The robot sequel’s steep drop of 52 percent from last week was expected; that’s typical for these big genre franchise summer spectacles, which tend to fizzle fast after making a big splash on their opening weekends. The decline might have been steeper, but ‘Transformers’ has earned unexpectedly strong word-of-mouth and generous reviews.

‘Horrible Bosses’ continued this summer’s streak of successful R-rated comedies, premiering in second place with an estimated $28.1 million. That’s about what was expected, given the film’s A-list cast (including Jennifer Aniston and Kevin Spacey) and its strong reviews (see ours here). It earned an impressive $9,247 per screen, comparing favorably to the $11,503 per-screen average of ‘Transformers,’ whose tally includes 3D and IMAX surcharges.

Opening in third place, ‘Zookeeper’ also did well, scarfing up an estimated $21.0 million. That was right in line with predictions for the film, whose talking-animal premise and lead performance by human teddy bear Kevin James made ‘Zookeeper’ the weekend’s top pick for family fare. Poor reviews aside, a lot of kids dragged their parents to see this one, judging by studio polling that found 59 percent of the audience to be over the age of 25.

In its third weekend, ’Cars 2′ endured another drastic drop (42 percent) and finished fourth, driving off with an estimated $15.2 million. With a total of $148.8 million to date, it’s the lowest-grossing of Pixar’s 12 movies, though it’s poised to overtake ‘A Bug’s Life’ ($162.8 million) over the next few days. (Of course, that was $162.8 million in pre-3D, 1998 dollars. Going by number of tickets sold, ‘Cars 2′ will still rank last.)

Coming in fifth was ’Bad Teacher,’ whose third week saw earnings estimated at $9.0 million. That’s a 38 percent hit from last weekend’s business. Still, it’s not too shabby considering that it was competing against ‘Horrible Bosses’ for fans of raunchy comedy. Its three-week total stands at $78.8 million.

Despite the success of the top three movies this weekend, box office for the year is still down 8.3 percent from this time in 2010. (Grosses for 2011 stand at $5.4 billion, about half a billion off from last year.) Receipts for July 2011 are down 11.1 percent from this time a year ago, when such smashes as ‘Despicable Me,’ ‘The Twilight Saga: Eclipse,’ and ‘Toy Story 3′ were all in theaters.

The full top 10:
1. ’Transformers: Dark of the Moon,’ $47.0 million (4,088 screens), $261.0 million total
2. ’Horrible Bosses,’ $28.1 million (3,040), new release
3. ’Zookeeper,’ $21.0 million (3,482), new release
4. ’Cars 2,’ $15.2 million (3,990), $148.8 million
5. ’Bad Teacher,’ $9.0 million (2,962), $78.8 million
6. ’Larry Crowne,’ $6.3 million (2,976), $26.5 million
7. ’Super 8,’ $4.8 million (2,292), $118.1 million
8. ’Monte Carlo,’ $3.8 million (2,473), $16.1 million
9. ’Green Lantern,’ $3.1 million (2,015), $109.7 million
10. ’Mr. Popper’s Penguins,’ $2.9 million (1,996), $57.7 million

In honor of this summer’s easiest-on-the-eyes performers, we’ll be putting together some photo galleries and video collections of these women’s sexiest scenes on film all summer long — strictly for your viewing pleasure.

After the jump, have a look at the upcoming schedule of our Summer’s Sexiest Women series, including links to our first three entries for your viewing pleasure.

There’s nothing like escaping the summer heat by spending two hours inside an air-conditioned theater, unless of course you’re watching one of these stunning starlets scorch up the screen …

Moviefone Mama Says: After more than a decade of reading and watching along, the story of the Boy Who Lived is finally about to end, and it’s an incredibly emotional experience. Those of you who are fellow Potterheads will need a box of tissues with you to get through the spectacular final installment of the most successful movie franchise of all time. Even if I weren’t an admitted Harry Potter fangirl, I’d still consider the tale of Harry’s last stand against Lord Voldemort the best blockbuster of the year. After Harry, Ron and Hermione return to Hogwarts, we’re reunited with some of our favorite professors and schoolmates, all of whom remind us why this film series is such a magnificent epic.

