Why is Volandemort so goofy in Deathly Hallows?

it was autism all along

it can be a virtue when it drives us to excel

File: severus-snape-alan-rickman-hary-potter-2-today-tease-150608_a331468573cda45156990ab430cfadcb.jpg (551KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

551KB, 1920x1080px

Daily reminder that Snape was supposed to be 38 at time of death, but was played by 64 years old actor

>>85261544
Daily reminder bookfags are always complaining about shit that doesn't matter with respect to a different medium.

>>85261347
Because he was literally just leading a dead harry potter parade.

>>85261347
Because these are movies for little kids.

>>85261347
desu I would say he was acting more manic than plain goofy. He was just getting desperate and got a little off his rocks at the end. Wouldnt you be if the only person standing in the way of your immortality was a kid constantly beating you?

>>85261544
>MUH BOOKS I DIDNT EVEN READ

Ralph Fiennes stopped giving a fuck, can't blame him either with how convoluted the series got and how bad DH2's script was.

>>85261347
you would make funny faces if you had to come up with your own tax policy for a magic race too

File: 1470829239044.jpg (1MB, 1596x2850px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1596x2850px

Why is Voldemort so dull in the Deathly Hallows? Seriously, Harry Potter is 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 seriesüf 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 itüfs 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 are g-g-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

Draco makes me rigid

>>85262253
>"No!"
Love this part