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

Quote:

 

He's not Harry's father, he was just in love with Harry's mother.  A jilted third party.  The fact that people are even drawing the conclusion of Snape being Harry's father seems to be one of this film's biggest failings.

Just got back from seeing this, and as someone who has never read the books, I have a few questions.  The main one, though, is this-  

 

I understand that Harry was the owner of the Elder Wand, and when Voldemort attempted to kill him, the Wand would not kill it's owner and killed Voldemort.  But why wouldn't this happen just minutes ago in the film, when Harry "died", and was eventually allowed to go back and live again?  Didn't Voldemort use the Elder Wand to kill Harry prior?  Why did it not backfire then? 

Attention non-book readers.

 

This is a courtesy clear-up: Snape is NOT Harry's father. I repeat: NOT Harry's father.

 

Snape was simply in love with Lily. Never stopped being in love with Lily.

 

That's not an angry post, or directed at anyone, but I've heard way too many people coming to that conclusion today.

 

Also, the thing with Voldemort is that he's ALWAYS been pathetic in his own way. He has always taken shortcuts, cheats, and used fear, hearsay, and deception to get his way. The horcruxes taking a physical toll on him just made that much more obvious.

Quote:

It was because Harry didn't bother to fight back then.  It was a one sided curse, so nothing to rebound against.  As for the latter exchanges without him dying, I guess just chalk that up to Nagini still being alive/them needing to draw out the fight somewhat.  In the book, I believe (been a while) there was just the one fatal exchange of spells (avada kedavra and Harry's trusty expelliarmus, respectively.)

 

Technically, the wand *didn't* kill its owner. It killed the part of Harry that belonged to Voldemort--the horcrux--which took a bit of Harry with it.  To cross our fantasy streams a bit, Harry's only "mostly dead".

Interesting point. In the books, Dumbledore says that Voldemort most likely can't sense whenever one of his Holocrux's are destroyed. He's that inhuman now.

 

I came out of this strangely unsatisfied. That 19 Years Later Prologue looked weird and that final Harry/Voldemort scene played better in the books (Was it just me. But did Voldemort just shrivel up after his snake got killed? With no final killing blow from Harry?).

I don't think all the revelations about Snape are particularly clear. The moment he comes out of that tree as a boy and meets Lily, I thought "Oh he loved Harry's mum". Then there seem to be a bunch of other revelations in that flashback section, but it seemed to me it was just revealing stuff we already knew. There's a bit where Snape makes the Doe Patronus and Dumbledore is shocked and it doesn't seem to be a big deal for us since we just saw 5 minutes of flashback where it was obvious he had a thing for Lily.

Then later Ghost Dumbledore (looking very Gandalf) makes a comment about the doe patronus being curious, but that meant little to me. Isn't it just like a spirit animal that you have no choice of what type it is?

I didn't get any specific 'Snape is Harry's dad' from the film. But when someone said it, it didn't seem unreasonable. Harry's real dad is hardly in it, and when he is he seems like a douche.

Ultimately there are way too many plot machinations going on here (all of which come from the book) that don't come across cinematically.

Regarding Voldemorts death, it seemed much more that he lost because he was weakened by the snake dying, rather than any rebounding death curse.

Sorry - the Mrs. Weasly part was terrible.  She says her line, kills the enemy, and then spends 5 painful seconds MUGGING IN SLOW MOTION.  Who was she smiling at?  Why was she even smiling?  Is that a normal reaction for wizards when they kill people?  Just cringe worthy IMHO.

 

Everything else was fine. 

I don't think it was quite that bad, but I will admit a lot of the big "cheer" moments for my audience (this, Neville killing the snake, etc.) did very little for me.  I found Mrs. Weasley's increased presence at the battle somewhat odd, especially since Arthur was pretty much nowhere to be found.  Hagrid's sudden presence in the clearing also stuck out to me, and almost garnered a chuckle.  "Hey, remember Hagrid?  He's in this movie too, and a prisoner for some reason!"

 

Yes and no. It's a spirit animal, and you don't necessarily get a choice as to what it turns out to be, but it's still one that specifically represents the caster's greatest joy in life. For instance, in the books, Umbridge's Patronus is a cat. One look at her office and that makes sense.

The thing with Snape's patronus is a very emotional movement in the books, but the movies haven't had time to develop that kind of detail, so it doesn't really land on film.  They should've come up with a another way for the taciturn Snape to demonstrate his devotion, although none are springing to mind at the moment. 