Did You Know?: You may not recognize her at first, but the actress who plays Rowena Ravenclaw’s daughter Helena is Scottish beauty Kelly Macdonald, whose own film debut was the very un-family-friendly ‘Trainspotting.’ For some further Potter trivia, check out our ’By the Numbers’ feature.

Parent Concerns: If your children were alive when ‘Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone’ hit theaters in 2001, they’re old enough to see the final film. But if they’re still in single digits, it all depends on how close they are to being a tween and whether they can handle the emotional and violent sequences in the movie. This is the bloodiest entry of the series, and there are many deaths, including several characters we’ve grown to love over the years. Although it all “ends well,” kids sensitive to on-screen deaths may need to wait to see if the Chosen One vanquishes the Dark Lord.

Here are three talking points to extend your movie-going experience:

1. The Prince’s Tale
Severus Snape has an unbelievable character arc in this film, and we learn all about his true allegiances, his background and the reason he killed Dumbledore in ‘Half-Blood Prince.’ What does his backstory make you think about him? Does it excuse his cruel treatment of Harry and his friends? Is he redeemed or unredeemed and why? Ultimately, do you consider Snape a hater or a hero?

2. Rising to the Occasion
Some of Harry’s best mates have always faced danger, simply by virtue of being his friends. But in ‘Deathly Hallows, Part 2,’ characters like Neville Longbottom (Matthew Lewis) and Molly Weasley (Julie Walters) become heroes in their own right. Smitten sidekicks Ron and Hermione, meanwhile, finally admit that they’re in love right in the middle of battle by sharing a long-awaited “now or never” snog. How do extraordinary circumstances transform the supporting characters?

3. One for All, All for One
Harry Potter is one of literature’s best examples of the hero archetype: He faces many daunting aspects of his epic mission alone, but along the way he needs a lot of help, primarily from Hermione, Ron, the Order of the Phoenix and his friends in Dumbledore’s Army. What makes Harry a hero — his destiny or his choices? What about his friends — what sacrifices do they make to help Harry? Is Harry “perfect,” or does he have character flaws? Compare Harry to other popular heroes like Frodo or Luke Skywalker.

Three to See: Epic Adventures

1. ‘Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone’
Young kids who aren’t ready for ‘Deathly Hallows’ can still enjoy the series’ first film, which chronicles Harry’s introduction to magic and his first year at Hogwarts.

2. ‘The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe’
Kids will adore seeing the Pevensie siblings discover the magical land of Narnia, meet the wise and selfless Aslan, and help defeat the White Witch.

3. ‘The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring’
Director Peter Jackson’s adaptation of JRR Tolkien’s fantasy epic is nearly universally adored by audiences and critics alike, and for good reason. Haven’t met a teenager yet who didn’t love this beautifully acted trilogy.

Moviefone recently sat down with Matthew Lewis to hear his thoughts on closing out the long-running, super-successful ‘Harry Potter’ franchise, and he let us in on a secret or two. Check it out below, and if you missed it yesterday, here’s our sit-down with Rupert Grint, who plays Ron Weasley. (And check in tomorrow for our talk with Tom Felton, aka Draco Malfoy.)

If Lord Voldemort had only interpreted that pesky prophecy a little differently, we might well be gearing up for ‘Neville Longbottom and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2.’ Instead, Harry Potter became the Chosen One, but that doesn’t make Neville’s journey any less compelling.

The windfall at issue here is the billions earned by the Potter film franchise, a jackpot that will expand one last time with the release of series capper ’Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2′ this week. On the one hand, the franchise’s success has been a boon to the British film industry, pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the U.K. filmmaking community, showcasing Great Britain’s wealth of acting talent, and making England more attractive as a film-shoot location for international productions. On the other hand, the influx of Hollywood money (even as homegrown funding sources are jeopardized) threatens to turn British movies into Hollywood clones, destroying the local flavor and character of a national cinema that was once idiosyncratic, groundbreaking and unique.

It may seem churlish to grumble about the impact J.K. Rowling’s boy wizard has had on British cinema. After all, thanks to her insistence, the movies were all shot on English soil, with British crews and technicians (and even British special effects houses) and all-U.K. casts. For 10 years, the Potter films were to British actors what the ‘Law & Order’ TV franchise was to New York City actors: a reliable source of employment that gave a job to nearly every local with a SAG card. (Well, yes, there were a handful of prominent British thespians who never waved a wand at Hogwarts.)

And now that the series is done, it’s not as if Warner Bros. is packing everything up and taking it all back to Burbank. In fact, the Hollywood studio purchased Leavesden, the studio where all eight movies were shot, and has pledged to invest another $100 million to expand the facility. American productions will be filming in England for some time to come. This year alone, such prominent non-Potter projects shot in England include ‘Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides,’ Martin Scorsese’s upcoming ‘Hugo,’ and this month’s ‘Captain America: The First Avenger.’ (Insert ironic outsourcing joke here.)

But with all these Hollywood productions, where is the homegrown British cinema? If everyone in the British filmmaking community is working on American movies, who’s minding the store?

One reason Hollywood likes filming in Britain is that the government offers generous tax credits to foreign companies shooting there as long as they put a sufficient percentage of Britons on the payroll. So those tax incentives (as well as the films’ profits) represent money not being plowed back into the local economy.

Still making strictly British films are independent production companies like Working Title, but otherwise, there’s no counterpart to the Hollywood studio system. As a result, only a few dozen British movies are made each year.

For a long time, there was government funding available for modest-budget movies. It was national lottery money, distributed by the U.K. Film Council. Throughout the first decade of this century, the council provided £160 million ($258 million) in seed money for 900 movies, including such hits as ‘Bend It Like Beckham,’ ‘Gosford Park’ and ‘The King’s Speech.’ (Yes, ‘Gosford Park’ had an American director, but it had a British writer, a mostly British cast and decidedly British subject matter.) Last year, however, the British government (on its current austerity kick) disbanded the U.K. Film Council, prompting much protest in the local film industry.

The reason given for abolishing the council was its supposedly high overhead; in fact, the jeopardized lottery funds will still be made available to filmmakers via the supposedly more efficient British Film Institute. It’s still not clear, however, whether the BFI will distribute money in the same pattern (that is, spreading out the risk by funding many low-budget films with an eye toward modest returns) or go for a more Hollywood model (funding a handful of big-budget spectacles in the hope that they’ll attract a mass audience and blockbuster revenues).

Which approach will the BFI take? Prime Minister David Cameron seemed to suggest the latter in remarks last November. Citing the ‘Potter’ series as an example British filmmakers could learn from, he said, “We have got to make films that people want to watch and films which will benefit beyond themselves as they will also encourage people to come and visit our country.”

Many in the filmmaking community took this to mean that the industry should focus on commercial, Hollywood-style films that serve as chamber-of-commerce infomercials for tourists. A more measured set of remarks came later that month from culture minister Ed Vaizey, who suggested that the imported and homegrown film industries have a relationship that’s symbiotic, not antagonistic, and that they can both flourish without damaging each other.

Still, it seems a lot of British movies have already been following Cameron’s advice. Over the past decade or so, it seems that the British movies that have become the biggest hits already have a lot of American DNA. The Guy Ritchie-style gangster movies would be unthinkable without the stylistic influence of Quentin Tarantino. Richard Curtis’ romantic comedies (including ‘Four Weddings and a Funeral,’ ‘Notting Hill,’ and ‘Love Actually’) all depend on Anglo-American casts and all mine humor from the temperamental differences between Brits and Yanks. Even ‘The King’s Speech’ seems less a British costume drama than a formula-fitting effort to make the kind of British drama that American audiences (trained by years of watching Miramax imports) would like. (There’s the costumes, the World War II-era setting, Colin Firth and Helena Bonham Carter, and just a hint of naughtiness.)

