Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part 2

IrishEyes19

Just saw it too, amazing, though the death scenes were almost too real. It's not humerous like the others. It's very serious and I wouldnt even bring young kids to it, found parts of it upsetting myself But amazing.

Kersmash

Hermoine is such a ride. I enjoyed it immensely(never read the book). My girlfriend is a huge fan of the series and hated it :P

PseudoFamous

Feckit, I'll just spoiler it all.

Very meh. I went in expecting a lot, but it didn't seem to deliver. While it's a good movie, it's not as good as part 1, and doesn't do the last book justice for me. The 3D got awfully intrusive in places, and there were a bunch of quick fixes to stay true to the book. For example, I don't believe they outlined that Tonks had her baby (or had even been pregnant, need to check the first movie to be sure), but Harry and Lupin have a quick chat aboot the baby when Harry has the resurrection stone. Not the best film by a long stretch, but some of the action scenes, bar the duel with Voldemort, were pretty good. And the epilogue was dire.

norrie rugger

PseudoFamous wrote: »

Feckit, I'll just spoiler it all.

Very meh. I went in expecting a lot, but it didn't seem to deliver. While it's a good movie, it's not as good as part 1, and doesn't do the last book justice for me. The 3D got awfully intrusive in places, and there were a bunch of quick fixes to stay true to the book. For example, I don't believe they outlined that Tonks had her baby (or had even been pregnant, need to check the first movie to be sure), but Harry and Lupin have a quick chat aboot the baby when Harry has the resurrection stone. Not the best film by a long stretch, but some of the action scenes, bar the duel with Voldemort, were pretty good. And the epilogue was dire.

It was "mentioned" in a quick, blink and you miss it "we have news" in the part 1 polyjuice scene, where Moody interrupts Tonks.

Otacon

Otacon wrote: »

Maybe my opinion will change after seeing it, but if that's the biggest criticism of the film, then count me even more excited.

Well, that was an unfortunate jinx I put on it. When I left the cinema last night, I was deeply disappointed. The amount of stuff they got wrong [I don't mean inaccurate parts from the book, but just scenes that did not work] was shocking, seeing as this was the same group who made Part 1.

Necronomicon wrote: »

I have to agree with Quint's review. Not the specific complaint about the lack of battle scenes, just the overall sentiment. The film is hugely underwhelming and doesn't send the series off in the fashion it deserves.

The good:

Snape's farewell. The memories were done well, thankfully, and this was the only thing about the film that packed the same emotional punch as the book.

The bad:

Some frustrating changes (I know, I tried to keep the nitpicky bastard inside under wraps) the biggest being the lazy fate of the elder wand; the fight between Voldemort and Harry was ropey (I understand it had to be sexed up, but the falling from the building sequence was awful); the epilogue was easily more cringeworthy in the adaptation than it was in the book (all the actors look the same, especially Watson); among a few other grumbles here and there.

I really enjoyed Part 1; it's probably my favourite of the series. I echo the review posted above in saying that I felt its quality justified the split. But I can't help but feel that they let the series go out in an underwhelming manner that doesn't do justice in the least to its source material.

+1

norrie rugger wrote: »

It was "mentioned" in a quick, blink and you miss it "we have news" in the part 1 polyjuice scene, where Moody interrupts Tonks.

My main problem was with how a number of these plot-points clunked, rather than clinked, into place.

Dumbledore's family history is barely touched. Remus' son isn't referenced at any other time besides the Resurrection Stone scene. The acting is dire in places, especially in this scene. Lily and James are planks of wood TBH.

Very disappointing.

norrie rugger

Otacon wrote: »

My main problem was with how a number of these plot-points clunked, rather than clinked, into place.

Dumbledore's family history is barely touched. Remus' son isn't referenced at any other time besides the Resurrection Stone scene. The acting is dire in places, especially in this scene. Lily and James are planks of wood TBH.

Totally agree,

I meant that the only reference was that and nothing more was said, until the end.
I can almost forgive Dumbledore's family history/Grindlewald not being touched, as the story can move on somewhat. Things that bugged me were; where did Harry get the mirror and how did he know what it would do, how did Snape find them in the woods, not actually seeing Fred getting hit etc.

