's stated to have a casualty count nearly as high as Normandy beach.

Like RiffTrax once said, having only one person die at Hogwarts is a record for slowest year ever.

Can't wait to see Harry Potter. As i've read the book there were no spoilers for me.

As to the whole Harry and Ginny thing it makes sense in one aspect. Ginny and Ron came from a huge family, that is the one thing Harry wanted. As such the best way to do it is to marry into it. Also he saved her life (literally) which gets the whole male testosterone up and as for Ginny, she's been in a crush with him sense she was 10, so it makes sense on all levels. And with that being said, I would have perfered him with Luna.

i liked the bum but something that guy said in his actual opinion bugs me.

i understand he did not read the books but how can he have liked the 6th movie? all it had was the who likes who romance bull shit that was used as page fillers in the books.

for curiosity's sake i have to ask how it made any sence at all to someone who has not read the book. and frankly i wonder the same thing of most the movies.

i have not seen deathly hallows pt 2 yet but ever sence the 4th movie ive been annoyed that they assume the viewer read the book and most thing that are importent are left out. like in the 6th movie almost all main plot points where cut to combat twilight.

so how did or dose it make sence without haveing read it.

I haven't seen the moive yet...but I'll check it out. I wanted to see some of the reviews first before I spend the money to see it to see if its worth my time and money.

Not really a fan myself, but the moive no doubt has to be better than GL thats for sure and Transformers 3.

It sucks that Snape dies...he was actually my favorite character.

i think the harry voldemort climax is only half a page in the book
so i think it was nice that it got a bit of an extension
though that whole bit where they're flying around in a big smoke cloud was a bit wierd

Did Chester's Twilight comment at the end mean "Don't waste money on this @#%$ing movie!!!" ?

While the climax was kinda short in the movie, it was at least way longer than in the book, where it was less than two paragraphs and Harry just applied the "I am rubber, you are glue" effect on Voldemort's Death Curse.

Hermine is actually the directors favorite character. Which is why everytime Ron does something noteworthy in the books, it's cut or Hermine does it.

He never mentioned his opinion whether Snape was a good guy in the end or a bad guy.

I still call him team evil.

Yeah, Harry being the most boring character actually has been noted by quite a few people, even the ones who read the series. I personally don't think he's boring, but Ron, Hermione, and quite a few others definitely surpass him in likability.

I always like hearing how people who haven't read the books like the movies

Funny review!
I've yet to go see this movie yet but that's only because I didn't get to see the last 1 or 2 of the films and I hate watching things out of order!
I heard good things from fans and general audince and terrible things from alot of non-fans but I'll give it a shot at some point!