web
counter
 

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 Review: I Have Finished the Race, I Have Kept the Faith

By Daniel Carlson | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (78)



Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows_Part_2_review.png

It’s wrong to think of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 as a film in its own right. While the previous films in the series have been just that — parts of a sequence designed to get us here, each with their own beginning and end — the first and second parts of Deathly Hallows are two halves of the same film, and to approach them as separate entities means missing just what director David Yates, writer Steve Kloves, and a host of storytellers and performers have done: They’ve made a five-hour fantasy epic that balances effects-driven battles with some very real character moments, and one that isn’t afraid to have its heroes pay a high price for their convictions.

Taken as a whole, Deathly Hallows is the best film in the series, and that’s because it’s the one that’s most like an actual film, possessed of its own rhythms and ideas, instead of an overstuffed adaptation of a book. The phenomenal popularity of J.K. Rowling’s franchise — more than 400 million volumes sold — has meant that the films have had to exist alongside the books, and as such, they were too often beholden to their literary predecessors to stand on their own. At their most ungainly, the films feel like nothing more than a tie-in or brand extension meant to capitalize on a popular figure in a new way, like a toy or clothing line. Kloves, who penned every film but the fifth (2007’s Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix), has been made to serve two masters, and the result has been some choppy films that try to capture every letter of the source material instead of merely conveying the central story in a smart way. What makes Deathly Hallows work so well is its double length, which lets Yates take his time and allow scenes to play out with their own energy. The film isn’t without its bumpy moments, which are marked by a confusion that can only have come from the trying to import too much from books, but the size and skill of the achievement here can’t be ignored. Yates has wrangled a massive story from the page and brought it to cinematic life with a grace and power far beyond that of most modern fantasy directors, and it will be his name and impact that are most associated with the series in the years to come. Deathly Hallows is, ultimately, a sweeping drama that rises easily above the series’ humble beginnings to achieve something special.

Since this is the second half of a film that began last year, it can only really be understood and enjoyed as such. The narrative hasn’t been sculpted into separate stories, merely cloven in two. The action here starts in medias res, with zero time wasted on catching everybody up with what’s happening, and the train doesn’t stop moving until the end of the show. Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson) are on the trail of the horcruxes, magical objects that contain pieces of the soul of Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes), who will go undefeated as long as the horcruxes exist. It’s an important distinction that Harry is determined to beat the Dark Lord but not necessarily overpower him. The films have all been about Harry growing in stature and skill as a boy wizard, but the finale is about something much more interesting: the willful forfeiture of power. Harry’s intent isn’t to usurp Voldemort’s throne or rule the wizarding world, but merely to save his friends and family from danger.

A fantastic result of this is the way the action scenes are almost downplayed. Harry and friends return to the besieged Hogwarts to mount a final defense against the encroaching armies of Voldemort, but none of the battles has an official start or stop. Once the showdown begins, skirmishes rage through the night, even when the narrative action slows down or shifts location. There are battles within battles, and fights used as backdrops for emotional confrontations, and barely glimpsed effects of unknown causes. The action’s still engaging, with a mix of smart choreography and winning effects, but it’s never treated as an end in itself. It’s always about what the characters are trying to achieve. Many attempted blockbusters today — if not all — feel reverse-engineered from a few key set pieces dreamed up by a graphics department, but the effects in Deathly Hallows always serve the story. Yates focuses on the soldiers, not the war.

It’s a gorgeous-looking film, too, or at any rate I’m going to believe that it is. Cinematographer Eduardo Serra (who also shot the first half of Hallows) expertly uses rusty ambers and mossy greens to play up the dirty grit of the story, set as it is in ruined castles, subterranean lairs, and imposing forests. Yet I cannot give an honest account of the film’s visual tone because I had the utter misfortune of seeing it in 3-D. This was not my preference, and I cannot stress enough how ugly, draining, and unnecessary the 3-D version of this film is. You lose a staggering amount of light and texture watching a movie through dark polarized lenses, and Deathly Hallows is a film that lives in the nuances of earth tones that are turned to mud by 3-D. The first half of Hallows was the most visually impressive Potter film to date, and I have to think the second half is of a piece. But regrettably, I do not know. I urge you to avoid the 3-D here at all costs.