British filmmakers didn’t always look to Hollywood for inspiration. In the 1940s and ’50s, the Ealing studio comedies (‘Kind Hearts and Coronets,’ ‘The Ladykillers’) were dark satires (darker than most American comedies) lampooning characteristically English personality types. The 1960s saw a revolution in British filmmaking that (along with British Invasion rock ‘n’ roll acts) made London the world epicenter of hipness – from the kitchen-sink realism of John Osborne’s dramas to the sexually liberated young adults in movies like ‘Alfie’ and ‘Darling,’ to the gory yet elegant horror films made by the Hammer studio (usually starring dapper Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing), to the state-of-the-art spy thrillers (the James Bond movies, Michael Caine’s ‘Harry Palmer’ series, John le Carré’s ‘The Spy Who Came in From the Cold’).

British films began to slump in the ’70s, a decade that also saw an increasing number of major Hollywood productions shoot in England (notably, the ‘Star Wars’ and ‘Superman’ movies). The ’80s and early ’90s saw something of a comeback, led by the Merchant/Ivory team (adapting classic English novels into crowd-pleasing costume dramas) and George Harrison’s Handmade Films (quintessentially English comedies, like the Monty Python films and ‘Withnail & I’). The ’90s also saw maverick directors from England, Scotland, and Ireland (Mike Leigh, Ken Loach, Danny Boyle, Neil Jordan, Jim Sheridan) break through to worldwide audiences despite their regional subject matter and thickly accented casts.

And then, along came Harry.

It’s unlikely that there will ever be a franchise this huge again. Recent attempts to create new, kid-friendly, Potter-like franchises on British soil (‘The Golden Compass,’ ‘Stormbreaker’) have failed. The Narnia movies (three have been made so far out of a projected series of seven) haven’t been as consistent in quality or box office appeal as the Potter pictures.

So ‘Harry Potter’ may not be the most viable model for the British cinema of the future. British filmmakers, bureaucrats, and even visitors from Hollywood might want to keep that in mind, rather than turning away from the quirky, eccentric, modestly-scaled, independent-minded movies at which British cinema has traditionally excelled.

Whether you were one of the huddled masses parked outside a theater on midnight or are currently trying to sell a kidney for a ticket, hit the jump for the full review of the biggest darn of movie of the whole darn summer. 

What’s It About?
‘Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2′ picks up where the ‘Part 1′ left off, with Voldemort getting his hands on the fabled Elder Wand by exhuming Albus Dumbledore’s grave. Harry, Ron and Hermione barely escaped the clutches of Bellatrix Lestrange and those damn Malfoys, thanks to Dobby making the ultimate sacrifice for the sake of Mister Potter. With the Death Eaters searching high and low for them, our heroic trio heads out to Gringotts Bank and then to Hogwarts in the hopes of finding and destroying Voldemort’s remaining horcruxes — all in the hope that the next time the Dark Lord takes a dirt nap, he won’t be getting up again.

It’s the final film in the ‘Harry Potter’ series, wizards have never been more pissed off at one another, and if you didn’t understand a word of that synopsis, don’t expect this movie to clear it up for ya.

How Does It Compare to the Novel?
Well, in terms what’s been left in and what’s been left out, it actually follows the source material incredibly well. It’s not a verbatim translation by any means, since the only way to successfully manage that would be to turn back time to 2001 and turn this into a seven-season TV series, but considering that the big finale clocks in at just over two hours, veteran Potter screenwriter Steve Kloves pulled off quite a feat by cramming as much into this script as possible without leaving any major plot elements on the back burner. On top of that, it’s also funny, genuine and gives even the most minor of supporting characters a chance to have their moment in the sun. Daniel Radcliffe has some wonderfully subtle moments as Harry, Matthew Lewis demands his time on-screen as a newly badass and uber-confident Neville Longbottom, and even Maggie Smith gets a chance to whup some ass as Professor McGonagall — and what’s not to love about watching a 70-year-old woman whup some ass?