Without reading the books, these are just random occurances.It just seems that they finally realised that they needed some if these plot points and randomly force them in.

Otacon

norrie rugger wrote: »

Totally agree,

I meant that the only reference was that and nothing more was said, until the end.
I can almost forgive Dumbledore's family history/Grindlewald not being touched, as the story can move on somewhat. Things that bugged me were; where did Harry get the mirror and how did he know what it would do, how did Snape find them in the woods, not actually seeing Fred getting hit etc.

Without reading the books, these are just random occurances.It just seems that they finally realised that they needed some if these plot points and randomly force them in.

Why reference these events though if you are not going to spend time on them?

Why reference Teddy Tonks? Just ignore it and then the audience who has not read the books will not be asking 'What son?'. If you are going to include something, make it worthwhile and spend time on it.

I have only talked about one particular scene there but it occurs throughout the film.

D.Q

Some parts I was really looking forward to were left out

Harry revealing himself in ravenclaw tower after one of the carrows spits in mcgonagalls face... The showdown in front of everyone at the end, not just jumping off the tower. The scenes int he great hall were far more powerful in the book, when the whole school sticks up for harry.

Very disappointed overall.

The Recliner

Otacon wrote: »

Why reference these events though if you are not going to spend time on them?

Why reference Teddy Tonks? Just ignore it and then the audience who has not read the books will not be asking 'What son?'. If you are going to include something, make it worthwhile and spend time on it.

I have only talked about one particular scene there but it occurs throughout the film.

Only going to see this movie tonight but this was a major issue for me in the last movie

I have not read any of the books so when they put bits into the movie without any frame of reference to them att all it makes no sense

The piece of mirror in the last movie wasn't explained at all, how the seekers found them in the cafe (the trace on the word Voldamort) and the kids now all of a sudden being able to apperate

None of these things being explained plus some of the small references were very off putting if you have no knowledge of the books

I know it is difficult to please everyone but they do have to cater for the fans of the books plus those who have nbever read them and I feel in the last movie (and by the sounds of it the current one) they have lent too far towards the books without giving enough frame of reference

BostonB

For me theres so many things that don't make sense in the books, in terms of plot, they couldn't possibly make sense of the books, because often the books make no sense themselves. I purely look at the movies as a visual treat, they capture the spirit of the books, and thats good enough for me.

Theres been a lot of kids story's, reconstructed as movies for an older audience and most of the time I don't think it works that well. They are hopelessly compromised by being stretched an audience too far. I think the HP books suffer the same flaw. I think this is reflected in the toys being aimed at a completely different audience to those of the movies.

Liam O

So basically part 1 got me excited for this after the travesty that was HBP. This seemed to be cut off the same cloth as HBP and I really didn't like it. Maybe if I hadn't read the book cover to cover multiple times it wouldn't bug me as much but things like Goyle suddenly being some black kid without any reference were serious WTF moments. I may write more on it later but I'm sick of complaining about it. The memories scene and the

death

scene were done well enough, everything else was tripe.

I don't think they even said which twin it was that died? I suppose after giving them one line each it didn't really matter

the supporting cast was again woefully underused and I'm sure I would have found it very confusing if hadn't read the books.

Really hoping there'll be a reboot in a few years but I really doubt there will be...

Mindkiller

I heard somewhere that the actor who played Goyle before was caught for cannabis possession or something and was replaced by some different character altogether in this, Zezebbee something or another.

Liam O

Mindkiller wrote: »

I heard somewhere that the actor who played Goyle before was caught for cannabis possession or something and was replaced by some different character altogether in this, Zezebbee something or another.

yeah but you can't just replace a large white guy for a skinny black kid and make no reference to it and hope nobody notices!

Mickeroo

Liam O wrote: »

Really hoping there'll be a reboot in a few years but I really doubt there will be...

That would be absolute madness!

norrie rugger

Otacon wrote: »

Why reference these events though if you are not going to spend time on them?