 

Another odd choice is to have Bellatrix be the only recognizable Death Eater to get explicitly taken out in the battle.  They avoided killing Wormtail in pt.1, but he's not even in pt. 2 as far as I can tell.  But you also have the werewolf, Peter Mullan, and the head snatcher (who does get indirectly offed by Neville, but he has his real hero moments later anyway), why not give some of our 30 supporting heroes triumphant action beats at their expense?  Just seems like a waste not to.  Maybe the thing is that they don't want revel in the good guys killing people, but the gloves are pretty much off at this point.  I don't think there's a danger of falling into Transformers-style sociopathy here.

This was incredibly disappointing. While they were able to keep many of the story beats of the book the execution completely falls flat. Whereas Rowling ties everything up in an emotinally satisfying manner, it seems that the film is more interested in getting to these moments and moving on with the final showdown as quickly as possible.

 

The biggest shame in this is the fact that they needlessly expanded so many other moments at the expense of maintaining any emotional resonance. The biggest offense, in my opinion, is how long they drew out Harry and Voldemort's final battle. In the book it takes place in one location, with all of the combatants surrounding the two. The verbal battle between the two is wonderful as Voldy tries to maintain his fierce image while Harry smacks him down and instilling doubt in Voldemort about the elder wand. When Harry calls Voldemort by his true name in the book it is a moment that stings his nemesis to his very essence. Here they fly about Hogwarts for what seems fifteen minutes only to land and have a duel that ends with a (literal) fizzle.

 

Neville's moment suffers the same fate. In the book it is heroic and is the crescendo to voldemort losing his powers and his hold on the students and faculty of Hogwarts. In the movie he gets a drawn out speech that the death eaters uncharacteristically stand to the sidelines for.

 

I could go on about how Mrs. Weasley, Snape, as well as Ron and Hermione get shortchanged in their moments as well. It's not the fact that they left anything out, it's just that it was so poorly executed.

 

I also fault the film for something the other Potter movies are guilty of: assuming the audience has read the books and can fill in the details not conveyed on screen. This is one of the reasons that David Lynch's Dune has been one of my favorite Sci-Fi movies, but is hated by anyone who isn't familiar with the source material. I can fill in the narrative gaps, but many audience members who are only familiar with the movie franchise have to acutely feel how disjointed the film is due to those gaps.

 

The epilogue should have also been omitted from the movie. The book earned that bit of emotional manipulation, the movie feels like it is just tacked on. It thematically doesn't fit because I can't reconcile the movie characters being as close or growing up and older together the way that the characters from the book did.

 

Outside of that, all of the actors were game and did the best they could with what was there. Unfortunately the narrative just didn't stick with me.

It's not a book comparison. It's an execution comparison.

 

Like I said, very little was physically "left out", emotinally however the film is extremely lacking. I really don't feel I'm nitpicking.

I feel exactly the same way you do, Swicegood. Maybe it'll play better if both parts of Deathly Hollows were watched together.

Well as per book vs. movie, in the book, Harry possessed all three items to achieve immortality. Here, when Harry "dies" there's not really a good explanation to why he lives, except that the wand wasn't Voldemort's, but then he uses it to kill other people. Arguably the film needs the readers to fill in some blanks.

I never read the books, so keep that in mind:

 

I liked it well enough, but I didn't love it like some here and some unqualified critics do. It felt a little anti-climatic to me, and maybe that would change if it's played back to back with Part 1, which IMO was a mistake to split up the two.

 

That said, it's one of the better of the years offerings and it was kind of sad to see the series come to a close.

Just saw it for the second time, this time in IMAX 3D, and as someone who was pissed and concerned about the 3D conversion, I'd recommend you give this a go.  The 3D isn't necessary, not at all, but that scene where Neville and company are rigging the bridge to blow looked totally different on the big-ass screen.  I could actually see the students under the bridge rigging the explosions, something that I didn't catch on the regular screen.  The fortification of Hogwarts is especially impressive, and the sound mix is BANANAS.  That Horcrux theme, which reminds me of The Joker's music from Dark Knight, is very unsettling, and grows to an unbearable crescendo before Harry dies.

 

Watching it again, it sunk in that this whole film, epilogue excluded, takes place over the course of roughly 24 hours.  Morning-Afternoon: Shell Cottage and Gringotts escape.  Night: Battle of Hogwarts.  Next morning: Voldemort dies.  No wonder the film is so short.  The other films cover a whole school year save for DH1.  By the time The Forest Again rolls around, I thought "Whoa whoa whoa, it's almost over?!"   