And not only is this a great way to start from both screenwriting and acting perspectives, but for those of you who have read the novel, you already know that the second half of the book is far more exhilarating than the first. In ‘Part 1,’ we watched Harry, Ron and Hermione putz around in the woods for two hours as they scratched their brains and twiddled their thumbs trying to figure out how to off one measly horcrux and make some sense out of Dumbledore’s painfully ambiguous last will and testament. It was good for what it was, it served its purpose and it definitely had its moments, but it pales in comparison to the constant chaos of ‘Part 2.’

Make no mistake, this is a wizard war of the highest order, riddled with nearly as much defeat as victory, and you’ll realize from the very opening minutes of the film that director David Yates flat-out nailed the tone for this final showdown of good versus evil. The action is great, danger looms everywhere, and we had a total blast cheering our heads off with everyone else in the crowd from one invigorating scene to the next. This is all good in its own right, but when you look back at Chris Columbus’s fittingly lighthearted tone that the series started out with back in ‘Sorcerer’s Stone,’ it will only make you appreciate that much more how dark, serious, and mature ‘Part 2′ is from start to finish. More than anything else, the way it establishes that sentiment and continually showcases the way these actors and their characters have grown from children into soldiers is exactly why this movie worked as well as it did.

Even if you’re a newcomer to the series (certainly a strange place to start), it’s a breathtaking thing to just sit back and look at. As much as we love the “raining ink” effect Yates started using with the Pensieve back in ‘Order of the Phoenix,’ this is easily his best-looking effort to date, as he’s really mastered bathing everything in gray, an excellent visual complement to everything else that Yates and his crew accomplish here.

But of all the things that could have gone wrong, the one that had us most concerned was how it was going to handle Severus Snape. In the first seven movies, Snape never really got his fair share of attention from the camera despite the fact (and it is totally a fact) that he ends up being one of the best, if not the best, character of the whole bunch in the long run. But thankfully, we can rest easy on this one. Not only does Snape get the due he deserves, Alan Rickman absolutely steals the freakin’ show when he channels his inner Hans Gruber during Snape’s tenure as Hogwarts Headmaster along with a heartbreaking, albeit much too brief, performance during a pivotal moment in his character arc when you realize that he might just be even more awesome than Dumbledore. Part of it is the stellar way that Rowling wrote Snape to begin with, but Rickman delivers like he’s never delivered before, single-handedly raising the bar for the entire cast. Are you paying attention, Academy voters?

In regards to the original question, though, no, it’s not as good as the book. The biggest thing that holds it back for us is how it doesn’t really capture the mind-boggling amount foresight and scale that Rowling injected into the seven novels that only became clear by the last novel. It’s probably not even a gripe worth mentioning if you haven’t read the novels, but we loved how she tied everything together by slowly revealing the true importance of certain seemingly insignificant objects, and that was something we missed even if we’re not really sure how it could have been fixed in the first place. In addition, some of the flashback sequences border on being cryptic to the point of possibly confusing those who haven’t read the books. But other than that, we’ve got nothing but praise.

Is It Worth Seeing?
If you haven’t read the novels or been following along with the movies, you won’t know what in the hell is going on here and you may very well hate it, regardless of how pretty it is to gawk at. If you haven’t read the novels but have been keeping up with the films, there’s a lot to love even if those said flashbacks might raise a few eyebrows. But if you were one of the many who donned a lightning bolt on your forehead for a midnight screening yesterday because you swear by the books and have been counting down the minutes since that cliffhanger at the end of ‘Part 1,’ we don’t think you could ask for more.

