HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 2 Post-Release - Page 4

I just revisited the Lord of the Rings movies on Blu Ray, and even though what I really want to do is type about those, I thought I'd put it to you all. Do the Potter films rank for anyone as 'great' movies? For me, they're not even close. Entertaining diversions, never great but always competent. The production design is top level and Alan Rickman comes damn near creating a truly wonderful character but never really gets the screen time he deserves.

Lord of the Rings, on the other hand, is something I'd call legitimately great cinema. Just charmed brilliance, somehow way better than anything Jackson's done before or after, and the best mega budget filmmaking of the modern age. On a par with stuff like The Godfather, ultimately. But that's just how I see it. Is there anyone ranking Potter on that tier? Anyone who'd like to see a Best Picture nomination, or maybe one for Rickman? 

The only one that I've ever felt approach anything near greatness is Azkaban.  But that was the last film in the series I saw before starting the books.  I'm afraid that my awareness of the books makes it very difficult to view them as stand-alone films (not that most of the later films have ever tried to be stand-alone) with anything approaching objectivity. 

But even after the books, Curaron's touch/influence on the series hasn't been matched.  None of these films have come close to the effect that the LOTR movies had on me.

I'd say a complete, unbroken Deathly Hallows would reach those heights. But since its not, then I'd say only Phoenix comes close as storytelling, Azkaban comes close as filmmaking. The whole, however, is worthy of that title for a great many reasons.

As for Oscars? It should have a load of the tech nods on lock already. I can see Kloves getting one of those LOTR "it's for the whole franchise" noms, and if they go with 10 movies for Best Picture again, this'll take the Toy Story 3 slot. But deserving? Probably not, unless we've got kind of a weak Oscarbait season coming. I won't complain if it makes it, though.

They're similar to Lord of the Rings in that they represent an unprecedented feat of cinema that is almost too huge to traditionally criticize. A point I tried to make in my review is that they ultimately do work as a stand-alone film experience, but only when taken all together-- individual films after the third or fourth don't work solo.They do ultimately have a symbiotic relationship with the books that is completely unique, and there's a lot of important context to consider in terms of how the films were released. That the films grew up along with the books and the fans is a big deal. All of that context is important, but the sum-total ~1200 minutes of cinema is its own beautiful thing.

So yeah, the "Harry Potter legacy" or whatever is great cinema: important and lasting, even if few individual pieces of the puzzle could be held up as such.

I guess you could argue that adapting LOTR for the screen was easier because it had been written so long ago.  Whereas, with Harry Potter, the book series wasn't complete when they started the film series, so it's been challenging to Kloves on what to keep in the screenplays that have payoffs later in the series.  Although, I'm sure he had Rowling's input on these.  I don't know, just a thought.

WB will push for a Best Picture nod, but unless this year is weak as hell, I don't see it happening, and as a big fan of the series, I have no problem with that.  I don't think this film deserves it.

• Having Harry discover what a (seemingly) cold hearted manipulator Dumbledore was and then the placid, friendly banter in Purgatory really let me down.
• Probably the most disturbing jarring note of the film was the herding of the Slytherin students into the dungeons without letting them choose sides -- really smacks of a too neat and simplistic tying of loose ends.

 I wouldn't mind the Oscars making a special award for cumlative work.  Be it a film series, a directors body of work, an actors body of work, composters body of work, etc..... that would be perfect for something like Harry Potter.  While no one movie has been "best movie" material, the series should be aknowledged for making so many well made, well acted, culturaly signifigent films.  

The last movie was a big letdown and alot of it has to do with the direction from Yates and the editing.   When Neville chops off the head of the snake, it should have been a more visceral fist pumping moment not unlike the scene where that lady cuts off the dragon's head in LOTR (I know it's not a dragon but i haven't seen those movies in forever).   Instead, it's just sort of there and hangs.   Same thing with Mrs. Weasley's line and hell any of the really big moments.   This was the time to let it all hang out and instead we get pulled punches and reserved delivery.   In other words, it needed to be as unafraid of big corny moments as LOTR in my opinion.