The film cooks along through the final showdown, and it’s only the ending that undercuts Yates’ consistent focus on strength through sacrifice. (And here I must issue a spoiler warning. Apologies all. Skip to the next paragraph. Read on only if you know the end or do not care about being spoiled.) Harry is able to defeat Voldemort by giving of himself totally, and he’s actually killed by Voldemort only to enter a kind of spiritual limbo in which he talks to the departed Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) before eventually returning to conscious life. And when he beats Voldemort for good, he snaps the wand the dark wizard was using in two, tossing it into a chasm. It’s a simple, clean moment, and one acted with calm but unfussy determination by Radcliffe, and it beautifully speaks to Harry’s growth into a young hero who shies away from the cup of power. Yet the film then abruptly transitions to a future almost 20 years down the road, with Harry now married to Ginny Weasley (Bonnie Wright) and Ron and Hermione also wed. They’re all meeting at the train station to send their kids off to Hogwarts. It’s a disorienting and awkward change, not least because no amount of makeup or effects can keep these young actors from looking like kids playing dress-up. (Wright, for instance, is a sleek 20-year-old forced to look 40 via hip padding and unfortunate hair styling.) This postscript — lifted from the books, it should be noted — robs the film of its chance to go out on its own terms or wrap up the story in accordance with what it had held to be most important. Yates was closing in on a big and just ending that revolved around the pains of family and sacrifice and the way no one who loves is ever alone. Yet the epilogue is a ho-hum write-off in which Harry tells his son that it’s OK to be yourself. What started out as a denouement marked by hard-earned wisdom becomes a kind of public-service announcement fit for the end of a Saturday morning cartoon. The energy and ideas Yates had built over hours and years dissipates in one sad scene.

Does that doom the film, though? Not really. There’s enough here to balance out the shortcomings, and you can practically sense Yates surrendering to the fan-induced pressure to include unnecessary moments as long as it lets him gain a few minutes in other, better scenes. Hallows is still packed with wonderful moments, solid action, well-timed character humor, multiple romances, and a battle for the fate of the world. It doesn’t do all things well, but it does do quite a lot with skill, energy, and passion. Yates’ film can be broadly read as a metaphor for the coming-of-age of its central character: proud and beautiful, if occasionally wobbly. Overall, it’s a sweet and fitting end to a series that’s defined film fantasy for a generation, and it’s how we’ll remember Harry: young and strong, surrounded by friends, and welcomed by a grateful audience.

Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba and a member of the Houston Film Critics Society and the Online Film Critics Society. He’s also a TV blogger for the Houston Press. You can visit his blog, Slowly Going Bald.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Will You Still Be Sending Me a Valentine? Sizzling Ladies with Lines | The Sean Bean Death Reel









Comments

God-damn, I love you Daniel Carlson. I agree with every word.

Posted by: superasente at July 15, 2011 12:20 PM

Saw this last night. In 2D, thank goodness! It was indeed as beautifully gloomy as the first. Everyone will talk about the big obvious stuff, so I'll just make a few small observations. I was pleased to see Warwick Davis finally get a chance to do some real acting as Griphook.
**POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT**
Four scenes were short-shrifted: A sad ginger death, Mama's revenge, the long-awaited kiss and the wand decision. Just twenty or thirty seconds more of each of these scenes, for exposition's sake, would have made the experience more satisfying for me.

Overall, though, seeing it in my Molly Weasley costume, with my daughter in her Luna finest and all our wand-waving compatriots around us was a very pleasant conclusion to this long journey.

Posted by: Young_Grandma_Ben at July 15, 2011 12:21 PM

Agree 100% about avoiding this film in 3D at all costs. Completely unnecessary. I'm so tired of studios using this cheap gimmick to weasel another five bucks out of people.

And sorry, but "double length?" Say-o!

Posted by: bev rage at July 15, 2011 12:23 PM

Sadly, not having the book's denouement would have angered the Potter folks.

All the same, I think I follow many who started out disliking this series but came around after Prisoner of Azkaban.

Posted by: Fredo at July 15, 2011 12:25 PM

OK no one make fun but I am totally going to cry like a baby at the end of this movie. I just know it.

Posted by: JenVegas at July 15, 2011 12:27 PM

I forgot to mention being utterly underwhelmed by the buzzed-up trailer for that little Christopher Nolan film.

Posted by: Young_Grandma_Ben at July 15, 2011 12:31 PM

I feel like an asshole saying this, but I don't like the movies very much. I wish I could appreciate them like everyone else does, though.

Posted by: Allen at July 15, 2011 12:34 PM

Now that is an excellent review! You reviewed the movie without trying to be funny or cute. You didn't make any references to obscure movies or actors. Well done sir. 5 out of 5.

Posted by: logan at July 15, 2011 12:42 PM

Great review. Of course the film HAD to end with the ridiculous epilogue that the most devout Potter fans would concede is a bit trite and cheesy. However, after 7 books and 8 movies...you kind of earn the right to be smothered in nacho cheese, wouldn't you say? That being said, I thought the choice not to use older actors or even really attempt to age the kids at all (like I know they did a little here and there but...seriously they didn't try to age them AT ALL) was actually a freakin' BRILLIANT choice. To me it was Yates way of saying two things:

1.) The epilogue ending is silly and should be treated as such.
2.) We watched these three young characters grow from children to adults in one of the greatest fantasy epics of all time. We might as well have a bit of fun on our way out.

All in all, I'm not sure if this movie could have possibly failed. But I feel much more satisfied from this film than any other Harry Potter film. My only regret is John Williams couldn't be brought back on board for the finale. Oh wells.

Posted by: Littlejon2001 at July 15, 2011 12:53 PM

The epilogue in the book was underwhelming, not surprised that it was the same in the movie.

