Harry Potter Deathly Hallow Part 2

So what did people think?
I appear to be in the minority, finding it rather underwhelming.
But first, the good things:
- Neville.
- Anything Snape-related.
- Ralph Fiennes.
- Anything involving the adult wizards.
- Hermione-Bellatrix
Otherwise, though, it left me with a profound sense of "oh, is that it?"
It's exactly the problem that I feared it would have, after seeing Part 1. This is, of course, largely something that would only affect somebody that hasn't read the books, such as myself:
Deathly Hallows Part 1 is all build-up, with no climax. As such, it felt like an unfinished film. It just stopped halfway through a scene. While I loved the film and really enjoyed it, the abrupt cut off didn't work as a cliffhanger, or as an 'end of part 1', or anything from a sensible narrative point of view - it just stopped.
Deathly Hallow Part 2 is all climax and no build-u-. As such, the climax is emotionally weightless and nothing has any particular resonance. Because I wasn't given any time to settle in to the world and characters, I didn't really care about anything that was happening. It was literally like walking in on a movie's final 20 minutes having missed the rest of it.
As I stated at the time Part 1 was released, they should have released both parts simultaneously. If I'd seen Part 1 and then had the option of immediately (or the next day, or whatever) seeing Part 2, it might have worked. Separated by months, it simply doesn't work. By the time I'd remembered what was going on, half the characters were already dead.
Which isn't to say it was a bad film. It isn't, by any means. But it does seem that while Yates was perfect for the character-based stuff in the previous few films, he didn't have the sense of scale to handle this climax in a suitable manner.
Also: after the Gringotts break-in, did Ron and Hermione actually do anything in this film?

Comments

  • "I appear to be in the minority, finding it rather underwhelming."
    Well, I am with you on that one.
    While I did enjoy the movie and I didn't feel it was waste of money, I left the cinema feel nothing.
    No inspiration coursing through my veins, no hype and no writing home to mum about it.
    I also felt the ending was very flat.
    Regardless, I will be buying it when it comes out on Blu-ray and will watch the first and second part together.
    Any further judgement about both the movies will be held until then.
    Now I am not certain, but in two scenes there where some very blurry pixies and I believe they where this guy..
    http://www.daz3d.com/i/shop/itemdetails/?item=2344
    P.S. One of the best scenes in the first part was the small Deathly Hallows Story animation.
  • I wasn't satisfied either. It did feel really strange to only be watching a climax...
    Also, was it shot in video? The overall image looked funny, so I'm guessing it was. I wish Hollywood would stick with 35mm and quit shooting in 4k.
    The acting was, for the most part, disappointing. It often ruined the emotion of the scene. There were a few exceptions, especially Helena Bonham Carter playing as Hermione pretending to be Bellatrix Lestrange.
    Being a fan of the books, I was very disappointed in how far the movie departed from the final book. The movie stayed fairly close to the book until the climax (of the climax). Then, it changed completely. Was that necessary?
    One of the movie's rare treasures was at the very end, when they played some of the original John Williams music.
  • Yeah there's quite a lot that could have been done better in my opinion.
    First, the split between Part I and Part II. As you guys have mentioned, it meant the first part was kinda slow to get going, then when it did get going the end credits rolled. Part II meanwhile is all go within 10 minutes.. I would have put the Gringotts scene in Part I, because it ends well - nice cliffhanger as Voldy realises his horcruxes are under threat. It also means there's a ton more space in Part II for epic things.
    Speaking of epic things, where were the badass battles of Part II? A massive fight between wizards, giants, thousands of giant spiders, ghosts, dementors, werewolves, house elves and all the rest is described in the book in great detail. In the film, we get a few good moments (Molly vs. Bellatrix, Aberforth vs. Dementors), but the bulk of it is missed out. Considering how excellent the duels at the end of the Order of the Phoenix were, its a shame there isn't more of that in Part II. Instead there's a few background shots as Harry legs it, and lots of aftermath.
    I wonder if they were just worried about time, and fitting things in.. if that's the case, why do that daft Voldemort & Harry flying around bit? And to save even more time, chuck the whole "19 years later" bit in the bin. It was lame in the book, and poorly executed in the film. BAM, 10 minutes more for some epic fight scenes.
    I for one am hoping for an extended 4 hour cut of this film with all the good bits done properly.

  • Also, was it shot in video? The overall image looked funny, so I'm guessing it was. I wish Hollywood would stick with 35mm and quit shooting in 4k.

    How did you think it looked funny? It was all on 35mm but like almost all large productions now they use a digital intermediate. Christopher Nolan is an exception to this, cutting all his films in the traditional sense.
    I think its becoming increasingly hard to tell the difference between films shot on digital versus 35mm. Though films that have extensive and over the top colour grading make it more obvious. It will be interesting to see how 'The Hobbit' looks as Jackson intends to shoot and project at 48fps almost completely eradicating motion blur, a quality some people feel is essential to that 'film look'.