Also, I understand why they aged up the actors instead of getting older actors but the digital aging was just horrible and freaky.   I don't know if that's because it was so good or so bad but it was distracting.

Ignatiy Vishnevetsky from "Ebert Presents At The Movies" says HP8 is "lopsided and rushed":

http://www.ebertpresents.com/movies/harry-potter-the-deathly-hallows-part-ii

He's right.

I don't think Potter qualifies as great cinema just because it represents an enormous logistical effort to keep the same cast intact, keep the whole machine lumbering consistently forward, keep it all centered on one essential, constantly progressing story arc, etc. That's an organizational success, not really an artistic one -- although I do agree that it is a massive step forward in cinematic long-form storytelling and proves it can actually be done at such a massive, never-before-seen scale. But that is impressive in the same way building a rocket ship is impressive; it requires a huge amount of coordination and technical skill from countless different committed and hard working people, but it does not require much in the way of an "artistic" mindset.

And when you get down to it, I'd say the only way to judge something as great cinema is by the same standards we use to judge any great work of art, and while the Potter series certainly checks off a few of the boxes I wouldn't really say it is at the level of any legitimately great movie, i.e. Lord of the Rings or The Godfather.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renn Brown 

They do ultimately have a symbiotic relationship with the books that is completely unique, and there's a lot of important context to consider in terms of how the films were released. 

This.  This is why I was not moved.  Both DH1 and DH2 suffered from shorthand lapses for me.  I haven't read the books (other than Order of the Phoenix) and felt that the final films, despite their competence, needed for me to be aware of what they were doing between the frames.

Rickman is a GOD, though.  And Neville made me a happy guy.  But while I enjoyed the experience, I didn't like the movie very much.

So when do they reboot the series?

Saw this a week ago, and I can't divorce myself from my relationship with the books and the characters. Specifically, Harry Potter has followed my love life for ten years, and is firmly ingrained in my memory.

I read the first book in the spring of 2001, as I borrowed it from my junior year girlfriend and prom date. I saw the first movie with another girlfriend, the second movie with yet another girlfriend (we got in a big fight after the movie because she seemed unnaturally upset that Harry only wins with the help of his friends), and the third through sixth movies with my ex-wife. Both parts of Deathly Hallows have been viewed with my current girlfriend. Let's hope the boy who lived isn't bad luck on my love life!

As for the last film, I didn't cry but I got goosebumps. I hadn't read the last book in four years so I felt enough distance to not be bothered by any changes. There's actually three factors here: having read all the books over ten years, seen the movies over ten years, and watched the actors grow up over ten years. It's lame, but I watched these kids grow up and every time they would pop up on screen it was like seeing old friends.

I started to realize halfway through the movie that there were faces I hadn't seen yet. Neville gets a grand appearance, but I'm such a sucker that the totally uneventful intro of Hagrid gets a pass. That's why I can't divorce myself from my outside experiences: the filmmakers were aware that the economy of adapting a mammoth book depended on relying on goodwill from both the earlier movies (and books, for the initiated).

Never mind that Cho shows up after not having been in the sixth movie, after she was damned as a traitor at the end of Order of the Phoenix. I'm just happy to see her! Seamus is a pyro? Right, he blew himself up in the first movie.

I know there was bad filmmaking on display here. Ending the sixth movie with the mystery of RAB, only to have him turn out to be a brother of Sirius without any motivation is just bad screenwriting (wasn't particularly great in the book, but at least RAB could be given some description and backstory), especially since the amulet turned out to be a fake and they had to find the real one anyway. Doesn't matter, I was along for the ride.

I'd also note that the addictive nature of this series is insidious. Watching one movie can only lend itself to watching the next, and the next, and by the time you've gotten to the end you forget details and want to go back and watch the early ones. By that same token, what film series can get away with two mediocre movies that will forever be watched with the caveat of "don't worry the movies get better, but you still need to watch them for the backstory!"

Just deliciously evil.

I sort of feel like this whole story could have been told over three or four books and movies instead of seven or eight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd 

Lord of the Rings, on the other hand, is ... On a par with stuff like The Godfather, ultimately.

I haven't seen this latest Harry Potter, but I just had to come in and say, please stop this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd 

Lord of the Rings, on the other hand, is ... On a par with stuff like The Godfather, ultimately.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

I haven't seen this latest Harry Potter, but I just had to come in and say, please stop this.

Get off your high horse. There are many points of comparison where it's okay to make that argument. Different types of movies can happily share a classification of being singular achievements, both technically and of vision.
 

If Alfonso Cuaron had stayed on to finish out the HP films, yeah, I most definitely think that the films would be comparable to the Lord of the Rings.

Harry Potter is a very different kind of film than Lord of the Rings, and it doesn't have the luxury of directorial/visual continuity that LOTR does

Some Potter films teeter on greatness (Half-Blood Prince, Azkaban, DH2), and even the lesser films are more than solid.  The films won't endure like the books, but their still great achievements.

The LOTR films are individually masterpieces. (Well, at least FELLOWSHIP is.) I find HARRY POTTER to earn high marks more for the total achievement than any singular film in the series. Seven films; great cast; immaculate production design; did justice to the books -- the warm and fuzzies are for accumulated success. It's kind of like when an athlete makes the Hall of Fame for having a shit ton of really, really good seasons rather than just a handful of great ones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

I haven't seen this latest Harry Potter, but I just had to come in and say, please stop this.

No, they are. They're the transcendent piece of filmmaking to come out of the franchise tentpole era. And seriously, the Godfather movies might even be pulpier.

I think Half Blood Prince is probably the best film in the series. Which is odd, as it seems like the hardest adaptation.

Half Blood is the most confusing if you haven't read the books, so likely it loses points for that. Azkaban was very easy to follow even with the time twisting.

Half-Blood Prince was one of the few movies when elements from the book were missed. The Prince himself gets very little development (there's an entire section of the book when Harry suspects it may have been his mother), along with Harry discovering that Snape was the turncoat that sold his parents's safehouse out to Voldemort.

Still, that's baggage I bring from the book. What felt very off in the movie is the scene when Harry saves Ron from the poisonous wine. Nothing from any of the movies indicates Harry having an expertise in that kind of magic.

Still, the Last Temptation of Draco Malfoy is a beautiful thing to see.

I thought the issue with the bezoar was supposed to reflect how well he was learning from the potions book (and even shows on one of the pages earlier the word "bezoar").

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun H 

I thought the issue with the bezoar was supposed to reflect how well he was learning from the potions book (and even shows on one of the pages earlier the word "bezoar").

Hmmm, never noticed that. Point taken, but I would have liked some follow up. Harry was hiding the book the whole movie, it would have been nice if someone suspected him for his sudden knowledge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun H 

I thought the issue with the bezoar was supposed to reflect how well he was learning from the potions book (and even shows on one of the pages earlier the word "bezoar").

Also, as someone who's only seen the movies, I saw it as nice callback to the first potions class in Sorceror's Stone.  "Where would I find a bezoar?" was one of the questions in the flunked pop quiz Snape gives Harry, and in the extended version of that scene he gets in Harry's face and goes on to explain that a bezoar "is a stone taken from a stomach of a goat and will save you from most poisons."  Evidently, the lesson sunk in!
 

Well shit, that actually is pretty awesome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dark Shape 

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 

WB will push for a Best Picture nod, but unless this year is weak as hell, I don't see  

 

Best reviews of the year (with a high possibility of staying that way).  Biggest film of the year.  A Best Pic nod is pretty much assured. 

 

 

O hi, Dark Knight!
 

TDK was hobbled by the size of the field. In a year when there could be anything up to ten nominees, HALLOWS II is almost a lock.

Liked it, didn't love it. There were some truly chill-inducing moments early on, but it all felt kind of rushed once Snape died. I'm in the minority in that the Prince's Tale stuff was somewhat disappointing for me - it just felt like barebones exposition, with little time given to the Snape/Dumbledore relationship. The fact that Snape isn't even mentioned again until the prologue kind of reaffirms to me that the filmmakers didn't realise how big a part of the climax Snape's sacrifices were.

RAD.  Totally excited to see this.  Saw the last film without reading the books OR seeing the 2 films before it and it still pulled me in.

Totally agree John.  Have always felt that way.  Not a knock on the Potter films...just a reality check.

P.S.  LOVE the "Temptation" pic as your handle.  greatest filmmmm!

I’ve been a defender of David Yates since Order of the Phoenix and for a Director with only a bunch of television credits; I thought he did a great job with Order despite my personal belief that the book had problems. My one complaint was that the movie felt way too clipped and could have used a bit more breathing space. I also believe that he’s incapable of properly delivering those big emotional moments with satisfying punch. He also had a tendency to underplay things a bit too much. He’s a good shooter but doesn’t have control over the flow of his films.

Deathly Hallows Part 2 has all of these problems to the fucking max and then some. I can’t begin to tell you how fucking disappointed I am with this fucking movie. I was all set to buy the entire series on Blur-Ray at the end of the year but now, fuck that. This is Spider-man 3 levels of disappointment.

Firstly, this movie is horribly edited. It’s soo choppy and cut soo tight that it rushes through anything that’s important while on the other end of the scale he lets other scene’s drag on and fucking on. Example, Snape’s back story was something that should have been taken slow. Instead it’s done at a lightening pace and we never get a fucking sense that Snape loved Lily. This is a perfect example of how Yates both cuts too quick and also cuts short any sort of big emotional payoff. The Yates decides to drag out that fucking King’s Cross section with Harry and Dumbledore in the afterlife. That scene is EVERYTHING wrong with Yates style. Drawn out, underplayed with no emotional payoff.

Furthermore, The King's Cross section should have been played like the final scene at the end of Joe Dante's "It's a Good Life" segment of The Twilight Zone movie. He does this fantastic scene between Helen Foley (Kathleen Quinlan) and Anthony (Jeremy Licht) are talking in sort of netherworld landscape. Its just a stage, dimly lit wit some fog on the ground. But what Dante does it use this strobe effect that give the scene an otherworldly feeling that is infinitely more effective than having two assholes on what is obviously a greenscreen stage, surrounded by infinite white light. That King's Cross scene should have had an ethereal feeling and Yates completely fucked that right in the shitpipe. He did the same thing with the scene in the forest. The guy knows how to move the camera around but he has no fucking clue as to how to give a scene a particular feeling and his horrible editing style kills any sort of "magic" that most of these scene's would have otherwise had.

Also, the battle scene’s are too fucking short and we get no sense of time passage. While Harry and Co. are fucking about, are we to assume that people are throwing spells at each other in the courtyard for however long it takes them to search for the Horcrux’s? Now, I’ve read a lot of complaints about how the deaths of certain characters were handled, that they rushed through them and didn’t properly give any of the characters their due. I suspected that people were being stupid and just wanted every death to be dragged out for five minutes. But they were right. We see characters for maybe ten seconds before they get offed and I felt nothing for their deaths. I don’t care if we’ve seen these people in the others movies for however long, I needed to see them in action in THIS MOVIE so that their deaths would hurt. Ten seconds with Fred and George and then we see Fred lying on the ground. Five seconds of Lupin and Tonks and then their bodies are put on display. Lavender is killed and we only know of this because they show her body for one second and where was Shefali Chowdhury who played one of the Patil girls? Am I to assume her characters was killed because we saw the other Patil girl was using a blanket to cover a body that we never see?

I know I’ll sound like a HUGE fucking geek but Transformers The Movie showed how you kill off secondary characters. At the beginning of the movie, Autobot’s are getting wasted left and right and you feels those deaths because you know the characters, you recognize them and although most of them didn’t get a word in, you still felt for their deaths because that movie took the, however little, time needed for you to know who those characters were. But we don’t get that sort of emotional payoff in Deathly Hallows because Yates cuts everything too fucking short. You know, when you split a movie in two, why not let the thing FUCKING BREATH since people are more then willing to sit if the story is good enough?!? I mean, the guy let Deathly Hallows Part 1 fucking drag on and on. It also doesn’t help that the staging and blocking of most of the scenes is fucking horrendous and soo awkwardly cut that I sat there with my jaw open at how fucking inept this movie was. The score did the movie no favors at it was entirely forgettable and I can’t tell you how fucking annoying it was every time the sound and music dropped out. Long scene’s and moments of nothing but awkward silence does NOT make for compelling drama.