Posted by: Vi at July 15, 2011 12:55 PM

Great review. Snape, Neville, & Prof. McGonagall were my favorite parts of the movie, they stole every scene they were in.

Posted by: Snrub at July 15, 2011 12:57 PM

See logan? They brought out the big guns (Carlson) for the big movie and made a stylistically-appropriate review choice. Dustin knows his business.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at July 15, 2011 1:00 PM

I just hope they fixed the huge logical foul-up of the books. In the end of the books, Harry should have died.

*Spoiler*

If you can only get control of the wand by beating the one who previously possessed it, then Dumbledor was never the owner, the previous wand maker was because it was stolen from him. if it can be stolen, then Voldemort is owner, he stole the wand.

Posted by: Nico at July 15, 2011 1:01 PM

yeah, but the guy who stole it also killed the original owner so you can definitely say he beat him.

Posted by: Jeannine at July 15, 2011 1:05 PM

Lawyered!

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at July 15, 2011 1:06 PM

ah nevermind, you're talking about grindelwald and gregorovitch...sorry. although there's probably an explanation for that too.

Posted by: Jeannine at July 15, 2011 1:07 PM

I'd pay extra for a DVD that cuts the movie three minutes short.

Posted by: Victoria at July 15, 2011 1:11 PM

Nico, I was going to write you an impassioned post about what an idiot you are. When I started to explain your wrongness, I realized what you were saying, and I have to concede you are correct.

Also? I hate you. Forever. The end (Maybe?)

Posted by: Theresa at July 15, 2011 1:12 PM

Is logan Pajiba's new "secret shopper"?

Posted by: Scarecrow Boat at July 15, 2011 1:12 PM

Wait wait wait...who says he didn't disarm the shop owner and then steal the wand? Huh? Huh! That's what I thought!

Posted by: superasente at July 15, 2011 1:17 PM

Lawyered!

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at July 15, 2011 1:37 PM

So ... you're saying a beloved fantasy epic doesn't have to conclude with tacked-on endings, just because they're in the frakking books?

Is it too twee to treat an epilogue like, you know, and epilogue. Run it - or them - after the credits, or something. It's done with comedies all the time.

Jackson did the same thing with the many ending(s) to LoTR.

Yes, yes, I know, all 37 endings of LoTR are in the books. If you read the mythologies, the back 1/3 of LoTR matters. A lot. Indeed, you even get why Aragorn, Son of Arathorn, heir to this, bearer of that, and last scion of the other actually matters - you know, the guy running around Sherwood with his merry men while the world burns.

But, without the surrounding mythology, it's just WTF? Since they did the movies without filming The Silmarillion, without a mini-series of The Unfinished Tales, without Tom Bombadill & The River's Daughter or the Barrows, the 37 flavors of ending refer to nothing.

J. K. Rowling has said the epilogue felt important and necessary. But why? Are we doomed to tacked-on endings to beloved fantasy epics, bits that resolve some obscure issue in the author's head that never made it to screen?

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at July 15, 2011 1:39 PM

I bow to your greater wisdom and experience in these Pajiba matters Mrs. J.

Posted by: Logan at July 15, 2011 1:58 PM

I thought it was great until the last 15 min. *SPOILERS I suppose?*

when Voldemort actually arrived at Hogwarts. First they completely rob Neville of the surprise aspect that made his final and most important action in the book so sudden and powerful and surprising.

Second, the good guys get to die and leave bodies, yet volde and belatrix both get vaporized. THe final fight between harry and V in the book took place in front of the school and it left behind Tom Riddle's corpse. In the movie there are no witnesses and no body. He just walks back and there is no happy rejoicing, or even acknowledgement of the fact that Harry had indeed killed V.

All in all the movie was great, but I just felt the last 15 min. made some basic timing/editing changes that just took away from what made the books final showdown so great.

Good review though.

Posted by: Some Guy at July 15, 2011 2:23 PM

you have to have that epilogue because it's the circle of life, duh....and now I have that awful Disney song in my head. dammit.

But really, I am one of those mushy folks that likes to see this sort of happy ending.

Posted by: lil_a at July 15, 2011 2:29 PM

...and again: this is just a run down of what happens in the movie more than a review. it seems lazy to me...

Posted by: krifar at July 15, 2011 2:56 PM

Just a run down of the events of the movie? I didn't realize Harry was going so meta by having the screenwriter become one of the characters! Yates is going to be this year's Wilson!

Posted by: Socrates_Johnson at July 15, 2011 3:02 PM

I urge you to avoid the 3-D here at all costs

I avoid all 3-D movies.

That being said I will cry like a baby when I go to see this from the first time I hear that familiar music till the end.

Posted by: Jules at July 15, 2011 3:16 PM

Re: krifar

What was all that discussion about the strength of their acting, if not for the reveiew? What was all that talk of lighting and cinematography for? Why bring up their acting? Why note the impact of the small, personal moments? Why discuss the way that the action is not the point of the movie, but rather the backdrop to the character driven story? Why note the ineffective, distracting effects of 3D? Why evaluate the impotence of the tacked on ending?

