Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Post by **MovieWes** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:54 pm

The rating is for Half-Blood Prince, not Deathly Hallows.

Post by **Okri** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:13 pm

Is it possible that much of the "scarier" images would be in the latter half of the story?

Post by **anonymous1980** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:58 pm

MovieWes wrote:Well, it appears that Ain't it Cool News wasn't wrong...

Rated PG for scary images, some violence, language and mild sensuality.

This is surprising considering the book contains zombie-like creatures, a death of a major, beloved character and the Sectumsempra curse (if you read the book, you'll know why).

Post by **MovieWes** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:06 pm

Well, it appears that Ain't it Cool News wasn't wrong...

Rated PG for scary images, some violence, language and mild sensuality.

Edited By MovieWes on 1231607171

Zahveed · Post by **Zahveed** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:45 pm

Yea, that too.

Post by **MovieWes** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 5:51 pm

Or there's also the possibility that Ain't it Cool News is full of shit.

Zahveed · Post by **Zahveed** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 5:30 pm

Either the MPAA is getting lenient with their ratings or this film isn't going to have all the killing, dead bodies, and sexual innuendo the book has.

Post by **MovieWes** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:52 pm

For anyone who's interested, it is being reported on Ain't it Cool News that Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is the first Potter film since Prisoner of Azkaban to be given a PG rating by the MPAA.

Post by **Franz Ferdinand** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 12:47 pm

I think the final book is the only one that comes close to requiring a split into two movies. This was the book where a decade (and six books') worth of story lines and loose ends culminated and were tied off. Every other page contained an important development, death, clue, etc. Greedy though they seem (and it will be a HUGE cash grab, no doubt about it), I have no problem with the split (other than the wait).
The fourth book was the breaking point of the Potter series, in terms of popularity and length: while it is probably my favorite simply for its sentimental value, I would have hated to sit through the whole SPEW sub-plot. OOTP as well benefited from a hefty editorial snipping: I wish I could say it was on par with Cuaron's Azkaban or Newell's Goblet, but it wasn't an extraordinary as it could have been. I really wish they could have brought Cuaron back for the last book (anonymous, I had a similar vision when reading the wedding escape scene! Imagine how great that would have been...).

Post by **Damien** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:31 am

From the London Sun (admittedly, one of those British tabloids you feel dirty just from looking at, let alone reading):

HARRY PUFFER AND THE CIG CURSE
By Gordon Smart
17 Mar 2008

DANIEL RADCLIFFE’s Harry Potter co-stars have warned him a wizard wheeze could be looming — unless he quits his 20-a-day cigs habit.

The actor — just 18 — has been nicknamed Harry Puffer on the set of the new Hogwarts movie after rushing to light up whenever the director yells “Cut”.

He is now getting through a pack a day — and pals are worried for his elf.

Among those who have voiced concern is RUPERT GRINT, who plays fellow trainee wizard Ron Weasley — or should that be WHEEZILY.

A source confirmed last night: “Daniel has recently been smoking up to 20 cigarettes a day.

“Every time they call ‘Cut’, he lights up. It’s disgusting.

“Friends and co-stars including Rupert Grint have been warning him about the dangers of smoking. But he doesn’t take any notice.”

Producers fear the actor’s habit could ruin his schoolboy image — and have now warned him not to be seen puffing in public.

But that has not stopped Radcliffe from smoking “like a trooper”.

The source revealed: “He’s been having late nights out with stars like KEVIN SPACEY and STEPHEN FRY (hmmmm, a couple of middle aged gay guys. Interesting.) and seems to have picked up bad habits from the luvvie set.”

Last week nervous Radcliffe turned to his ciggies when he had to perform a tricky stunt himself because his double was absent.

The source added: “He was sparking up constantly."

Edited By Damien on 1205847284

Post by **OscarGuy** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:56 pm

I happen to like Chamber of Secrets both movie and, especially, the book. It's still my favorite book of the series. Goblet of Fire was a very good book, IMO. It was the bridge that went from light to dark and it did it quite effectively. The movie was fast and interesting, but not on par with book's quality.

Post by **HarryGoldfarb** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:50 pm

I said probably cause there is, of course, that thing called Chamber of Secrets. Indeed, the 2nd film, by Columbus might be the worst of the series (almost unwatchable). But the first one is enjoyable, or at least watchable, cause it has on its side the introduction element, the introduction to this world of magic... that and the amazing score by Williams and nice works or art direction, costume design and even cinematography. Columbus could have done better with the first film, I know, but the first book is a rather simple one. He almost killed it but he had a competent crew backing him. On the contrary, the 5th book was amazing from the first page to the last one. I had very high expectations with the film and I wanted to like it but in the end it was a downer. Right now, I hardly can remember any image from the film...

The 4th book was imo almost unreadable, overlong and with too many side stories that lead nowhere. I was amazed that the film managed to cut the weak parts and had an impecable rythm. The effects were superb (unlike the 5th) and the whole style of the film was like the right one.

Zahveed · Post by **Zahveed** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:14 pm

IMO, Columbus made the worst ones by far. I didn't really get into the movies until POA and I liked OOTP more than GOF. (Anybody up for a game of Acrophobia?)

Post by **HarryGoldfarb** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:50 pm

Just a shame, Columbus was below ok, Cuaron did a great work, Newell was the best imho (achieved an equilibrium and in a humble/effective way his signature wasn't made in spite of the film essence) but Yates had the best material and he didn't succeed! He turned an amazing book into probably the worst movie. Hope he has the ability to learn (quikly) from his own mistakes...

Jim20 · Post by **Jim20** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:59 pm

I agree with anonymous. David Yates' contribution was kind of a weak link in the series, along with Chris Columbus, of course. Not that I'm a die-hard fan (I've never even read the books), I see a director with more of a vision like Alfonso Cuaron's heading what I've heard to be the darkest of the books.

It's a real shame.

Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

The internet's oldest Oscar discussion forum.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows