Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Pt 2: Grading and reviews

[JiNX-01]

I think it was done well. I like that it's very gray and very dark. I was in the second row and I really loved how the Warner Bros. icon kept gettting bigger and bigger as if it engulf the audience. I thought it was funny.

The death of George was affecting (well, it affected me anyway). I love that sweet hapless Neville of seasons one through five stands up and urges Hogwarts loyalists to fight even tho' Harry is dead.

I'm definitely going to buy the DVD.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I just came back from seeing a matinee viewing and thought it was really well done, in fact I thought it was brilliant myself. This part of the finale captured all the emotional highs and lows that the book contained. I have no real significant problems with it. I thought the pacing was pretty tight. I absolutely loved the epilogue (I know it gets a lot of flak from fans but whatever it is one of my favorite parts of the book and I look at it as something of a pay off or treat from Rowling). Some strong acting performances once again from the three leads and the adult actors. Alan Rickman is a god among men. I will be seeing this at least once or twice more before it leaves theaters and will be adding the DVD when it comes out. I gave it a B by the way 3/4 stars.

 

[Shazam!]

I'm giving it a 10/10 (or 4 stars out of 4).

lol

 

[NCC74894A]

Just got back from seeing it in 2D. Will see it in 3D later this weekend.

My only big problem with it was the same one I had with the book, namely that it needed one more chapter in between Voldemort's defeat and the coda for a proper farewell to all the supporting characters at Hogwarts (think the extended coda of The Return of the King movie).

The manner of Voldemort's death kind of threw me for a loop as well - it almost seemed like he started dying as soon as Nagini (his last Horcrux) was killed, and didn't even need Potter to finish him off.

There were a ton of little things I thought should have been done differently too, especially toward the end, either because they were different from the book or were kind of left unexplained. All in all though, a satisfying conclusion to the film saga.

 

[Neroon]

Just got back from seeing it in 2D. Will see it in 3D later this weekend.

I saw it in 3D this morning and truthfully... I didn't feel it was worth it. None of the people in my party felt that way. Personally, I 'd save my $$$ if I were you.

 

[DigificWriter]

I'm giving it a 10/10 (or 4 stars out of 4).

lol

I have absolutely no idea why you're 'lol'ing me, but whatever. I stand by my review and the score I gave it (I'm not the only one who gave it 4 stars, BTW; a local radio personality - Doug Wright (see The Doug Wright Show and KSL's Movie Show - also gave it 4 stars).

 

[Snaploud]

I purposely chose to watch it in 2D. It's more relaxing, and the picture is brighter.

 

[CaptainCanada]

I saw it in 3D, but only because the midnight showings at my cinema were all in 3D.

 

[RoJoHen]

It was a good movie, though certainly not my favorite from the series. I think it could have stood to be about 20-30 minutes longer to make room for more of the smaller characters. Fred's death, for one, was glossed over too quickly. They spent more time on George's ear in Part 1!

I also think these movies were poorly named. I don't know how different the books are, but these movies had very little to do with the Deathly Hallows. They kept foreshadowing that whoever possesses all three Hallows becomes a Master of Death...and then nobody ever possesses them! The Resurrection Stone didn't even serve a purpose except to allow Harry's dead relatives to give him a pep talk.

I also did not like the Kings Crossing death scene. It felt way too much like the beginning of the third Matrix movie with Neo, possibly dead, waking up in a stark white train station.

Overall, it was very good, but there are a lot of small, nitpicky things that I think would have been better with a little more explanation and screen time.

 

[Admiral_Young]

All of the movies used the same name of the books. I agree that Fred's death was glossed over but I did like how they dealt with all the mounting deaths festering inside of Harry.

 

[Stevil2001]

I liked that there was a Neville/Luna moment.

I think it's weird how the trio accidentally killing the guy they brainwashed into helping them is played for laughs. Especially when two scenes prior Harry was praised for his empathy with nonhumans.

 

[RoJoHen]

All of the movies used the same name of the books.

Yes, I know that.

 

[CaptainCanada]

I also think these movies were poorly named. I don't know how different the books are, but these movies had very little to do with the Deathly Hallows. They kept foreshadowing that whoever possesses all three Hallows becomes a Master of Death...and then nobody ever possesses them! The Resurrection Stone didn't even serve a purpose except to allow Harry's dead relatives to give him a pep talk.

Harry possesses all of them, though at different times. Thus, in the book Dumbledore says he is the true master of death.

In the book there's more about how Dumbledore was obsessed with gathering the Hallows as a young man, but they're mostly used the demonstrate the temptations of power. Also, the three brothers in the Tale of the Three Brothers are analagous to Voldemort (died for power), Snape (died for love), and Harry (greeted death as an old friend, becomes the true master of death).

 

[RoJoHen]

Harry possesses all of them, though at different times. Thus, in the book Dumbledore says he is the true master of death.

In the book there's more about how Dumbledore was obsessed with gathering the Hallows as a young man, but they're mostly used the demonstrate the temptations of power. Also, the three brothers in the Tale of the Three Brothers are analagous to Voldemort (died for power), Snape (died for love), and Harry (greeted death as an old friend, becomes the true master of death).

The problem with the movies, though, is that they barely even touch on it. Who cares if he's the Master of Death? Him possessing all the Hallows has absolutely zero consequences.

 

[DarthPipes]

I just got back it and I really enjoyed it. It wasn't perfect and it took me a while to get into the movie due to what they cut out. But I finally decided to stop fussing over all of it and just enjoy the experience.

