HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART 1 Post-Release - Page 5

Okay, the movie ends abruptly, but come on guys. There's still a down-shift in pace, and a capping scene- they didn't cut mid-frame, mid-scene. The next one will start like a movie, I'm quite sure.

I actually don't think the movie ended all that abruptly. It ends on an appropriately cliffhangery note in terms of the filmmaking. I found it very similar to the ending of The Matrix Reloaded other than the use of TO BE CONCLUDED.

My issue with the way the movie ends is really about what exactly is set up and done by the time we get to that cliffhanger ending. Devin's review of the film put it well; where they chose to end Part I is logical, but how exactly they got there is what was frustrating.

Showing the Dumbledore duel is kind of a brilliant idea. These films have been good about picking out visual concepts that would work well in the absence of text, and they can convey A LOT of information by presenting that duel. Dumbledore's relationship to Grindelwald and how hard it must have been to defeat him(personally and physically), the importance of the Elder Wand etc.

While I would love them to open Part II with something like that, I don't think they would ever stray that much from the approach they've established with these films. If these films weren't so chronologically restrained in editing style, I could see them opening up the start of the next film the way Peter Jackson opened each of his LOTR films in a different way.

But they've always maintained a chronological telling of the story for each adaptation of the books and showing that duel from the very beginning of Part II without ...

(literally changes his mind)

I changed my mind while typing up my points and now think that it is possible for them to start Part II with a bang like that. I could open with the kids reading an excerpt...

(changes mind again)

Oh wait... the actual detail of that duel wasn't in Skeeter's book. Seems like that's something that would be saved for their meeting with Aberforth much later. Though it would be very cool for the film to start with a rose-colored interpretation of how the Dumbledore/Grindelwald duel happened only to be shot down by the truth later in the film.

But as I said, these films have never taken choices like that. They've always played it pretty straight in terms of the chronological telling of the story. People say how gutsy this franchise is in the way it brutally compresses the content of the books and do what they want. And to a certain extent, I agree with the ballsiness of that. But I also think that the ballsiness isn't too far from good old fashioned stubbornness and an inability to break out of its shell stylistically.

Though, I was someone who was surprised when Lucas resorted to using dream sequences in Revenge of the Sith. It was a device I never thought I'd see him use for the Star Wars movies.

I agree with Freemon about Half Blood Prince. There is a valid complaint about the emotional core of the movie. The story goes through the motions but doesn't tell the audience why we should care. I knew why I should care because I read the books, but that's not good enough for a movie on its own. I think they were trying to make Snape's turn a little less ambiguous (meaning, they're trying a little harder to paint him as an actual bad guy) but come on.

As for this movie: I didn't get to see the whole thing but I liked what I saw. Some things didn't work and a couple of points were way too on the nose, but I think it worked. I thought Hedwig's death was way too brushed over...I remember that being a big deal in the movie. Whoever said the listing of names wasn't effective is dead wrong. We don't need to recognize the names in order for it to add to the overall feeling of dread. I was actually pleasantry surprised with the movie and it put me back in the Yates camp after feeling the last movie was a little flat.

One thing the movie can't do that the book does better (despite complaints otherwise): exposition. The story of the Three Brothers worked, but the other stuff about the Deathly Hallows and the wand thief and the graveyard, etc, etc, etc really bogs down the movie in a way it didn't in the book. It's a tough thing to juggle, but juggle better the film makers could have.

Not sure how you could accurately judge what the film fails and succeeds to do when you haven't even seen the whole thing...?

Anyway, I finally saw this last night. Pretty much everything has been covered so far in this thread, but I want to echo the praise for Emma Watson. It really was a (pleasant) surprise to see her shine and come close to carrying the whole damn movie.
One particular moment that I really liked: after she patches up Ron's mangled arm, she begins to nervously set up the camp protections. She does this without prompting, and the film makes a point to linger on her incredibly bloody hands. Well in other words, shit is serious.

