The “Harry Potter” franchise has been a nice cash cow for Warner Bros. So it was a stroke of genius to split the final novel, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” into two film adaptations, virtually assuring an extra $800 million or so. The “Twilight” series took note, too. The all-encompassing trailer for the two-parter wizard denouement has hit the web via Yahoo! Movies and, well, they’ve always known how to cook up fetching trailers for this series. I still think its finest hour was the first 60 minutes of “The Goblet of Fire” and was generally “meh” on the third film, which is the favorite for most. So I guess I’m just out of step with the rest on these. Check out the new trailer by clicking the image below or have a look at the embed after the jump.
Comments
76 responses to “‘Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows’ trailer”
This site is like a bizarro world. Everybody else on the net is raving about this trailer, and not just Potter fanboys.
Sawyer: No need to be dramatic, I simply don’t understand the appeal, just like hats and shaving.
Revised box office column for Sawyer-
Adam Sandler’s latest comedic triumph, “Grown Ups” earned $40 mil at the box office. The acting chameleon can do no wrong and his hilarious new comedy made some real grown up amounts of money. Keep up the good work Sandman!
“Jonah Hex” fell 70%, indicating word of mouth isn’t that great. Don’t ask me why, I though Brolin kicked ass in it and Megan Fox is sooo hot! Go see this movie guys!
@Chad…that’s not exactly what he meant. Now you’re exaggerating. The fact is we come to this site to read interesting commentary. IMO it’s not interesting reading the opinions of somebody who hates everything. Thus why there are those here calling for somebody else to do box office write-ups.
In other words…nobody likes unending pessism.
Pessimism*
Anybody that thinks I don’t like anything doesn’t really read my columns. I probably just don’t like anything that you like.
Until someone here can come up with a rebuttal to Chad that is at least half as much fun to read as his comments and columns, I see no need for replacement.
And yes, if you think he’s all about “unending pessimism,” tune into the Life Without Oscar column, which is easily one of the most illuminating reads on this site.
Chad dislikes a lot, but happens to like a lot of good movies that don’t get wide enough release, and mentions them at the end of his Sunday Cents column every week. He has introduced me to some pretty exquisite films.
I just want to go on record as being pro-Chad. His box office columns are laugh out loud funny. Just ask my husband who gives me weird looks twice a week.
We’re just saying it seems odd that somebody who hates mainstream releases and loves arthouse fare (aka, a film snob, the worst kind of cinephile) is writing box-office columns.
It’s like assigning somebody who hates football as referee of the World Cup. Otherwise, he’s going to be giving red cards to everybody.
Terrible analogy. More accurate would be to say that I love football but all my favorite teams play in the third tier leagues, yet I get assigned to the World Cup.
Incidentally, what is the best kind of cinephile?
Estefan, this is primarily an Oscar site. It’s supposed to skew a little snobby. If you want people praising the latest blockbuster, there are plenty of other places to find that on the internet.
Somebody who likes all kinds of cinema. Hollywood mainstream, foreign, independent, arthouse, animation. Those are the best people who can properly judge cinema. Critics like Roger Ebert and James Berardinelli fit into this bill. You can even throw Quentin Tarantino and George Lucas in there, too, what with their love of Godard and Kuwosara in addition to being fans of Star Trek and Toy Story.
Not to speak for Chad, but I think it’s quite clear that he likes all kinds of cinema. (Go check out his ‘best of the 2000s’ list for confirmation.) Nothing wrong with being selective within any bracket — “the worst kind of cinephile,” if you ask me, is the kind who asks too little of films.
Anyway, before you all pile up on one guy, I dislike the Harry Potter films too.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban almost made my best of the decade list.
I think I would respect Chad a little more if he had actually seen some of the latest blockbusters before knocking them. He said he refused to see Avatar or How to Train Your Dragon, two films that made really good business, and made snarky remarks about both of them without seeing for himself. I’ll give him the fact that he saw Toy Story 3, but he should probably see a few of the mainstream films he’s constantly knocking, and if he still hates them after that, then I’ll respect him.
As for Harry Potter, I loved the last book and can’t wait to see how it’s translated to the screen.
Where the Wild Things are made a lot of money, and made Chad’s Top of 2009 list. The Dark Knight is the third highest grossing film of all time and made Chad’s Top of the Decade list.
Do we have to see every film before knocking it? I would bet most of the people knocking Twilight above did not see it.
James D. nailed it. Before this turned into a debate about me, I was just wondering why Twilight gets vitriol thrown at it with every mention, while Harry Potter gets a free ride. Both were aimed at pre-teens originally, both seem to be getting a bit more mature with each episode and both are unimaginatively made off the Hollywood assembly line. Harry Potter might have a more distinguished cast and much, much bigger budgets to work with (and therefore more accomplished tech personnel), but that’s about the only difference I see (talking about the movies only).
That’s a decent point, Isaac. I was surprised when I learned that Chad liked The Dark Knight since that’s a film that a lot of people who weren’t predisposed to liking it had a field day nitpicking its various flaws. He may have found something to like in Avatar, who knows.
That said, I love Chad’s snark, and he wasn’t disrespectful or “snobby” when I asked him once about his film tastes, so I’m cool with him and his InContention duties (I love Life Without Oscar).
The Harry Potter series the perhaps the greatest production in the history of cinema.
Is that statement all that incorrect? I think that the series is so solid that it gets taken for granted and that if it were a completely American production it would get a lot more respect and kudos.
And I don’t mean incorrect in terms of spelling, as it should of course read: “The Harry Potter series IS perhaps the greatest production in the history of cinema”
Michael: I’m a Harry Potter fan myself, but you’re wrong.
The Harry Potter film series is a hodgepodge mismatched curiosity at best. It’s failings are mostly due to the Hollywood assembly line cranking out the films before the books were published. There’s huge lack on continuity as a series and not enough focus on anything in particular. It’s very glossy and somewhat superficial.
That’s not to say the films aren’t without their redeeming qualities. Plenty of great production design and cinematography, and I’d loved to have seen Jim Broadbent on the Oscar nominee slate last year.
That said, the books will be better served by the inevitable BBC miniseries we’ll watch in 20 years or so, with a much smaller budget, access to the full extent of the story, and more character, script based format.
I don’t necessarily agree with the statement… just putting it out there. But I do believe it is at least arguable. However, I’m not a good enough debater to make a winning case.
Although I would say that being a 10 plus year production operating outside of Hollywood, putting a whole new British studio on the map, casting 10 year old principles who have carried all the way through (without becoming car wrecks) as well as surrounding them with amazing senior actors, in addition to acquiring and maintaining top notch below the line talent and attempting to bring in the likes of Lurhmann, Gilliam, Del Toro, Meirelles, etc. whilst giving Cuaron his first big movie are all very positive points from a production standpoint.
Thats not even mentioning its pretty unprecedented consistency at the box office and as a world-wide phenomenon. As I said, just throwing it out there, disagree if you wish.
It does seem like the trailer showed mainly the second movie, hopefully the first isn’t bad.
Chad: Harry Potter has always been a best seller and an award winner. It has consistently gotten rave reviews, and the films have never dipped into the rotten scale at Rotten Tomatoes. Plus they’ve all been successful. Twilight, while successful financially, has never once gotten a fresh rating with Rotten Tomatoes, and men try to avoid it at all times. Along with the fact that the books are bashed by critics, and that people put it further up in class than Harry Potter, It’s pretty clear why people hate Twilight. I’ve seen Twilight, and I really wish I hadn’t.