Why reference Teddy Tonks? Just ignore it and then the audience who has not read the books will not be asking 'What son?'. If you are going to include something, make it worthwhile and spend time on it.

I have only talked about one particular scene there but it occurs throughout the film.

exactly. It annoys the people that have read the books and confuses the movie-only audience

johnny_ultimate

No need for reboots here - most of the films (bar the first two) did the best they could with the material. The majority of the content in the books has been translated to the screen. Can't say it has always translated well though. They're loyal adaptations to a fault. The books certainly felt stretched at times, but the pacing that worked in novel form didn't always copy to the screen effectively.

The first two films are the only ones I actively disliked, and the films from three onwards benefited from having more cinematic directors. Alas, they were fighting against bloated materials, making films out of content that wasn't designed to be filmed. The books contain tonnes of exposition, flashbacks, descriptions, jargon etc.... - none of which are particularly compelling on screen.

So yeah, the directors were rarely to blame for the failings of the Harry Potter films (except Chris Columbus, who just straight up failed). Indeed, given the uniformly excellent visuals and music the crew and cast always tried their hardest. No, blame JK Rowling's books, or the audience who demanded films, or the studios who greedily made 'em. Harry Potter was a series of novels first and foremost, and films were never going to be anymore than an afterthought. Oh well, at least we got one excellent film and a couple of decent ones out it.

Mindkiller

I dunno. I reckon if they just got some competent directors we would have got some good movies. Instead we got the Home Alone guy and some dude who's only previous experience was with TV.

As an aside, The Goblet of Fire was the only one I liked. Perhaps it helped that it was better suited to an adaptation as it wasn't chocabloc with lessons and teenage angst.

indough

decent enough film but the prisoner of azkaban still reigns supreme.

Aldebaran

I've never been a huge fan of the Harry Potter movies, it was always about the books for me, they were a huge part of my childhood and read them all countless times. The movies never had the same appeal though, I never really went out of my way to watch them.

Deathly Hallows was my least favourite book, it was downright awful in parts, and this translated to the screen for me with DH Part 1 which I thought was a dreadful film.

Having said that, I think they did a fantastic job with Part 2. The only time I ever enjoyed a Harry Potter movie more than the book. There was only one thing I was hoping they wouldn't mess up and that was the

'My word, Severus, that I will never reveal the best of you'

scene, and it didn't disappoint, an absolutely riveting scene.

Rickman was terrific and really nailed the 'Always' bit.

I also loved

Neville's finest hour

and I think the

one on one between Harry and Voldemort worked much better than being surrounded by a crowd of people like in the books

.

Only downside was

that damn epilogue, feckin hell it was even worse on screen than it was in the book!

Mickeroo

Mindkiller wrote: »

I dunno. I reckon if they just got some competent directors we would have got some good movies. Instead we got the Home Alone guy and some dude who's only previous experience was with TV.

And the guys who made Donnie Brasco and Children of Men.

Mindkiller

The point being that the vast majority of the films (6 of them) were directed by knobheads.

I know 3 and 4 were directed by different guys. The quality shines through in those two films (though I didn't like 3).

Every film by David Yates (except the new one, which I haven't yet seen) has felt boring and drab. Like a high budget made for TV job.

The Chris Columbus movies had a certain amount of magic and wonder about them, but they weren't very good either. The Goblet of Fire remains for me the only truly good adaptation, though I do feel that having that Tournament going on throughout the movie made it feel like something was at stake throughout, and not just the prospect of detention with Snape or Quidditch or whatever

johnny_ultimate

Mindkiller wrote: »

The point being that the vast majority of the films (6 of them) were directed by knobheads.

I know 3 and 4 were directed by different guys. The quality shines through in those two films (though I didn't like 3).

Every film by David Yates (except the new one, which I haven't yet seen) has felt boring and drab. Like a high budget made for TV job.