The worst part of the entire thing was the final battle between Harry and Voldemort. It has the distinction of being dragged out for far too long and at the same time also throwing away Voldemorts death by underplaying it to such a fucking extent that I could not fucking care less. And what the FUCK were they thinking with that goddamn particle effect that they used for not only his death but also Bellatrix’s as well as Nagini’s. Another thing, apart from the bridge, everything that Neville Longbottom did should have been given to Ron Weasly as it would have given him something to do other than stand around and look like a fucking twat. Everything should have came to a crescendo in the courtyard and HOLY FUCKING SHIT did Voldemort come off like fucking Dr. Evil in those last scene’s proving the idiom that a villain should keep his fucking mouth shut. He didn’t come off half as threatening as he did in any of the previous movies. Like Freddy Kruger, the more he opened his fucking trap, the less effective he was and it didn’t help that Ralph Fiennes played it almost for camp when he should have came off as intense and menacing.

When I watch Azkaban, I was enthralled with the mood and atmosphere but, most importantly, it was the was the way that everything felt that gave that movie its strength. I also loved Goblet because even Mike Newell had a better sense of tone and editing than this fucking wanker Yates who obviously got the job because he would follow orders, keep his trap shut and get whatever footage the Producers asked for. The graveyard scene in GoF is dripping with atmosphere and is more thrilling than anything that Yates has done where it feels like stuff just happens without any real emotional kick to the fucking teeth.

Deathly Hallows part 2 is a fucking disaster on par with that fucking piece of shit Green Lanter. You now, people talk shit about Thor (my favorite movie of this summer so far) but Kenneth Branagh paced that movie perfectly and hit all of the emotional beats that he needed. Was it revolutionary? Fuck no! But everything was soo well done that I couldn't help but get wrapped up in the story.

I can't say the same for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2. What a fucking disappointment and that’s all I’ve got for now. I’m soo mentally exhausted over how much build up there was for this movie, only to get the spiky dildo up the ass at the end. A fucking wretched ending to what could have been an iconic achievement.

Well, I'm never reading again.

Did Satanic Hamster kill this thread?  I mean, I agree DH2 isn't perfect (blowing Neville's big moment is pretty unforgivable), but it's not like the other films didn't have problems, too.

I agree with the demonic rodent about the Harry/Voldemort battle (they Revenge of the Sith-ed it when it should have been Return of the Jedi), but the movie was not a "fucking disaster" in my eyes.

The climax has a lot of issues (the whole Elder wand thing was bungled and poorly explained, I missed having everyone around watching the final duel, and yes, the whole bad-guy-evaporates thing was lame), but the film earned a lot of goodwill with me for the 'Harry realizes he must die' sequence prior to that.  Everything from the pensieve to Voldemort killing him was so well done I could forgive some of the later lapses.

The Elder Wand explanation didn't bother me since that's basically how it's stated in the book, but I can see how it would bug a film-only fan.  This wand is a crucial part of the story, and to get the explanation of how it works only after you've already seen it work doesn't really...work.  I didn't need to have everyone around for the actual kill, but the lack of Harry's dialogue to Voldemort during that extended fight scene really diminished it.  The book has this great moment where Harry verbally castrates Voldemort in front of everyone, and for the first time, you truly see him as nothing but smoke and mirrors.  Big bad Voldie's been defeated by fucking CHILDREN, and one of them is openly gloating about it TO HIS FACE.  "Snape was Dumbledore's man, his death was planned, that Elder Wand you're holding won't do shit for you, whatcha gonna do?  Time to show some remorse, TOM."  Gutted me that they didn't include him calling him by his Muggle name in front of everyone, and it's not like they didn't have time.  That fight was extended by quite a bit from the book, so they couldn't use time as an excuse.  Hell, the whole movie feels like a race to the fucking finish.  Why split them into two if you aren't gonna give the finale time to breathe?  Once that shield goes up over the school, it felt to me like the film was just in a race to get itself over with.