‘Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2′ is a perfect swan song for a extraordinary franchise that exceeded our expectations and then some, thanks to a clear appreciation for and understanding of a story that deserved the royal treatment. It truly is an emotional experience for anyone who’s watched this cast grow up over the course of 10 years and anyone who’s been enchanted by J.K. Rowling’s spell. When all was said and done, we couldn’t have been happier with the way it turned out. We really didn’t think that there would ever be a ‘Harry Potter’ film that would top what Alfonso Cuaron did with ‘Prisoner of Azkaban,’ but sometimes it’s nice to be proven wrong.

The current single-day record at the box office is held by another ‘Twilight’ film, ‘New Moon,’ with $72 million, which ‘Potter’ may break as well. The film is also currently on track to surpass another record, the opening-weekend grosses set by ‘The Dark Knight,’ with $158 million.

Anyway, following up on our recent talks with Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley) and Matthew Lewis (Neville Longbottom), Moviefone sat down with Tom Felton, aka Draco Malfoy, for a few minutes and picked his brain on how he uses information from the books to inform his role. We also asked him about that moment in ‘Deathly Hallows, Part 1′ where Draco has the chance to identify Harry to Bellatrix Lestrange, but mysteriously chooses not to do so, thus saving Harry some considerable pain and, likely, death.

I am a huge Star Wars fan. Unfortunately, I had the rotten luck of being born in 1985, too late to see any of the original films in the theater. Everyone tells me how awesome it was — how people were hooting and hollering when Luke blew up the Death Star, the collective gasp when Vader revealed he was Luke’s father, watching Han Solo get frozen in carbonite. And yeah, I saw all the “special editions” in the theater when they were released in 1997, but the enthusiasm (from what I’ve been told, anyway) didn’t come close to what it was decades earlier.

I was always annoyed that I missed out on those initial Jedi antics on the big screen. What’s great, though, is that it doesn’t matter anymore. Why? Because my generation has its own billion-dollar franchise to fawn over. When ’Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2′ leaves theaters for good, I will finally have my own set of films to brag about. It’s too bad for anyone who will be born at the end of 2011 or later: You have no idea what you missed! It was awesome! You weren’t there, you wouldn’t understand!

The movie theater lobby at the midnight showing of ‘Deathly Hallows, Part 2′ was buzzing. People of all ages were dressed in Gryffindor scarves, wizards’ robes and even fake Hagrid beards. There were drawn-on lightning scars, magic wands and broken eyeglasses.

It was looking out at this crowd of super-excited Harry Potter fanatics when it dawned on me: This franchise means so much to so many people. Millions of children, teens and adults will forever be affected by the wizarding world J.K. Rowling created.

In a way, it’s sad. I woke up this morning and realized that (more than likely) there will never be another Harry Potter book or movie. The battle of Harry vs. Voldemort has finally come to an end. But the story is far from over — this series will live on for many, many years. Not only will I be able to tell my kids about them, I’ll be able to say how I witnessed firsthand, in front of hundreds of fellow fans, the finale to one of the best stories ever told — how we laughed when we saw Ron’s costume and beard as he, Harry and Hermione tried to break into Gringotts; how we cried when we saw Fred Weasley dead on the floor of Hogwarts, his family crowded around him crying; how we erupted in cheers when Neville slayed the evil snake Nagini; and how, when Lord Voldemort’s body finally disintegrated into the air, we let out a collective sigh, knowing that our hero’s journey had finally come to a triumphant conclusion.

In the end, it’s comforting to know that a movie franchise of this caliber still has the potential to affect millions. Sure, the books obviously helped with that, but when was the last time people of all ages had this kind of enthusiasm for a film? ‘Star Wars,’ perhaps? That’s not to say ‘Harry Potter’ is better than ‘Star Wars’ or vice versa. (Although, if you have a second, check out Deadspin’s hilarious NSFW comparison of the two franchises.) It’s that movies like this are timeless, and they live on long after their release.

After the jump, watch a teaser clip with Darren Criss, who played Harry Potter in the viral video and also plays Blaine Anderson on ‘Glee,’ singing ‘Not Alone’ for the wizarding crowd. We’ve also got a few preview photos from their panel.