Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part 2

Saw it today. Definitely one of the better films, though I still enjoy the artsy 3rd movie moreso. And I agree, the epilogue made me gag a little. Sooooo much cheese in it. And honestly, I don't need to see the next generation; I think it's a given that they all live happily together and have smex.

Sarah G said:

Can't wait to see this. I am going today at about 11:00am. Looking forward to seeing Neville's part.

Click to expand...

Went to see it loved it apart from the end. I would have preferd it to be like the book.

Where did it deviate from the events in the book? It followed it pretty faithfully, as I recall. (Even filming that awful epilogue...)

So want to see this. The only thing stopping me is the fact that my husband is gone for a couple of months, and we saw part one together. I will most likely end up seeing anyway`.

I feel a bit eh after seeing it. Spoiler warning.













==================================================
SPOILERSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
==================================================

I felt like the movie didn't know what it wanted to be. On one hand, it seemed to be aiming for this dark, grim, bleak aesthetic. I mean, just take a look at the opening scene--Snape on the ledge, a gray Hogwarts beneath, and that haunting music in the background.

Those opening moments? Beautifully done. Unfortunately, a lot of other scenes in the film which were intended to be dark/grim/haunting seemed to be trying too hard. Like the dialogue between what's his name and Fleur.

The order uses this as a hide-out. What's left of us anyway.

and everyone looking so somber and grim.

Beat me over the head with it, why don't you?

And then we have that scene with Aberforth. It just felt so forced to me. Like, okay, [insert dramatic scene with dramatic dialogue here]. Aberforth hardly even knows who Harry is (aside from being the boy who lived, that is) and now all of a sudden he's acting like he's known Harry for years.

Then there are moments that just feel flat out unrealistic.

Why would the students of Hogwarts sacrifice themselves for Harry? I don't remember how Rowling handles it, but in the movie, I couldn't help thinking, really? it's that easy? And McGonagal (sp?) has no problems sending first years into battle against death eaters?

Why did Snape's two henchmen simply stand there when McGonogal came at him?

Why did Snape not try to attack Voldemort and/or escape when it became clear Voldemort meant to murder him?

Why did Neville choose the ridiculous rambo route to blowing up the bridge when he could have just blown it up far in advance of the shield going down. Yeah, it would've been less "epic." But it also would have made a hell of a lot more sense.

And finally, there are moments where the movie tries to be funny and ends up going against the very dark/grim/haunting character which it's trying so hard to pursue.

Harry's dialogue with Seamus. "What is it?" "We don't know." "Where is it?" "We don't know." Really? You had a vision that it has something to do with The Gray Lady, remember? That's what led you back to Hogwarts, remember? Wouldn't you bring that up, Harry? Huh?

McGonagal turning schoolgirl and saying "Ooo, I've always wanted to use that spell!" Really? Really?

Then we have Neville, who survives his rambo routine on the bridge by clinging to the edge. And if that's not cliche enough, the second he pulls himself up he gives us the obligatory one-liner. "Well, that went well."

You also have characters coming out of nowhere. Pre-battle, Molly Weasley is walking side by side with McGonagal for god knows what reason, even though the only line she has in the entire movie is "Not my daughter you bitch." Turns out that Hagrid has been captured by Voldemort and being held at the forbidden forest, yet Voldemort makes no mention of that fact during his little public service announcement. Why then is he holding Hagrid hostage, if not to lure Harry in?

And of course, the final show-down between Harry and Voldemort. Well, it's an improvement over the book in the sense that we actually get a real fight (even though realistically, Harry couldn't even hold a candle to Snape, much less Voldy.) But it's a rather brief fight. And what the hell is up with Voldemort slapping Harry around? What is this, the UFC?

All that said, I don't think the movie was bad. But nothing special. I don't think it really knew what it wanted to be.

QueenViv said:

I know Harry will always be the hero, but to me he's the least heroic of the characters in the book. He's just an ordinary kid who was shoved into a situation he didn't ask for. I love the fact that [spoilers] in the end it was Neville who killed Voldemort. I find it awesome and ironic that such a great wizard feared the wrong boy all along!!! It feels incredibly Greek to me!!![/spoilers]

Click to expand...

I think Neville is a fun underdog to root for. He's picked on constantly through out his childhood by his peers, etc.. Even his 'friends' laughed at him(in a less horrific way perhaps, but it probably still hurt,) His mother/father were tortured to death. It's easy to see why people want to root for him.