Christ, what do you want to see in a review if not an intelligent, cogent evaluation of the movie?

krifar, you're either a very transparent troll that should congratulate himself for getting my blood up, or you're a fucking moron. Either way, I wish you were here with me now so I bitch-slap you into unconsciousness.

Posted by: superasente at July 15, 2011 3:19 PM

So stoked!! Gonna watch this tonight.

Please tell me that the flashback scenes with Snape and Harry's mom is as heartbreaking in the movie as it is in the books or so help me, I'm gonna cut someone.

Posted by: bjlove at July 15, 2011 3:22 PM

you're either a very transparent troll..., or you're a fucking moron

I'm pretty certain the Venn Diagram for that is a big circle with a smaller circle inside.

Posted by: Socrates_Johnson at July 15, 2011 3:27 PM

bjlove, I'm afraid you might as well take a knife to the theater with you. Just don't tell them I told you to do it.

Posted by: Young_Grandma_Ben at July 15, 2011 3:41 PM

We also were fortunate enough to see the 2-D print and loved it. I also felt the slights mentioned by Young_Grandma_Ben (and I also went in my Molly Weasley finest, with my lovely daughter as a beautiful Ginny). The audience we were with at midnight, largely older teens who had been on their phones and yakking non-stopped, were completely silenced by the beginning of the film. From then on, the only time anyone made a sound was to sob, cheer or applaud. It was magnificent, and worth only getting 2 hours of sleep before work today. My daughter will be 20 this Sunday, and has literally grown up with these characters....this movie hit her (and me) pretty hard. Endings are only the beginnings of beginnings...but that doesn't always make them easy.

Thanks, Carlson, for a well-thought out and beautiful review.

Posted by: dammitjanet at July 15, 2011 3:41 PM

Oh Superasente, that was lovely. I've taken a vow of kindness which precludes making certain comments; however, nothing is preventing me from being able to say, BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE!

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at July 15, 2011 3:43 PM

This was so wonderful. I cried a final time when the credits started to roll because it is over. I agree, the location change of the final battle bothered me, too, but so much of the rest was so good, I'll get over it. And watching Alan Rickman during those flashbacks - the man WRECKED me. I was prepared for a lot of the things that made me cry, but his performance in one part of that in particular I was just...the man is amazing. So much love for this movie, and this series.

Posted by: KatSings at July 15, 2011 3:53 PM

I think Nico is incorrect. The wand can be stolen, but only if from its master. Even though Voldemort stole the wand, he stole the wand from Dumbledore....but at that point, Dumbledore was no longer the master of the wand so it didn't matter. The allegiance was to Draco. I *think* there may be a difference between stealing the wand from its master, and stealing it from someone who has no power over it any longer.

Posted by: Caroline at July 15, 2011 4:00 PM

Caroline, you are a tasty individual. Thank you.

Posted by: Theresa at July 15, 2011 4:08 PM

I was pleased to see Warwick Davis finally get a chance to do some real acting as Griphook.

Totally agree. He brought a lot of gravitas to the character and made him the most believable goblin I've seen yet.

Overall I enjoyed it, some of the best work they've even done was in there. This was the first one that made me cry. But I was oddly bored for the first half - it wasn't until the arrival at Hogwarts that I really felt into it. Absolutely the BEST acting that Daniel Radcliffe has done. We've seen him do crying before, and torment, but I never really believed it until this film. Neville's "moment" was the fucking shit and I loved it - very very glad that his part did not get reduced this go round.

Please tell me that the flashback scenes with Snape and Harry's mom is as heartbreaking in the movie as it is in the books or so help me, I'm gonna cut someone.

Just. You. Wait.

Posted by: Lauren at July 15, 2011 4:54 PM

Hmmmm . . . Nico's point precedes the chain of ownership issue. If the thief (Grindelwald) stole the Wand from Gregorovitch, but did not take it from him, then it should not have been allied to him, nor to Dumbledore when he won it, nor Draco, nor to . . . you get the idea. I would go look it up but I am so, so tired . . . it's an interesting point, though.

Posted by: Lauren at July 15, 2011 5:04 PM

I'm pretty certain the Venn Diagram for that is a big circle with a smaller circle inside.

Posted by: Socrates_Johnson at July 15, 2011 3:27 PM

Dude . . . high five.

Posted by: Lauren at July 15, 2011 5:06 PM

bijove, I second Lauren. The Prince's Tale was done (almost) perfectly, which I'll take. Alan Rickman stole this film. It's his. The man is a wonder.

Posted by: annie711pm at July 15, 2011 6:01 PM

I better clarify my complaint about the Prince's Tale - I wanted more of it! Rickman is a genius. He's spent all these movies with that bitter mask on Snape, all the better to devastate us with the moments in this film when it slips. His face when McGonagall steps out of the crowd in the Great Hall was worth the trip all by itself. Everything after that was golden gravy. I just wish there had been more.