The Chris Columbus movies had a certain amount of magic and wonder about them, but they weren't very good either. The Goblet of Fire remains for me the only truly good adaptation, though I do feel that having that Tournament going on throughout the movie made it feel like something was at stake throughout, and not just the prospect of detention with Snape or Quidditch or whatever

Prisoner of Azkaban is widely accepted as the best of the lot, and I can only agree. It's the only one that feels like an actual film as opposed to an adaptation of a book. Goblet of Fire just felt bland in comparison. And I honestly can only praise what Yates has done - the atmosphere particularly under his direction has been deliciously drab and twisted. Shame the content is all over the place, but it was the same in the books.

Harry Potter is not easily adaptable material. It's far more episodic than something like Lord of the Rings (not that LotR is bloated), and hence can feel more than a little scattershot. It's only in the last book (or the last chapters of some of the early books) when it feels like one big story as opposed to individual narratives with some recurring elements. That means there was never going to be a franchise that flowed as smoothly as the one big narrative of Lord of the Rings. It would have been nice if one talented director had taken it under his/her wing and crafted it all themselves (luckily, Yates had control over the last half of the series providing a largely consistent tone). It didn't happen, and the practical realities - filming with kids, budget - meant it had to be made in the way it was. The result is a series that was all over the place in terms of quality, but hey at least they managed to keep the actors in place.

Anyway, it's only Harry ****ing Potter, throwaway fantasy fiction. The books are thoroughly enjoyable but hardly high art, so a few moderately enjoyable and sensibly directed films is a better result than I personally would have hoped for after the awfulness of the Columbus films. Even watching the Philosopher's Stone as a fourteen year old Potter fan, I thought it was junk.

Baby4

This post has been deleted.

Mickeroo

Baby4 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think all those criticisms apply to the book too though? Loads of characters were

killed off page

in the book too, always felt lousy o me.

Aldebaran

Baby4 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No way, that was her greatest moment in the books, and I thought it worked just as well in the movie.

Sad Professor

Mickeroo wrote: »

I think all those criticisms apply to the book too though? Loads of characters were

killed off page

in the book too, always felt lousy o me.

I think she

killed off too many characters generally. I mean, the book was practically a blood bath with characters dying and getting maimed. It was like she was trying to compensate for the fact that the main characters come out of it totally unscathed, which was my biggest problem with the book. There was no sacrifice for Harry and his friends. All the minor characters took the the pain on Harry's behalf.

johnny_ultimate

I always thought the death of one of the main three - and not a fake death / prompt resurrection! - would have had serious emotional resonance. The death of a single twin was powerful, and poor Hedwig, but the rest kind of just felt like she was fulfilling some sort of kill quota. The happy ending amongst all the blood came across as almost insincere. It's a childrens book at the end of the day, but I agree with Prof that all the suffering took place outside of the most beloved characters. Rowling brought Harry, Ron and Hermione to a cliff face, but never quite had the guts to throw 'em off. it's why the epilogue just seemed wrong

Sad Professor

Yeah and

I don't even think she needed to kill one the main characters, just some sense of sacrifice would have been good. Tolkien couldn't bring himself to kill any of his beloved characters, but LOTR still has a very strong feeling of sacrifice at the end with Frodo sailing into the west, which I always interpreted as a metaphoric death. But however you interpret it, Frodo is never the same.

Mickeroo

Sad Professor wrote: »

Yeah and

I don't even think she needed to kill one the main characters, just some sense of sacrifice would have been good. Tolkien couldn't bring himself to kill any of his beloved characters, but LOTR still has a very strong feeling of sacrifice at the end with Frodo sailing into the west, which I always interpreted as a metaphoric death. But however you interpret it, Frodo is never the same.

Plus

in LOTR you had well developed characters like Theoden and Boromir biting it, and like you said Frodo was forever scarred afterwards. I've not seen HP yet but the likes of Tonks are so underdeveloped in the films that I'm not sure if it will have the necessary impact, they didn't even make it cear she was pregnant in the last part, it will look like they threw the kid in just to add some weight to it. At least the twins and particularly Lupin had significant screen time in some of the previous films to make us care about them.

Watched this last night and have to say I enjoyed it.. I actually nearly cried at

Snape's death scene, that was emotional!

I don't get worked up over the bits that are missing from the books, these films are never going to be perfect so I just enjoy them for what they are