IGN: Is splitting the film version of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows into two parts the only way to do justice to J.K. Rowling's epic final book? Or is it a crass way of milking as much cash as possible from the series before it ends (possibly) for good?
The filmmakers have insisted the former of course - that there was too much good stuff in the finale to cram into one film. Nonetheless, when IGN visited the set back in March to see the movie being shot, all involved were clearly anxious to talk up how Part 1 of Deathly Hallows is going to kick some serious Muggle ass in its own right, and also be markedly different from any other film in the series, including the sequel.
With the new The Crow remake coming soon, we take a look back at the 30-year-old cult classic original–and where the stars are now.
Kaam Chalu Hai Review: Based on true events, this movie is thought-provoking and inspiring
Rebel Moon Part 2 Review: This movie doesn't feel anything new or worth remembering, which is a shame.
Normally I would say they are just milking the franchise, but after reading all of the books, I have to say that this isn't the case with Harry Potter. In order to really do the last story justice, they needed a lot of time. It's a massive story that covers a ridiculous amount of ground. If they tried to put it into one film, so many things would have had to been cut out, which would leave fans feeling shorted, and the story all the weaker for it.
Doing 2 films is a good way for them to get all of the story they need in there, pleasing the fans, and ending the franchise with a bang instead of a dud.
The last one I've seen was the Goblit of Fire....ever since then I never looked back.
Perhaps, during the winter season when I'm snowed in my mountainous feet of snow, ill give it a try again...but it really didn't cater to my liking.