Posted by: Young_Grandma_Ben at July 15, 2011 7:04 PM

Saw this last night at midnight. Loved it to death, but I completely agree with your criticisms of it. Also, Nico, others mentioned this but (possible spoiler?!) killing the previous owner of the Elder wand doesn't give you its power. It's the disarming (theft) that does the trick.

A couple other issues I had.. (ACTUAL SPOILERS AHEAD) The most glaring was the fact that we never see Lupin or Tonks prior to their death. They never even mention the fact that they just had a baby! I'm biased because I love their characters to pieces. And then their deaths and Fred's are given barely any time at all, which I found a bit unfair.

Also, the Malfoys. I loved in the book when Lucius and Narcissus run back into the heat of battle to find their son and in the movie they're deprived of that moment of familial love.

But like I said. I loved it. I cried like a baby and wore my Gryffindor scarf proudly. Mischeif managed, indeed.

Posted by: beckster at July 15, 2011 7:30 PM

Others beat me to the punch on the elder wand issue. I think Caroline's completely correct. Were I in a better mental state I'd run to investigate the whole chain of ownership but I'm running on two hours of sleep after the whole midnight showing.. thing.

Posted by: beckster at July 15, 2011 7:35 PM

It's the disarming (theft) that does the trick.

But Grindelwald *didn't* disarm the wand's owner. He literally snuck in and took it.

Posted by: Lauren at July 15, 2011 7:45 PM

*Spoilers*
.
.
And then their deaths and Fred's are given barely any time at all, which I found a bit unfair.

I actually liked the way the film did it better than the book. We did see them beforehand: Lupin got that good line in the bell tower and there was the nice moment of the two of them reaching for each other before the attack started, which they beautifully re-created later. When I read the book it was such a throwaway, one-sentence thing: Tonks and Lupin are dead. The film made it much more poignant. As for the baby, since they've minimized Tonks' role from the start, I wasn't surprised that there was no mention of the baby - the pregnancy was a blip in DH part 1, so it would seem odd to suddenly bring it back in part 2.

Posted by: Lauren at July 15, 2011 7:53 PM

You're right about Fred, though - he got shafted.

Posted by: Lauren at July 15, 2011 7:53 PM

@Lauren -

Grindelwald actually stunned him though. That isn't disarming per se, but perhaps because a spell was used it has the same effect?

Posted by: beckster at July 15, 2011 7:54 PM

Really? I didn't remember that. Well, consider the matter settled. Thanks, Beckster!

Posted by: Lauren at July 15, 2011 8:00 PM

As someone who isn't a fan of the books or the previous movies (haven't read any of the books and only saw part one of this movie) I'd say part 2 was pretty good.

It was nicely put together visually. The fighting was well done and dramatic enough. Not knowing the full back story I didn't react as strongly as I probably should have to the plot. But it was good enough to make me care. So I would think Potter fans will like it well enough.

The Dark Knight Rises trailer showed scenes from the movie. I was a little surprised they did that considering how they handled TDK. But I guess it was more important to put off showing the Joker than what they showed this time, which was probably very very little in the scheme of things.

Posted by: Dave at July 15, 2011 9:18 PM

Mr. Stinky and the little Sinkies have left me home alone so they could drink in Part Deux of the Deathly Hallows. Awaiting their (lame) reviews.

Posted by: Stinky at July 15, 2011 10:19 PM

The Stinky twins (age 9) just phoned in their review (prior to scarfing down feast, past bedtime, at California Pizza Kitchen).

"MOM, it was awesome!"

I am taking them to see the movie AGAIN, tomorrow, when I wake up. (When the sun is warm...)

Posted by: Stinky at July 15, 2011 10:41 PM

The new Harry Potter movie was absolutely amazing! My daughter and I both loved it! :)

Posted by: India Zumba at July 15, 2011 10:46 PM

INRE: Nico, et. al. complaints about the chain of custody for the elder wand

let me go all fanboy here - the wand chooses the wizard. Grindlewald can't be shown in the story to have won the true allegiance of the elder wand, because if he had the wand's true allegiance, Dumbledore would not have been able to defeat him in a duel, which he did. However, the wand could certainly have recognized the power of Dumbledore during the duel and switched allegiance to him as a result. In fact, I'd say that's the direct cause of Grindlewald's defeat at Dumbledore's hands, and the reason that Dumbledore became a legitimate master of the wand, regardless of who the last true master was. Therefore, the rest follows from that point as logically as any fantasy story can be allowed to be - Dumbledore to Malfoy to Harry, thus Voldemort's defeat.

QED

Posted by: JrFanBoy at July 15, 2011 11:09 PM

Dammit, JrFanBoy, I was literally just logging in to write the exact same thing. Well said.

I thought the movie was great overall, but did anyone else think they made it seem like Snape was Harry's father? I didn't like how they handled the prince's story at all.