However, I don't understand at all how anyone can say Harry wasn't that heroic(or one of the least heroic in the series.) Maybe he's not your favorite(and that's fine) but Harry was VERY Heroic. Put yourself in his shoes. All the things that Harry went through from the first book up to the last.

[Spoilers]:
1) Your mother/father were murdered.

2) You live with an aunt/uncle who love you so much that you live in a cupboard under the stairs.

3) You come face to face with the man(Voldemort) who murdered your parents(just after watching a fellow student be killed) and you're as helpless against him as you were when you were a baby. So you step out from behind a tombstone, prepared to meet your fate.

4) Everyone thinks you're so awesome, etc... then turn on you when you tell them that Voldemort is back. You're bashed in the papers. Made fun of by your peers, constantly called a liar(and worse), etc..

5) Your God father(who you grow to love like a father) is not only on the run for a crime that he didn't commit but he's killed in front of you.

6) Dumbledore, another father figure, is murdered in front you... by a teacher that CONSTANTLY BERATED you for your father's "sins."

7) You give up your life(school) to hunt down mysterious objects that might be the key to destroying one of the worst wizards of all time because no one else can do it.

8) Another friend(Dobby) is killed in helping to save your life.

9) You're constantly hunted by Voldemort(the most powerful person in the entire world.)

10) You're told(through Snape's memories) that in order to defeat Voldemort and save the world from him you have to die. Not only die but LET Voldemort kill you. The same person who killed your parents. [/Spoilers]



Again, it's okay that Harry isn't a person's favorite character(even the least favorite) but let's not pretend that he isn't heroic. Very few people could go through a fraction of that stuff and do the things that Harry does. Confronting fears, reaching inside yourself and doing what's right. That was Harry.

^ I think the issue with Harry isn't that he's not heroic, so much as he's not all that interesting. Voldemort is an interesting (albeit rather one-dimensional) character. Dumbledore is an interesting character. Snape is perhaps THE most interesting character in the series. Harry? He's just a regular kid, more or less, put in an extra-ordinary circumstance/set of circumstances.

Why did Neville choose the ridiculous rambo route to blowing up the bridge when he could have just blown it up far in advance of the shield going down. Yeah, it would've been less "epic." But it also would have made a hell of a lot more sense.

Click to expand...

Blow it up while Death Eaters are on it and ultimately you have less Death Eaters to fight one on one. Not that the bridge should have mattered much, since a lot of them can apparate. There's a rule about that in the books, but the film didn't seem to follow.

Mr. Anonymous said:

^ I think the issue with Harry isn't that he's not heroic, so much as he's not all that interesting. Voldemort is an interesting (albeit rather one-dimensional) character. Dumbledore is an interesting character. Snape is perhaps THE most interesting character in the series. Harry? He's just a regular kid, more or less, put in an extra-ordinary circumstance/set of circumstances.

Click to expand...

How else were the readers and viewers supposed to inject themselves into a character?

Mr. Anonymous said:

^ I think the issue with Harry isn't that he's not heroic, so much as he's not all that interesting. Voldemort is an interesting (albeit rather one-dimensional) character. Dumbledore is an interesting character. Snape is perhaps THE most interesting character in the series. Harry? He's just a regular kid, more or less, put in an extra-ordinary circumstance/set of circumstances.

Click to expand...

Yeah, considering all the crap Harry went through, you'd think he'd be a bit more conflicted.

Bartholomew said:

How else were the readers and viewers supposed to inject themselves into a character?

Click to expand...

That sounds messy.

Mr. Anonymous said:

^ I think the issue with Harry isn't that he's not heroic, so much as he's not all that interesting. Voldemort is an interesting (albeit rather one-dimensional) character. Dumbledore is an interesting character. Snape is perhaps THE most interesting character in the series. Harry? He's just a regular kid, more or less, put in an extra-ordinary circumstance/set of circumstances. (Emphasis added)

Click to expand...

I don't understand this last sentence. Honestly, it makes no sense to me at all. But then, while I don't regard heroism being as rare as some seem to presume, neither do I call it "regular." Frankly, my own impression is that some folks seem to demand that interesting characters must be overtly "quirky" in some not-very-specified way.