Well, of course it's all just guesswork. But I try to base it off my thoughts on the way Yates handled his previous films as well as the realities of making such a film.

Every single time a new movie or book has been released I go from general indifference to getting caught up in the excitement of rediscovering why I love these characters personal lives and this world so much, and every single time I rediscover my school boy crush on Emma Watson.

What an awesome series of books and films. I'll be seeing this again tonight.

It's true, and I look forward to seeing the ending. The reason for leaving, by the way: my fiance sent me a text that her grandfather had suddenly died. It happened right after the tale of the Three Brothers. I kinda sat there, shocked during the sequence where the Lovegood home gets destroyed. Then I ran out of the theater.

I just now realized what Ryan CB was actually referring to with his remark about not having seen the whole thing. That's very confusing when it comes to this film!!!!

Watching again I want to compliment the wand battles. As it is that stuff is so cheesy and so easily capable of being lame LARPing. In these past three movies though, the wands are loud when they cast and violent, with report and recoil. When somebody sends a Stupify spell your way it's like being shot at with a shot gun, which is a really effective way to approach it. Duels have never felt more dangerous.

It's kind of like the Star Trek reboot. The phasers used to be cheesy, but add some extremely loud blasts and whizzes, and you're set.

Watched it a second time last night. I still really enjoyed it. There are some incredible moments in this film, seriously beautiful stuff. Ryan is right in saying it's impossible to judge it as an adaptation without seeing part two. I'm trying to think of what is left to tell and all I can think of is Gringott's and the Final Battle. I would imagine (hope) that the bulk of the Wandlore and Dumbledore/Grindlewald story will be fleshed out.

Another omission I really missed (in addition to Ron not freaking out at the Malfoy's) was Kreacher's Tale. Such a sad, dark story that would have tied things back to Half Blood Prince so well.

In regards to wand battles... (Parker and I actually talked about this in the chat room the other night)

I've actually found the wand battles to look ridiculous (or at the very least, not all that involving) with a couple of exceptions: Dumbledore vs. Voldemort in OOTP and Peter Mullan chasing the trio in the Ministry of Magic in HP7.

The sound work for these have always been solid, often fantastic. But in general, I think wand battles is one of the sillier looking things in the movies. Considering the increasing level of darkness as the series goes on, I just can't take it seriously. I feel like they could be done a lot better. I can't even imagine how it must feel shooting those scenes without laughing.

Ah right that threw me too.

The Harry Potter wands are cooler fantasy weapons than the light saber.

Please don't do this...

I have no choice. You've made me come to this. I stand by it.

If I were to agree on your point, it would only be because lightsabers became overdone years ago.

We didn't need the prequels. We have a series that has become SO, MUCH, COOLER.

Mullan looked incredible then didn't he? He did so much with so little.
Watching them back I think Bonham Carter makes the duelling look good. Bellatrix is a lunatic anyway so she looks like she should be thrashing about.
When she attacks the snatchers in Deathly Hallows she makes it look very cool. Also at this stage, there do seem to specific motions for different spells, in the past films they would stand there jabbing the air at each other.

Oh yea... Helena Bonham Carter has some great body language when it comes to the wand stuff. I don't think I've ever really seen her 'fight' where she needs to constantly duck and weave while flapping her arms. She just delivers the killing blows (for Sirius). In this new movie, she does a lot more than just wand work. Didn't she have some magic whip? That was some good stuff.

Freeman... AIRBENDING is cooler than wand fights! Nananananana (it really isn't)

The opening of this film is just fantastic -- it really creates this sense that the world of the film is being torn to shreds, and that sense continues throughout the film, looking almost post-apocalyptic in places, as if the dark wizards have won and taken over the world. In particular are two shots that stood out: the trio walking through the burned-out mobile homes and them hiding under the bridge as we see the Death Eaters' smoke trails streaking overhead. It really feels like the gloves are off and the bad guys just don't care who sees them.