The film was definitely very emotional and the battle scenes were tremendous, particularly the CGI monsters. Good work once again from the trio and the strong Ron we get carries over to this one. Although Hermione is practically hanging all over Harry in this one.

I was surprised with just how touching Snape's death scene was. This was a change from the book I liked very much and it was well-played by both Rickman and Radcliffe. They went through the Prince's tale (I can't remember the name of the chapter) quickly but it hit all the right notes. Though I found Snape holding a dead Lily to be a little creepy.

I really liked the performance of Ralph Finnes as Voldemort. You can see Finnes has a blast playing the character. Voldemort is pure evil but Finnes does a great job expressing the character's fear and weakness when he realizes he's losing his immortality. I found Gloating Snape to be a hoot. The scene where he tries to hug Draco was hilarious because you can see how foreign that kind of thing is for someone like Voldemort.

We finally get to see more of McGonagall and that is a good thing. Loved that they teased Neville and Luna. Did anyone else see those two exiting the Hogwarts Express during the epilogue? I thought I did. Dean Thomas is about a foot larger than the rest of the Hogwarts students. The English actors are professionals...even Emma Thompson comes back for a blink-and-you-miss-it cameo.

Kelly McDonald has been a favorite of mine since No Country for Old Men and I read she got nominaed for an Emmy for Boardwalk Empire the other day. Really liked her scene as The Grey Lady with Harry.

I agree that the manner of Voldemort's death could have been done much better but I'm glad they expanded the fight between the two. To me, their confrontation in the book totally works with Harry verbally tearing him down and finishing him off quickly. In the movie, you need more of a confrontation and a bigger bang. Although I wish there had been more of a verbal confrontation going on, particularly with Harry taking Voldemort apart with his words. Although when Harry threw the wand away at the end, I kept thinking "But he hasn't fixed his wand yet!"

Thought the Room of Requirement scene was very good. I liked how the three combined to destroy the horcrux. In case anyone was wondering where Crabbe was, the actor who played him got busted before filming began for growing canabis plants and got sentenced to probation. So they didn't bring him back. Why they didn't just recast the role, I'll never know.

I really enjoyed the epilogue because it really brought back memories of the first film, particularly with John Williams wonderful score.

Like I said, the film wasn't perfect. I hated that Dumbledore's backstory was virtually ignored. I know it's not essential to Harry's story, I get that. But to me it was good to show that as great as Dumbledore was, he was also a very flawed man. The films have been reluctant to paint him or Harry in any kind of a bad light.

I can understand them wanting to give Snape the big, emotional death but I really thought Fred's death should have been an on-camera one. They fucked up there. The shot of Remus and Tonks lying side-by-side was very effective though and just like the book.

Like I said, certain things were cut, certain things were very unclear, and certain things didn't pan out well. A few of the speeches (Neville's at the end) and jokes didn't work either. But I still found this film to be a very satisfying conclusion to a film trilogy I will miss very much.

EDIT: Deathly Hallows 2 made $43.5 million in midnight previews, obliterating the old record held by Twilight at $30 million. The 3D decision no doubt help but geez, that's massive. I remember when Independence Day made $4 million in midnight sales and that was considered huge.

 

[C_Miller]

Harry possesses all of them, though at different times. Thus, in the book Dumbledore says he is the true master of death.

In the book there's more about how Dumbledore was obsessed with gathering the Hallows as a young man, but they're mostly used the demonstrate the temptations of power. Also, the three brothers in the Tale of the Three Brothers are analagous to Voldemort (died for power), Snape (died for love), and Harry (greeted death as an old friend, becomes the true master of death).

The problem with the movies, though, is that they barely even touch on it. Who cares if he's the Master of Death? Him possessing all the Hallows has absolutely zero consequences.

You're never going to get as full a story in the movies as you do the books.

 

[Neroon]

Harry possesses all of them, though at different times. Thus, in the book Dumbledore says he is the true master of death.

In the book there's more about how Dumbledore was obsessed with gathering the Hallows as a young man, but they're mostly used the demonstrate the temptations of power. Also, the three brothers in the Tale of the Three Brothers are analagous to Voldemort (died for power), Snape (died for love), and Harry (greeted death as an old friend, becomes the true master of death).

The problem with the movies, though, is that they barely even touch on it. Who cares if he's the Master of Death? Him possessing all the Hallows has absolutely zero consequences.

You're never going to get as full a story in the movies as you do the books.

Yet far too often you get more "story" in the books than is necessary. Movies with their limitations can be a benefit, trimming out material that was never really needed in the first place.

 

[Procutus]

I've just skimmed through some of the reviews, and will post my own later on - we're going to catch one of the afternoon showings in a while, having watched Part 1 again last night to get into the flow of things.

 

[Hound of UIster]

Disappointing. Nonetheless still better than the book.

 

[RoJoHen]

Harry possesses all of them, though at different times. Thus, in the book Dumbledore says he is the true master of death.

In the book there's more about how Dumbledore was obsessed with gathering the Hallows as a young man, but they're mostly used the demonstrate the temptations of power. Also, the three brothers in the Tale of the Three Brothers are analagous to Voldemort (died for power), Snape (died for love), and Harry (greeted death as an old friend, becomes the true master of death).

The problem with the movies, though, is that they barely even touch on it. Who cares if he's the Master of Death? Him possessing all the Hallows has absolutely zero consequences.

You're never going to get as full a story in the movies as you do the books.

This is obvious. However, if the books and movies are going to be named "The Deathly Hallows," one would expect said Hallows to be the focus of the story.