Harry seems to me a quite vivid character. When we meet him, he's not unlike an eleven-year-old male Jane Eyre, the orphan trapped in an unwelcoming, even abusive (albeit not terribly) home who's remained an essentially good kid. Even then he is sharp, has a temper he keeps under control (or works at it, anyway), is not at all self-pitying and refreshingly lacks much vanity. A somewhat atypical but mostly-attractive set of personality traits that feels true. He proceeds from there. At heart he's bright and talented, but not interested in academic subjects for their own sake. More a doer than a thinker or dreamer, which also shows in his choice of career and in his love of Quidditch. One formulaic part of all seven books (and very many more besides, for perfectly good reasons) is that Harry (and others) are pushed into a situation where they have to make a character-revealing choice. Such choices become something else as well--they become a habit, just as in real life.

I don't see why (for example) a stutter or being a show-off or believing in nargles would somehow make Harry Potter a better, more interesting character. He seems interesting and well-rounded with plenty of facets to me. Frankly, I've read plenty of folks going on and on about all his flaws, decrying the series for having as its hero such unethical, reckless, lying little egomaniac. That makes just as much sense to me as calling him "just a regular kid."

Poor Harry. Can't get no respect, can he?

I *like* Harry. What's more, I even liked CAPSLOCK Harry. Or, more to the point, I sympathized with him. I think he was interesting and doing interesting things, even when he was acting like a little git to his friends. *shrug*

Will finally go to see this on Wednesday and I'm really looking forward to it.

Thank God they didn't insert the apparition lessons into the movie. The film would have been six hours long. And apparation can only be done by kids who are of age. Harry isn't of age until his birthday party at the beginning of HPATDH. That's why they have to come get him on brooms, thestrals and Sirius' flying motorcycle--that and the trace.

Mr. Anonymous--

Aberforth Dumbledore has known Harry Potter for years. He's the barman at the pub where they have the meeting to set up Dumbledore's army. Also, he's been keeping an eye on Harry almost literally in the mirror, of which Harry has a fragment. The eye Harry thinks is Dumbledore is Aberforth, and that's why Dobby shows up to rescue them from the Malfoys' mansion.

Look--I went to see the movie, and while there were slight deviations in the story I thought they handled the material very well and with a care for Rowling's work. The three kids have grown up to be good little actors, and the supporting cast is the best collection of UK actors imaginable. The only thing that might make it better is for Lawrence Olivier to come back from the dead.

If someone goes to the movie looking for flaws, they're going to find them. But, if someone goes to the movie to experience the last hurrah of Harry Potter's world, they'll come away satisfied. Aside from the inevitable Hollywood treatment the battle of Hogwarts was given, including the dragon ride through Gringotts that has Disney ride written all over it, the producers remained faithful to JK Rowling's material.

And why not? SHE was one of the producers. That means that the script at some point went through her. If JK didn't object to the tweaks, I'm certainly not going to.

kaitie - I understood *why* he did it. But if you look at it realistically, the odds of successfully pulling that stunt off are so small that it would be much safer to blow up the bridge ahead of time, though as you mentioned, the wizards can still aparate (sp?) so why are we doing this in the first place? lol. I just felt Neville's rambo/han solo thing felt very out of place in a movie going for the dark, gritty, realistic feel.

Barthomlomew - You've hit on a big part of why the series is so popular, I think. Harry's a sort of everyman kind of character that almost anyone can project themselves onto.

David - lol. Harry is unique. But he's also just a regular kid, to my mind. Every human being on this earth is unique in their own way. However, despite this uniqueness, some people stand out as more unique/more individual. If Voldemort had gone after Neville instead (and harry's parents just died in a car accident after all), then it's likely Harry wouldn't have gone on to do a tenth of the things he did in the books. He'd probably have been just another kid at Hogwarts.

What makes Harry particularly unique is not his character (IMO) so much as the circumstances he is placed in, and I think one of the reasons for the series' immense popularity is that (especially with the earlier books) it gives readers a sympathetic character that they can see themselves in who acts in the way they would like to imagine they'd act under extreme circumstances.

mscelina -


Aberforth Dumbledore has known Harry Potter for years. He's the barman at the pub where they have the meeting to set up Dumbledore's army. Also, he's been keeping an eye on Harry almost literally in the mirror, of which Harry has a fragment. The eye Harry thinks is Dumbledore is Aberforth, and that's why Dobby shows up to rescue them from the Malfoys' mansion.