And yet I still can't shake the feeling this could have been one film. I'm not sure what I'd cut out of this one, but Ron leaving and coming back feels really arbitrary here, and some of the exposition feels like it could have been a little streamlined.

I don't know, I'm on a weird roller coaster with these films: I see one, kind of don't care for it, get excited for the next one, see it, and still don't leave quite wowed with it.

That ride fits me to a T!

And it's not like I'm not a fan of the book; I devoured Deathly Hallows in two days. There's just always been some sort of spark missing from the adaptations for me, and I can't quite put my finger on it. I think maybe it's that, by necessity, a lot of the depth that makes Rowling's world so vivid gets lost on the screen. Peeves, for example, or the house elves at Hogwarts, or the idea that these kids are supposed to be in school and working towards their OWLs and NEWTs. The books had time for all that, while the films have felt like nothing so much as illustrated summaries, hitting all the high points and telling the basic story, but not really making it come alive.

Get outta my head!

I think that's all that needs to be said.

Of course, the thing is that I generally get why the films must be the way they are. I do NOT envy those tasked with adapting Rowling's books. But my reaction to these films suffer even more when compared to how immediately satisfying Jackson's LOTR film were.

I enjoyed the film but the mirror shard appearing without explanation is infuriating. I don't give a shit if it's explained in the books, the film has to work on its own merits. They should have come up with an alternate explanation (Harry could have found it in Sirius Black's home) or dropped it completely. Hopefully they'll tie up this loose end in Part 2, but it really should have been addressed in Part 1. Anyone else bothered by this?

I can't remember if they found the mirror shard in a previous movie. They should have spent the 40 seconds it would have took to explain that Harry thinks he's seeing Albus's eyes in the shard. As it is it's just a weird random visual dues ex machina.

Another scene that got cut that really bothers me, Ron and Hermione skipping stones. This went in at the start of the camping season. Hermione is having trouble throwing stones, being comically girly, so Ron slides up behind her and shows her proper form. Ghost scene, you know the deal. It sounds funny and sweet and important to the impact of Ron leaving. It adds that little extra oomph that was needed. It's a shame that these movies are stuffed to the bursting point, because in retrospect as a Part 1 this movie needed a lot more little stuff to make the big stuff pop.

Far as I know, the mirror shard has had absolutely NO setup in the movies. It should be from the magical mirror that Sirius gives him in OOTP, which Harry shatters in a pissy fit of rage at the end of the book (when it is unable to allow him to talk to Sirius' ghost).

As it is now, it's just some generic magic thing. I actually don't expect them to explain it at all in Part II. I mean, why start now? If they do, it's just going to be done with some clumsy exposition (unless they change its origins completely).

That's actually the funny thing. I asked a friend of mine who had only seen the movies what he thought that glass shard was. He just assumed that it was some piece of the Mirror of Erised from the first film. And he went on with his life.

WELL I BLOODY CAN'T! Neeeeeeeee... neeeeeeeeee! (nerd sounds)

My wife, who has also not read the books, assumed the exact same thing.

I guess they can just write it off as "it was just a piece of magical junk in the bottom of Harry's Hogwarts trunk" that now suddenly has significance. But that's pretty damn lame.

You can't just introduce a magical bit of glass and never explain it! Even as a big fan that's totally bullshit!

As someone who has read the books, I did wonder how this film played with people who didn't have a cheat sheet in their heads. I have had to do a lot of explaining to friends who haven't read the books. Pretty sure they'll answer how the mirror works in part 2, but I do think they should have at least explained how he got it in Part 1.

Yeah, the mirror shard is so far the only hangup my non-book-reading friends have experienced when it comes to understanding the plot. Everything else flowed from story beat to story beat rather well for the unspoiled. My younger brother got real quiet during Dobby's death, which bemused me to no end (he's a big running back build kind of guy).