Posted by: Kristen at July 15, 2011 11:16 PM

Allen: Me, too.

I saw it in 2D -- I'll never see another 3D, I decided a while ago... So that was good.

I will give this movie a B-, for lack of time and energy on my part to fully explore why. Here is as concise a litany of complaints as I can manage, and THERE BE SPOILERS AHEAD:

Yates et al. ruined it with their unnecessary alterations to everything post-Harry returning to Hogwarts. As far as I'm concerned, it should have been written and filmed AS IT WAS IN THE BOOK. ***Spoilers Alert***

SPOILERS -- you've been sufficiently warned.

The Harry/Voldemort battle is supposed to take place in front of everyone.
Fred's death is given NOTHING.
Another 15 seconds to the Bellatrix/Molly fight would have made it cathartic, and merely keeping the "Not my daughter you bitch" line does not make up for the short shrift given the original text -- and that goes for everything that was slighted. (Incidentally, having Molly say "bitch" was the MOST jarring thing Rowling ever wrote. Utterly out of character for not only Molly but the entire series.)

That's just a small sampling of my complaints, which I may expand upon after this comes out on DVD and I have a chance to fully explore my disappointment.

So, disappointing, in the end -- and yet, at the same time, I wouldn't have missed it for the world, and there were plenty of things that were wonderful about it. Enough to ALMOST satisfy me, but not enough to make me forget the problems with it.

I love the HP books more than almost any others; perhaps that's why the films will never be more than Almost Adequate, ultimately -- no one could ever have done them true justice.

I've read this back and it makes virtually no sense. Too bad -- it's ridiculously late and I didn't sleep last night, either.

Posted by: Maryscott O'Connor at July 16, 2011 1:11 AM

Maryscott, I thought Molly saying "bitch" was completely appropriate for her character. She fiercely loves her family and children, and she was in the heat of battle; of course the claws would come out. Actually, I can't think of another character who could have delivered the line so persuasively.

spoilers, btw.

The only thing I missed in the movie (and I confess it's because I want to be a Weasley) is Percy's return. I know the films didn't cover Percy's departure from the family, so it made sense not to include that scene, but Percy's return and his witnessing of Fred's death was what made the death even more poignant. Just thinking about that scene makes me cry.

Posted by: Ruthie at July 16, 2011 2:04 AM

XXX's death is given NOTHING.

So true. I don't even think they showed his face. I wouldn't have known who it was if I hadn't read the books.

Posted by: Lauren at July 16, 2011 4:01 AM

I don't think I've been so angry at a movie before in my life. To be (sort of) fair, I have disliked all of the movies except DH1, but because I like DH1, I had high hopes for DH2. I also hated half blood Prince because (Spoiler for that book/movie) Harry was not petrified on top of the tower when Dumbledore was killed. He could have done something and didn't. Therefore, he should have felt hugely guilty. Harry in the movies is an asshole.

I also acknowledge that this will be long and some will think that I am nitpicking and should probably have stayed home instead of seeing the movie. To the former allegation, I contend that the changes made changed the substance of the movie. To the latter, I heartily agree.

Um. Spoilers.

They messed up Harry leaving to walk to his death-only supposed to tell Neville (who he also tells to kill the snake), NOT Ron and Hermione.

Voldemort is not supposed to be able to feel the horcruxes being destroyed. He is not supposed to know how close he is to mortality even after Harry comes back because he doesn't think they'll be able to find the diadem.

There was no reason to change the series of events when Harry et al get back to Hogwarts other than not wanting to pay the actors portraying the Carrows any more. The way it was, McGonagall is less badass (still pretty awesome, but much less so).

Lupin's spirit acknowledges their child in the movie. It was weird.

I also hate that they took the Percy Weasley stuff out of the movies. Imdb says he was back for this movie. I didn't notice.

Harry-Voldemort battle should have been in front of everyone.

Voldemort would not have forgotten about Nagini while he fought Harry. She should have been killed before him and in front of V, as JKR wrote.

Voldemort also would not have stooped to slapping Harry around, manually. That would have been too muggle-ish. It was also really out of character for him to hug Draco. wtf.

There were some pretty glaring continuity errors, too:
1. Harry confronting Snape in a Hogwarts robe and then, after a change in perspective, was suddenly back in his school clothes.
2. Immediately after that scene, Harry is running up to the Ravenclaw tower against crowds of people running the other way. Everyone was supposed to be in the great hall for Snape's "Potter is back. Get him" thing. How did they all get back up stairs before Harry? is he that slow?
3. George Weasley lost an ear in DH1. It was back.


To sum up: this movie made me mad.

Posted by: Chipwitch at July 16, 2011 9:28 PM

I thought it was rather good. Once the film got to Hogwarts, it really took off and managed to be the kind of engaging fantasy film the whole series should have been. I loved how they glossed over so many of the deaths to actually focus on what was important to Harry. It would take an idiot to not understand what happened during the big battle and a blind fan to complain that their one favorite death wasn't a 10 minute scene. The films and novels are called Harry Potter and because he is the focus.