I realize that. However, Aberforth's direct interaction with Harry was minimal in the books, and as far as the movies go, I'm not sure they ever had any on screen interaction before Part 2.

I didn't come to the movie looking for flaws. I just thought, given how overwhelming positive the reviews were (96% on rotten tomatoes) that I would find it a stronger movie.

I am glad so many others were not similarly disappointed, and I freely admit that while I've seen all the films, I've never been a huge fan. So maybe that's also a part of it.

DavidZahir said:

Tomorrow is one of my best friend's birthday. I'm taking her to the show. And I'm bringing my wand. So there.

And for the record the best parody so far is this one.

Click to expand...

<Sings> Deathly Hallows, gotta destroy a horcrux...

Fab!

I thought it was a good movie, but not a great movie. But I was happy enough with it, though the Voldemort/Draco hug was just this side of awkward.

I will say the special effects finally came much closer to what I always imagined in my head when it came to the magic. The fiendfyre was really cool to see.

On a technical note, one thing I wished they'd done with the last two films was remove that light filter they used to make everything so gloomy. I get that they did it to create "instant mood", but when you barely get light at a beach house, I find it a bit annoying. Personally, I would have found it a bit more interesting to have a less gloomy palate to contrast the situation they find themselves in, at least before Hogwarts.

On a side note: whenever I see the later movies, I am always struck by how much their fight really is isolated from the rest of the world. You "know" that in the books, but seeing events in London makes it a lot more apparent.

To those asking why the Death Eaters didn't apparate, you can't apparate inside the grounds of Hogwarts.

I thought the film was good. Parts I wish had been done differently (namely Fred's death) but mostly I reckon we should just enjoy it for what it is, which is pretty damn awesome. I don't mind the epilogue. Yes, a little cheesy but I've grown up with these characters and needed to know that they were okay after everything.

fredXgeorge said:

To those asking why the Death Eaters didn't apparate, you can't apparate inside the grounds

Click to expand...

In the books, yes. The didn't really establish this in the films, especially this last one where people apparate during the fight (including Harry/Voldemort).

Over all, I thought the movie was well done. I loved (loved loved loved) the part in the Pensive. I thought that was executed perfectly.

The rest of the ending I did not like. Perhaps I'm just too much of a purist, but I don't see the purpose in changing things just for the sake of change.

The fact that they made Nevil a bumbling idiot instead of a hero for killing the snake seriously irked me, but that's nothing compared to how mad I was over the whole duel between Harry and Voldemort. I really wanted them to circle each other in a final stand off in front of everyone else in the wizarding world. I wanted there to be no questions in anyone's mind later as to what happened. I understand flying around is more dramatic, but they took out some outstanding dialogue.
"You wouldn't dare"
"YES I DARE."
It doesn't get any better than that. So instead, the dialogue added felt cheesy and forced. Not heroic.

I think they could have made just as dramatic of an ending while staying true to the book.

But maybe that's just me.

Sarah G said:

Went to see it loved it apart from the end. I would have preferd it to be like the book.

Click to expand...

Katrina S. Forest said:

Where did it deviate from the events in the book? It followed it pretty faithfully, as I recall. (Even filming that awful epilogue...)

Click to expand...

The post below is what i would have wanted to see as well and would have preferd it to stay like the book. In the duel.

cscarlet said:

Over all, I thought the movie was well done. I loved (loved loved loved) the part in the Pensive. I thought that was executed perfectly.

The rest of the ending I did not like. Perhaps I'm just too much of a purist, but I don't see the purpose in changing things just for the sake of change.

The fact that they made Nevil a bumbling idiot instead of a hero for killing the snake seriously irked me, but that's nothing compared to how mad I was over the whole duel between Harry and Voldemort. I really wanted them to circle each other in a final stand off in front of everyone else in the wizarding world. I wanted there to be no questions in anyone's mind later as to what happened. I understand flying around is more dramatic, but they took out some outstanding dialogue.
"You wouldn't dare"
"YES I DARE."
It doesn't get any better than that. So instead, the dialogue added felt cheesy and forced. Not heroic.

I think they could have made just as dramatic of an ending while staying true to the book.

But maybe that's just me.

Click to expand...