Harry potter deathly hallows part 2 imdb

HARRY POTTER DEATHLY HALLOWS PART 2 IMDB MOVIE

The awards nominations and wins that 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2' received from group critics have been removed from the table. Tenebrae ( talk) 23:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Awards Table

HARRY POTTER DEATHLY HALLOWS PART 2 IMDB MOVIE

contribs) 21:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC) A point I make in a post in a different section on this page: A good horror-thriller or fantasy film or modest little indie, for example, may get great reviews by the majority of critics for what it is, but are they really comparing it with High Noon or Raging Bull? Does the 100 percent for the Harry Potter movie here mean that it's as good as or better than Citizen Kane? So short of saying 'universally positive reviews for the kind of movie it is,' saying 'positive reviews' is both neutral and accurate.

Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffymoose ( talk Because it is considered one of the best reviewed films of the year, and typically, films that are some of the best reviewed films of the year should be recognized by more than just saying it got positive reviews. Whatever, just get rid of the edit block and at least put widespread critical acclaim. Since the Goblet of Fire scored an 87% there is no reason to consider it critical acclaim when the Deathly Hallows part 2 scores a 96% - Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.27.132 ( talk) 03:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Anything lower to a 70% is generally positive.

Looking at the discussion its clear that there is a consensus against using that term.- 70.24.207.225 ( talk) 23:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)ДЄny film that is rated a 90% or above is critical acclaim. So why did wikipedia, just out of the blue, decide to change it? - Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.242.120 ( talk) 17:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Likely because it someone noticed it and decided that universal was not the best term.

Well, it said universal acclaim before, with those same reviews written underneath it.

в†ђ Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrotsв†’ 23:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Betty Logan ( talk) 22:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC) From the ratings given in the 'reception' section, it's perfectly obvious that it did NOT get 'universal' acclaim. в†ђ Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrotsв†’ 22:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC) This is currently under discussion in the section above it will be changed once there is a consensus regarding the wording. It literally implies 100 percent approval, and I don't think any movie has gotten that. Both good things, but still change it to universal acclaim because that's what it used to say and now that it doesn't, for some reason, it's pissing me off.ДЇluffymoose ( talk) 22:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC) 'Universal' is a slippery term. The reason why is because universal critical acclaim and positive reviews are two VERY different things. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.Д¬hange where it says 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows received positive reviews to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2received universal critical acclaim.' There are two sections one at the top of the page and oe near the bottom of the page under Reception. 16 Suggestion to delete previous & current record holders.13 UK opening weekend vs Prisoner of Azkaban.

Harry potter deathly hallows part 2 imdb