Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Pt. 2

Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part 2 (2011)*

• Directed by David Yates (Part 1, Half-Blood Prince, Order of the Pheonix)
• Produced by David Heman, David Barron, J.K. Rowling
• Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson

Thoughts! (Contains some story *SPOILERS*)

• The movie was good. I liked it.
• As a person who has only read 2.5 Harry Potter books, I think I can look at this movie with more objectivity than those who have read all 7. It was entertaining and the acting was good and all that stuff, but there's a certain magical touch that I thought it lacked as a film. I'd say 20% of what makes a good movie is the events that happen. The other 80% is how those events are told by the film makers. So while Snape's death was super sad, it probably wasn't as sad as it could have been.
• The movie very much plays like the last half of a book. So this is good?
• This review by Margot Harrison says a loooot of stuff I agree with: http://www.7dvt.com/2011harry-potter-and-deathly-hallows-part-2
• Man there were so many "OH SH*T" moments. Professor McGonagall was awesooome. You go, McGona-girl!
• I KNEW IT, SNAPE WAS A GOOD GUY!! His flashback thing was the most interesting part of the entire movie.
  
• Harry should've used that time necklace to create two of him.
• The broomstick flying segments looked kinda lame. I think they went for a look that was akin to riding bikes in the air, but I think it should've been more like riding snowboards in the air in regards to resistance and weight distribution. That's just me being haughty though.

And now a letter:

Dear Hollywood,

Post-converted 3D movies are really lame. I want it 3D to feel like I'm looking through a window to really mimic how our eyes perceive 3 dimensions. But in movies like HP7, the, uh, blur effect is still used (not sure of the terminology). That is, when a character is close up in the foreground, the character in the back is blurred out in the background, and vice versa. It's a technique that DOESN'T WORK FOR FILMS LIKE THIS. It makes sense in a 2D picture, but putting it in a 3D picture just flattens the image! Our eyes should be able to focus on any part of the space in a 3D film (usually not all at once, of course, just on parts that we the audience choose to focus on). But adding 3D in post production... it doesn't work. It doesn't make sense. All I got out of the 3D glasses was a slight glare for the entire movie. Please don't do this again.

Thanks, Kevin

I'm not sure if I made sense this post. Here's a great fake scene my friend posted on Facebook!