 

Shortening the shit out of the epilogue (and not having to read/hear all of the kids' fanfiction names) made it much more tolerable.  This time, it didn't matter to me that they didn't age everyone convincingly, save for DanRad.  It was NEVER going to look 100%, but the spirit is 100% in the right place.  Harry telling his son that a Slytherin was the bravest man he ever knew just destroys me.

 

ETA: The more I think about it, the less I like the final Harry/Voldemort fight.  I get that they wanted to extend it and I have NO problem with them lengthening their clash, but I miss Harry talking smack to him and calling him Tom in front of everyone.  That was a HUGE blow to Voldie's ego, but here it's like a video game with them flying and falling all over the place and all of the emotion from the book is gone.  Imagine the Luke/Vader fight from Jedi if it was done with no smack talk, no threats against Leia, no emperor cackling.  Just have them swing their sabers around for a few minutes and then Vader dies.  Not the same scene, is it?  Same deal here. 

Edited by HarleyQuinn22 - 7/15/11 at 9:33pm

You mean like in Revenge of the Sith where they've got a couple of sentances bookending 15 minutes of videogame action?
 

Seriously, film makers need to understand this point. Climactic fights aren't just about special effects and fight choreography. Good ones are about conflicting ideas and emotions, but this needs to be conveyed to the audience.

 

Cheers to the VFX wizards who quite convincingly turn back the clock on Rickman's visage for the flashback sequences. De-jowled Snape threw me for a second.

Yeah - not perfect but I loved it.  A lot of you guys have touched on the Big Stuff and I don't want to be redundant, but I will say that I agree with Justin that Ms. Weasley get short-changed period.  Not just in her big moment (which was kind of awkward but worked - a large part of my audience cheered when Bellatrix exploded) but in general.  For all intents and purposes she WAS Harry's Mother for the majority of the series and I don't get the impression that anybody working on the films understood that.  Makes me sad.  I liked Ron and Hermione's kiss - it felt natural and sweet - but Harry and Ginny's didn't seem to work that well, though her "...I know." made up for it (and holy hell did Bonnie Wright grow up to be REALLY pretty).  McGonagall's "I've always wanted to cast that spell" line was great, the shot of the Death Eaters assaulting the protective shield thrilled me to no end, the little humor injections were always perfectly placed, Helena Bonham Carter playing Emma Watson playing Helena Bonham Carter (though that just reinforces the humongous misstep in Goblet when the polyjuice changed Barty Crouch Jr's voice)...hell I could go on all night.  Some of the effects work was spotty (Gringott's Dragon burning the goblin, the Jacob's Ladder faces during the H/V inky flight around Hogwarts) but overall it was extremely satisfying.  I'll definitely be going again.

 

Two things though...

 

1 - And this has everything to do with the fact that it's been years since I've read the book and I'd gotten fuzzy on the finer plot points, but after Harry was "killed" in the forest and Ms. Malfoy goes to check to see if he's alive, she says "Draco...is he alive?"  But the way she said it I was convinced she was ADDRESSING Draco which somehow gave me the impression that there was a secret plot point with polyjuice potion or some such that I had forgotten.  It took me until I started reading this thread to realize that she was in fact asking if Draco was still alive.  I don't know if that's more my fault or the movie's, but the fact that no one's brought it up yet suggests it was mine.  But part of why I was wondering is because I had read an interview with Isaacs where he talks about Draco being a hero in the fact that when faced with the opportunity to make a choice between bad and good, he had stood up to his father's influence and ended up choosing the right thing.  What was that right thing?  Was it not killing Dumbledore or was there something from the book that was excised from the movie?

 

2 - And this again goes back to my fuzziness on the books, but with all the rules about disarming someone and their wand becoming your property, what does that mean for all the dueling in Lockhart's class in Chamber?  Or in the Room of Requirement in Phoenix?  Is that something that the books explained or is that just a big-ass (but ultimately live-withable) plot-hole?

Man I was doing so well, then the shot of Snape holding dead Lily opened the flood gates. Yeah I cried.

 

I completely lost myself to this. A group of us literally walked out of the house having watched Part 1 and into the cinema to watch part 2 so I was geared up.

 

I could nitpick, (and I can't disagree with any of the gripes mentioned thus far) but I think it's redundant to dwell on what the film got wrong when it got so much so right. I think the film starts to wobble after Harry dies but the build up is astonishing. There was a gasp from the audience during the shot of the hundreds of Death Eaters watching the castle.

 

The film is a flawed triumph that massively improves parts of the book and comes agonisingly close to realising the rest.

 

Interestingly a friend who hasn't read the book also thought Snape was Harry's father. As has been mentioned, that is a failing of the film and it has to be because The Prince's Tale, while being the highlight of the fim, wasn't nearly long enough.