Plus, with so much glossed over, I'm able to create wild Harry Potter conspiracy theories about who was knocking boots with who throughout Harry's life. Is there stuff I wish was better explained? Absolutely. Do I feel like I missed out on essential narrative because of quick cuts and that memory montage? No. Am I compelled to read the last few books I've put off because the third novel bored me so? Perhaps.

Posted by: Robert at July 16, 2011 11:01 PM

Chipwitch: I agree with your disappointments, but the Snape stuff was so fan-flipping-tastic, it saved it for me.
Robert: You STOPPED after the third?! 4-7 are about a trillion times what the films are. You owe it to the quality of your LIFE TO FINISH THE SERIES. You will not regret it. Mark my words.

Posted by: annie711pm at July 17, 2011 1:58 AM

annie711pm, I find it much more pressing to get through the complete works of James Joyce, Henry James, Mark Twain, Jane Eyre, Kurt Vonnegut, and Virginia Woolf than to finish out a children's fantasy series. I got through the third book by virtue of the one clever sentence Rowling threw in every fifty or so pages. The story interested me more than the writing and I got the gist of that through the films.

Posted by: Robert at July 17, 2011 9:37 AM

Check out the big brain on Robert!

Posted by: JrFanBoy at July 17, 2011 10:06 AM

Robert, I hadn't realized Jane Eyre was such a prolific writer. If you feel the need to be snobbish about other people's book choices, at least be correct about it. As someone who reads all those authors (and Charlotte Bronte), I can very emphatically say that the Harry Potter books are worthwhile.

Posted by: chipwitch at July 17, 2011 11:27 AM

the inability of Rowling (and the movies) to carry the storyline to its logical conclusion - and have Harry actually die - makes this a very long anticlimax. the ultimate sacrifice never has to happen, the fairytale ending replaces what could have truly been a great lesson for young readers: sometimes, doing the right thing doesn't guarantee you a happy ending.

that's why the awkward prologue is actually perfect for the series... and they all lived happily ever after.

Posted by: someone needs to say it at July 17, 2011 1:28 PM

Since we've digressed in discussing the merits of the series rather than of this particular movie...

Harry dying is not the "logical conclusion". It's simply one of many possible conclusions that a large portion of the readership wanted to see happen, not because it made the most sense but because it was the most jarring.

The entire thrust of the Harry Potter story is the power of love as the strongest kind of magic. If you accept that love prevented Voldemort from killing him as a baby, then I'm sorry but you must also accept that that love prevented it from happening a second time. Compounding its effect, of course, was the fact that Harry willingly went into the forest to die to protect his loved ones, knowingly full well that Voldemort would likely kill them anyway... the very same sacrifice his mother and father made for him.

Yes, the epilogue was a bit too cheery but please remember that this was not a cheery story towards the end. Beloved characters died, often harshly and unexpectedly. Sure, Ron, Hermoine, Harry and Jenny all lived and went on about their lives, as did a host of other popular characters. But the list of popular characters who died tragically is just as long. It was a dark handful of books there at the end. And as cheery as the epilogue may be, it doesn't take away from that.

Posted by: Lennon at July 17, 2011 2:20 PM

Oh, Robert. You obviously have no graduate training in literature or literary studies. If you did-- the only thing that could have possibly warranted your level of snobbiness-- you would have already known that children's literature, cultural studies, and serial narratives are all highly respected and prestigious fields in academia. And yes, Harry Potter falls into all of those categories. Right now, more scholarship about Harry Potter is being published than any of the Bronte sisters. Oh yes, as chipwitch pointed out, Jane Eyre is a fictional character. Have fun with that.

Posted by: Ruthie at July 17, 2011 3:02 PM

This was the most silent I have ever experienced people in a movie theater. I didn't even hear people munching on popcorn. That silence was amplified by the choice to downplay the music.

Every time anyone in the audience sniffled a bit from crying, you could hear it, it was that quiet.

That made the experience very powerful to me.

Posted by: DominaNefret at July 17, 2011 3:27 PM

JrFanboy : If that were true, and the want chooses its owner, then we are to believe that the "theft" and "taking/winning" of the wand is immaterial, that the wand could just change ownership whenever it wanted? The problem is that if Grindlewald was never the true owner, then Dumbledore couldn't have won it off him, instead the wand's true master would still have been the wand maker that Grindlewald stole it from, thus NOT going to Malfoy, not to Harry, and Harry dies.

Posted by: Nico at July 18, 2011 3:21 AM

The Harry Potter wiki includes a lot of info on the Elder Wand lore

"Many owners were killed by their successors in a lust for power. In time, the legend included an assumption that murder is necessary in order to attain mastery of the Elder Wand. "

Gindewald stunned Gregorovitch in order to gain the wand's allegiance, then when Dumbledore defeated him, he became the master of the wand.

The wiki is an interesting read for sure...