I did think it was weird that they stopped to explain both the wand thing and Snape's patronus after the scenes where the audience really needs to understand what's going on.  Just a strange screenwriting choice.

My problems with the Elder Wand go beyond how it's handled in the final duel.  There's zero explanation of what happens at the beginning of DH1 when Voldemort attacks Harry. And thusly we have no idea why Voldemort wants the Elder Wand and what he thinks it can do for him.  It plays in the movie like just another powerful thing the bad guy wants when it should play like the final nail in the good guys' coffin.

To be fair, the Elder Wand basically a pain in the ass in the book too. I can't fault them for minimizing it somewhat.

Oh, that reminds me...  when Voldemort is grilling Snape about the wands before sic'ing a snake on him, did anyone else start thinking about this?

I'm coming at this film from an interesting place. I stopped watching after the 5th movie, so I haven't seen 6 or 7.1. The only reason I saw this one is because I went with my family. Also, this is the book that I have the haziest memory of, since I only read it once when it first came out. I remembered enough that I wasn't confused at all, but not enough to get riled up about all the little things they left out.

I thought it was ok. There are a lot of moments that work beautifully, and there are probably just as many that drop the ball. A lot of that has been covered already, so I won't belabor the point. I loved the Gringotts break-in, the moment where Voldemort breaks the shield, and the Pensieve stuff. The final battle fell really flat.

The one thing I do want to say is that, without a doubt, the best thing about these films is how good the cast is. They've gotten really lucky with how well the three leads have developed, and Radcliffe carries this movie admirably. Everybody is fantastic though. Warwick Davis, Maggie Smith, Helena Bonham-Carter, Ralph Fiennes, all great. The guy who steals the show, though, is Rickman. From the first moment he arrived on screen, I was reminded of just how perfect he is as Snape. Such an amazing fit for that character. It's a performance that requires a huge degree of subtlety, and Rickman just kills it. If every other facet of the movie were as good as the cast, it would be amazing.

Fetus Vodly still creeps the heck out of me.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd 

To be fair, the Elder Wand basically a pain in the ass in the book too. I can't fault them for minimizing it somewhat.

I think the film handled the Elder Wand situation and the train station scene very well, considering both of these passages in the book are pages and pages of exposition.  The film breaks them up and gives at least the Elder Wand explanation some action.  Some of what Harry learns at the train station is broken up throughout the last sequence in the film.  I think both of these are improvements. 

Three part question.  Harry was a horcrux, so, how was it "broken" with a spell?  I thought you needed a giant snake fang, or the sword to do that?

Also, if Harry was to be hit by a car, or die of some illness before hand, would the horcrux be broken?

Harry got stuck with a fang in part 2, why didn't that kill the horcrux?

Good question.  I hadn't considered that.  But this guy did!

http://www.sf-fandom.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?33211-Shouldn-t-the-Harry-Horcrux-have-died-in-quot-Chamber-of-Secrets-quot

http://bastardson.tumblr.com/post/7783499028/if-harry-is-a-horcrux-and-basilisk-fangs-destroy

I don't know if it was that the Harry-Horcrux was broken with the spell.  It was that the killing spell came from Voldemort himself. 

Now, if Harry was hit by a car or was to die of some illness, maybe his inanimate corpse would still 'live' as a horcrux and not decompose completely!!!

I should be stating this stuff in the Nerd Stench thread...

Here's another response I found to a part of your question:

I wish there would have been some throw away line... maybe because the spell came from Tom, that is the reason the Horcrux was broken inside him.  Or maybe that the elder wand could do it... or maybe both.. or maybe I'm thinking too much about this.  I don't  know, just bugged me.

Blu Ray looks great too.  The sound is what I was most impressed with.