  • How did you think it looked funny? It was all on 35mm but like almost all large productions now they use a digital intermediate.

    It just had a video game look to it. That was probably because of all the CGI. Come to think of it, Part I looked fine.

    It will be interesting to see how 'The Hobbit' looks as Jackson intends to shoot and project at 48fps almost completely eradicating motion blur, a quality some people feel is essential to that 'film look'.

    Have you seen any stills from it? They do have a strange look to them, but I can't quite figure out why. Is the contrast is too sharp? Hopefully grading will fix that. I thought Avatar looked good, although I have heard some people complain that the image was too sharp.
  • I actually disagree, I thought the film was brilliant. In part 1 I think Radcliff didnt stand up to the quality of the acting delivered from Emma Watson and Rupert Grint, but he delivered in the final part. I thought the film looked visually stunning, especially the castle. I thought the story was delivered very well and came to a fitting conclusion. The ending provided a nice feel good close to the story.
  • The cinema I saw it in had a useless picture

  • It just had a video game look to it. That was probably because of all the CGI. Come to think of it, Part I looked fine.

    Yeah, it definitely has a videogame-ish look, though I think Part I did too.
    And although I'm generally a staunch film purist and hate the look of digital projection and filmmaking, I must say (and have said since the 6th film) that for a movie series like Harry Potter, the videoy-underlit sort of effect of digital filmmaking actually really works for the storytelling.
    It's got a very little-bit-off, surrealist sort of look and feel in my opinion, and this is partly what drew me into being so engrossed in the sixth film and rejuvenating my interest in the series. Likewise for the last two movies (both of which I immensely enjoyed).
    Though it's technical specs on IMDb read it as using the Arricam, it's always been my understanding that David Yates used a mixture of methods and employed digital cameras in the making of his 3 Potter films- and they all (especially the final film) have a markedly digital look.
    But unlike the videoy-blur and grain of most digitally-shot movies in nighttime sequences, the video-game-y sharpness and greyscale canvas of Yates' last two really capitalizes on the pluses of the format.
    And I'm not one to say that lightly or easily. Harry Potter is one of the very very very few movies I give a pass in for shooting digital. Because it doesn't seem the easier or cheaper route in their case, but rather, the most-appropriate one for the story.
    Definitely has a digital feel, though. Part II does more than Part I because (obviously) it's less grounded and naturalistic (as most of Part I takes place under overcast skies in the woods) and more fantastical and CG- which lends itself more to the seams of digital-y-ness showing through.
    Overall, as I've said before- I loved the film. In my opinion, you've got to take the last two as a whole, and not try and decipher them as separate entities. They serve to illustrate separate moods and plot points to a story- but it's ultimately the same story in both- and to dissect them does a disservice to their filmmaking/storytelling/the movies themselves.
    But why split it up, then? Obviously, because the material yearns to be the long length that the two films together create; it's only natural to lengthen into two films rather than truncate into one. Would we have got the heart-wrenching dance between Harry and Hermione were Part I absorbed by Part II? Would we have seen the stillness and acceptance of Harry to his own demise in the Forbidden Forest were Part II absorbed by Part I?
    I don't know, but I'm glad they exist as they do. Warner Bros. and the creators really seemed to just, some inconceivable way, 'get it right'. They didn't quite try to market the films as completely different things (like the last films of the Twilight series), or cheapen them by pushing it into an abbreviated 'mega-movie' at once.
    Instead, like a good book, they accepted the length and did their best. Pushing through the first act (or film, in this regard) with appropriate setup and character development, only to take a break and return to the story with excitement and intrigue for the final payoff. I thought it was classy, for lack of a better word. The sheer time and talent and aching commitment and hardwork that is so evident in the last two Potter films- and how well, if not perfectly, they've translated the concluding bits of such an epic franchise- are facets of filmmaking that leave me in awe.
    I was 11 when the series started on-screen. Harry was 11. I've grown up, in some sense, as he has in the film world. And I'm damn happy with how it all ended, resolved itself. Was it my exact vision? No. But do I care? Absolutely not. The Potter films aren't books that you envision your own world within- they're escapist, fantastical, uncommonly-well-made big-budget movies. I can take the good with the bad and forgive the misgivings.
    Because at the end of the day, Harry Potter is a series that WB could've cashed-out and rebooted twice by now; and instead they did it right. Put time and talent and spared no expense in developing something quality over the course of a decade. And I have continual respect and admiration for them doing this.
    Easily I can still say it's the best movie of the year. (And I've seen a lot of movies. 50+ in theaters right now.) Especially when you consider the implications of the franchise, the breadth of talent and scope of the production, and are able to brush off your minor annoyances and look at the last two films with a full gaze.
    But that's just me.

Sign in to comment

Leave a Comment