Ron destroying the Horcrux might well be the best scene in the whole series. Everything about that moment was perfect. And I've thrown some love on Desplat's score over in the Composer's thread, but I'll reiterate my thoughts that it might be my favorite score since Williams left the series. I especially loved how it seemed more influenced by Goldsmith than Williams, with hints of David Shire and early 80s Horner thrown in for good measure.

I feel like this series is using great actors as a crutch. That sounds weird -- should they NOT cast top talent? -- but I think it's fair. All I mean is, the films substitute characterization with inherently interesting character actors. Instead of writing a role, they lean on these old pros to make their (sometimes microscopic) bits work. It's like me saying, "OK, this character has to be really funny. I don't know HOW he's going to be funny, but if I cast Jim Carrey, I'm sure he'll do something wacky on the day". It's a shortcut.

I understand the reason for all this. They had to introduce almost EVERY character, just in case that person does something significant in later books. But when even die hards are losing track of who's who, things have gotten a bit out of hand. It's become increasingly clear that the films should have waited for the books to finish before commencing. That way, they'd have a better idea of what to condense, cut, and alter. You wouldn't have all these great actors floating around with nothing to do.

I'm not complaining. Mullan as Yaxley FUCKING OWNS his screen time. His voice is what bad ass incarnate must sound like.

Plus Emma Watson is lovely. Have I mentioned how lovely she is? ... Lovely...

They're big sensitive teddy bears!

One exchange from the book I really missed in that scene: Ron expresses how much difficult such heroism was than he thought and Harry tells him that he's been trying to get him to understand that for the longest time. It's never as heroic as it looks from the outside.

Regarding the shard, the most peculiar thing is Harry's reaction to it.
He sees Dumbledore's eye and doesn't flinch. I was racking my brains trying to think if the films had shown this before, to maybe explain his lack of surprise, but nothing.

Amen

I know this is only a minor tidbit, but I appreciated the prominence of the number seven in the movie (and in the book as well). Not only is this the seventh movie in the series, but seven is usually important in mythological tales. In this instance there are seven Harry Potters at the beginning, six decoys plus the real one, and seven Voldemort horcruxes. I enjoy any parallels between Harry and Voldemort.

Loved the movie, but I understand that I lack the ability to divorce myself from the books and nostalgia. Of course the things that were lacking in exposition in part I may be intentional mysteries to be explained in part II...but somehow I doubt it.

There are also seven Weasley kids.

I knew there was something sinister going on there...

HA I was wondering what your post was on about.

Nitpicky: Anybody else kind of bothered at how Harry & Ginny kissed? They just stood there like statues attached at the mouth. Of course, that's probably how I kissed at sixteen, too...

They are supposed to explain it in Part 2, from what I've read.

I also really enjoyed the film. For some reason I'm more able to separate the books from the movies than my wife, who obsesses over every detail the first time she sees the film. Then after it comes on DVD and TV, she ends up watching it every time it's on and says how much more she likes it now than the first time she saw it.

I think they've done a great job personally. Having only read the first two books in the series, I've enjoyed every movie since Azkaban and haven't found them hard to follow, nor been confused by which characters are which. I'll admit that the mirror shard may have been a mistep but, until I've seen part 2, I can't be absolutely sure of it.

I really loved this movie. Can't wait for the second one and very much looking forward to grabbing them all in a huge DVD boxset.

Yeah, well, not exactly what I was going for. The seven Harry Potters scene reminded me of an argument I made once about Alien: Resurrection in the "I've outgrown Aliens" thread: basically I said that the scene in which Ripley destroys her clones, and essentially the entire movie, was a deconstruction of the Alien series and the nature of sequels.

The scene in Deathly Hallows was, by contrast, perhaps mocking Harry's every-man status. Or possibly it was an excuse to put Daniel Radcliffe in a bra.

This would've been a much stronger 2 hour film instead of a slackly paced 2.5 hour film. So much damn fat that could've been trimmed and are included for very little reason.

I've seen it four times now, and I'd be interested to hear what people think should have been cut or modified. Almost every scene has some kind of major function to the plot alongside being emotionally or thematically important, which means they made a lot of this stuff really tough to get around before the cameras rolled.