Posted by: Ashley at July 18, 2011 11:18 AM

Loved it. Love the books (especially the audio read by Jim Dale). Sure there were differences, big deal. Honey badger don't care...

Posted by: MRod at July 18, 2011 11:37 AM

Nico: "the wand could just change ownership whenever it wanted?"

uh... yup

If it is canon that a true master of the elder wand cannot be defeated in a duel, then Grindlewald CANNOT be a true master of the wand as evidenced by Dumbledore's DEFEATING HIM in a duel.

Simple possession is not enough for true mastery of any wand. Wands are established in story as semi-sentient of any given possessor at least. wands can learn. wands can respond differently depending on attempted user. this isn't just shown for the elder wand, but all wands in the story.

IF the elder wand responds to evidenced power of a wizard AND IF it is being wielded by someone less powerful who is not its true master THEN it will not perform fully for said wielder. This is why Voldemort kills Snape in the first place but also why he uses Nagini to kill Snape instead of using the wand.

Is this really such a sticking point given everything else one must accept to even hear this story?

Posted by: JrFanBoy at July 18, 2011 12:20 PM

If it is canon that a true master of the elder wand cannot be defeated in a duel, then Grindlewald CANNOT be a true master of the wand as evidenced by Dumbledore's DEFEATING HIM in a duel.

Sadly (that I know this), I don't think that's right. The "true" master of the Elder Wand is someone who has accepted death. Those who defeated the wand's previous master were "masters" of the wand, but were only "true" masters of the wand if they'd accepted death.

Also, mastery of the wand doesn't make one impervious to defeat. That's the myth-within-the-story. It's just a really powerful wand.

Posted by: Friendless Nerd at July 18, 2011 5:51 PM

good points. what I was getting at is circumstances for a user to have the wand's complete allegiance at any given moment.

either way, it doesn't seem like either Grindlewald or Voldemort ever had the complete allegiance of the wand.

also, "if"

Posted by: JrFanBoy at July 18, 2011 8:06 PM

WHERE. WAS. THE. VOLDY. IS. DEAD. PARTY?!?!?!


The omission of the celebration ruined the movie for me. To endure all that pain and suffering and uphill battle crap and not rejoice when it's all over? I was pissed when they were all sitting there at the end, ignoring Harry, not even acknowledging the fact that "Voldy's going moldy" (even though he randomly disintegrated, whatever) - to me that is what made the book feel so spot on. In the same way that people were hooting and hollering at the ends of WW1 and WW2 even though so much violence happened, the natural release of everyone's excitement was what made me feel so good at the end of the books. This movie ended on a wimper.

BOOOOO. I'm pouting. I want a party.

Posted by: Peeved at July 19, 2011 1:04 PM

Saw it last night.
Thought it was a great finale to a great series.
So many movies these days, fantasy or otherwise, are just fluff. Kleenex to be thrown away after use.
This series has heart, balls and staying power.
That said, I took issue with a couple of "rewritten" scenes as well.
SPOILERS***

1) They totally dropped the ball when they scrapped JK's version of how Neville killed the snake. It was a hugely powerful moment in the book and would have been amazing on screen.

2) The "Snape's memories in the pensieve" scene should have been 2-3 minutes longer. The point got across but it could have been so much more powerful.

3) The final showdown between Harry and Voldemort needed to be in front of the entire populace as it was in the book. Once again a very powerful scene was reduced from what it could have been...

Posted by: East Coast Ugly at July 22, 2011 1:10 PM

I'm no pyromaniac, and I love Neville Longbottom as much as the next HP fan, but damn it I REALLY wanted to see his head on fire!

And what was with Neville's whole "You know, I've learned something today" monologue? I half-expected to see Kyle or Stan rolling their eyes in the background.

If only they'd followed the book from Snape's revelation onward. What a hell of a finish that would have been. Or, if you MUST change from the ending, at least make it better ala Frodo & Gollum fighting over the Ring at Mount Doom instead of Gollum toppling into the lava. You know, awesome changes--not like filming a tiresome monologue instead of "I'll join you when hell freezes over" or excluding a joyous mosh pit of relief and euphoria after Harry kills Voldemort for a "oh hey, sup dude" chill session. But seriously, they better have a deleted scene of Neville doing a Roman Candle on the dvd. I want to get my money's worth!

Posted by: KKO at July 31, 2011 3:05 AM

"energy and ideas Yates had built over hours and years dissipates in one sad scene"
I have one issue with this statement Mr. Carlson. Have you not read the Seventh book? If so I can see why you say this; but if you have read the book, did the movie make you forget that Voldemort did not die even similarly as in the book?
"Does that doom the film, though? Not really. There’s enough here to balance out the shortcomings,"
I won't say that this one scene(Voldemort's death) would doom the film, but I think that many people who have read the Seventh book would agree that if the scriptwriter fails to address a major point in the storyline such as this, that the critics would be all over an error such as this. Please tell me why you have overlooked such a big shortcoming.

Posted by: Casey at August 13, 2011 6:27 PM