This was so beautiful. Murder me

>>81205272
what movie is this? is it a harry potter movie? I pretty much read all the books as they came out (when I started reading the first 2 were already out) but stoped caring about the movies after the fourth or fifth one (basically after the books ended) but I might go back and finish watching the movies someday

>>81206228
This is Deathly Hallows part 1, one of two contenders for best film in the franchise

>>81205272
>murder me

No I won't

If only someone would
We would have one less pleb from /v/ here

File: 1490031333197.jpg (2MB, 1623x2886px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1623x2886px

>>81206228
its from the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises. each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

>>81206468
everytime

>>81206228
The movies are some abomination of "you have to read the book first" and "we ignore the book when we please"
you will not understand them as a continuity, but as standalones where you're just coming into them for the first time, they're neat.

>>81206348
was it really justified to split the last book into 2 films? sure, it may have a lot of pages but iirc it had lotsa filler in the first half (like almost every HP book)

>>81206468
This intro is so fucking weak, it might as well be anemic

>>81206536
You just couldn't fit the revelations of the last book into one. Which is how the whole series is, but people don't really like to watch half a book every 2 years.
It's maddening, why they didn't make it a series. 7 years, 7 seasons, fit a chapter or three into each episode.

Friendly reminder Harry Potter's plot is about Rowling's concept of thinly veiled racism and refuses to show the concept of adhering to your own bloodline (as opposed to integrating with people of lesser status) as anything but the literal ultimate evil. and it is pretty much garbage. The only times this has ever happened in real life is the Holodomor.