It isn't the arcs or the themes that needed to be cut per se, mostly clean up the structure and streamline the plot so that it doesn't feel so adaptation-y. But really, this is my complaint with all the Potter films. Maybe I noticed it more here since this film is a lot less compressed than the others. (The other films were so compressed that it was hard to do a more streamlined rewrite without angering fans of the book with more radical changes.) But in this case it felt as though each scene was supposed to do one big thing in service of the film and then move on to the next scene. It would have been nice if they had found ways to make scenes play on different levels simultaneously. It would've helped with the pacing and built some added tension to the scenes. Still I liked a lot of what was onscreen and the ending is pretty great. I flat-out loved the effect where the camera finally follows them while they're using the teleportation spell. That sense of being pulled through a tunnel the size of a knot felt dangerous but thrilling and trippy at the same time.

That was one gorgeous looking film. To touch on a bunch of points other people already have:

-The Three Brothers animation is fantastic. That's how you spice up exposition.

-Totally agree on how they've taken the dullest aspects of magic, like wand-waving and teleportation, and made them visceral and weighty, mainly through sound design.

-The Malfoys really did do a lot with nothing but appearance and demeanor. Bonham-Carter and Mulane too do much more with voice and body language than their lines merit. That's the benefit of filling all your walk-on roles with the best actors alive, I suppose.

-Grint shows the most improvement in this outing, but he's also absent for crucial stretches, and Watson does a phenomenal job of carrying the bulk of the film. She's been the most assured of the core performers for some time, and you really see how they "wouldn't last two days without her" even when she's not just doing the best spells.

-All of the little additions are improvements, like Hermione mind-wiping her parents and how it gave an emotional weight to the utterly perfunctory business of cleaning up after the cafe encounter. Or the slimy head snatcher. Or Neville's moment on the train. Or the way Hedwig's death both streamlines the logic of the scene and works better dramatically. Or how the evil of the necklace was portrayed. Yeah, I even liked the dance.

-The torture scene was awfully flat, on the other hand. No idea why they didn't have Ron going bigger.

-One thing that I thought was a no-brainer was that they would switch the wedding at the beginning to Lupin and Tonks's. Why bother introducing Bill Weasley so ham-fistedly this late in the game when you could be bulking up the attachment to some characters who have been totally sidelined, but whose resolution will be enormously important to Harry in the finale? If you just need a 7th person for that scene, just plop in Lee Jordan or Percy (whose subplot has been entirely dropped from the movies, but has appeared). Not sure what the thinking there is.

-Interesting that they didn't kill Wormtail at Malfoy Manor. Curious to see what alternate end they've come up with for him. I suppose it could just be that taking him out becomes one of the supporting character's hero moment at the Battle of Hogwarts, but maybe it's a bit weightier.

-As far as Horcruxes over Hallows as a potential end for this installment, I think the Hallows are introduced so late in the game that trying to hang the entire thematic conclusion on it wouldn't work. Not sure that not having a conclusion at all is better, but still.

-This is a problem carried over directly from the book, but the sidetrip to see snakelady adds absolutely nothing to the story but some superfluous wrinkles about replacing wands. There does need to be some kind of episode while Ron's gone in order for his return to have any impact, but it could've turned up some kind of info with story significance.

-At first I was surprised that Dumbledore's backstory was cut out of this one, even though the seeds (the book, that shoe-horned discussion at the wedding) of it are left in. But on reflection, it makes some sense. Since they go directly from the heist into the Hogwarts section, they will need to pad out the pre-heist section in order to have a proper first act. That's as good a place as any to highlight Harry's increasing misgivings about his mentor, not to mention some of the wand technicalities that will come to bear at the very end. I would love it if they just swiped the opening from The Two Towers whole and had Harry dreaming about the Dumbledore/Grindelwald duel pre-title sequence, but I'm not holding my breath.