 

Sorry I'm very tired and this is a jumbled mess that added nothing to the thread, so I will submit this image which, I think, illustrates this series' greatest accomplishment...

 

 

 

Wut?  Voldemort doesn't go NEEEEEEEYAAAAAAAAAAH in this movie?  Not even once?  

 

This film is a failure!!!!

 

Seriously, after the general disappointment that was The Deathly Hallows Part I, I'm amazed how much Part II delivered.  It has similar flaws to Part I, for sure.  But having the advantage of being "The Good Parts" section, Part II allowed me to ignore such flaws and give myself over to 'the finale' much more easily.  Splitting the final film into two halves was a VERY smart move, in retrospect.  To me, it felt like a very different David Yates at the helm of Part II; a Yates that was no longer timid about milking a moment for all its worth.  Part I and II feel like very different films; not two halves of a whole.

 

With Part I, I was so disengaged from the story that all its structural flaws stood out enough to distract me from the film itself.  All I could feel were the machinations of the filmmakers trying their damnedest to bring this story to a close.  Frankly, aside from the good character moments, it was a real slog.  Unlike most people, I feel that I will only revisit Part II of The Deathly Hallows in the future.  I see nothing to be gained from putting the two parts together.

 

I never thought that the movies would be able to sell Snape's story.  It had always been so rushed in the previous films that I figured the same approach would be taken for the finale.  I was so wrong.  Hoooboy... did they ever milk Snape's tragedy for all it was worth.  It all really pays off for Alan Rickman.  Very impressive de-aging FX as well.  From reading this thread, it seems that it's possible that the film was not entirely successful in getting the information across clearly.  But since it works for me (someone who grudgingly/happily accepts that these movies cinematically supplement my knowledge of the books), I can't even begin to care.  I pick and choose when to complain about the films not being clear for the uninitiated!!! When it suits me!!!

 

And YAAAAAAY for Neville!  I don't know if all of it worked, but I was so happy that Part 2 finally gave the character his moment in the sun.  I would've preferred that his moment with the sword played out more like the book (burning hat) though.  But that shot of him slicing Nagini was really badass.

 

Molly Weasly.  Yea.  Awkward and obligatory.  Didn't like it.

 

Aside from Hagrid hugging Harry and walking off, I appreciated the low-key denouement.  It felt right.  It's probably really obvious, but it was a smart move not to have Harry talk to Dumbledore's painting.  Having Dumbledore's final appearance be in 'limbo' makes so much sense.  A big improvement from the book.

 

I really loved the way the Battle of Hogwarts played out.  Very well-paced and not simply a glut of constant battle scenes that got monotonous (Transformers 3!).

 

It was hilarious just how petty and pathetic Fiennes played Voldemort.  I loved it.  It was as if the guy became a total dork when he thought he had defeated Harry for good.  The nerdy chuckle.  The awkward hug he gives Draco.  But he was still menacing when it came down to it.  Couldn't really say that for the book's take on him.

 

The epilogue was strange.  It was a little annoying since the audience I saw the film with couldn't stop laughing at the sight of the aged actors.  C'mon... it's not THAT funny.  Rupert Grint ages the best!  Loved the grand return of Williams' themes.

 

 

It's not as overtly handled here, but not only does Draco not kill Dumbledore, not only does he not kill Harry when given numerous shining opportunities (and I don't know if I'm remembering this right, doesn't Harry actually punch Draco out cold in the book?), but when he crosses the line to leave his classmates, it's not to join Voldemort, it's to join his family. Hard choices all.

 

And again, one of those tiny moments I wish had happened, but even just a nod of acknowledgement between adults when Harry and Draco are on the same platform 19 years later would have done wonders. But just the shot of Draco as a man, with such a markedly different presence than any appearance of the Malfoys before in these films--that is, happy, and caring-- does much.

 

 

 

Yeah, my audience did the same thing. I personally thought the aging worked just fine, for everybody.

 

The scene as a whole works on its own as a concept, but God, the first time I recognized that was Williams' score and how they were gonna pull off the epilogue as that grand an homage to the first film, I almost lost it. Columbus' film gains points based solely on the fact that this flick pays it off this well.

You know what I found funny?  The FX of the kids running through the 9.75 platform never looked all that great in the first few movies.  It was actually charming to see that they didn't do anything to try to improve it in the last film.  Not that I have any idea what would make it look better.

 

See: How the X-Men films pulled off Shadowcat.

Oh yeah!

 

I recall it that effect being essentially the same for Shadowcat, but better.  Not sure exactly what was different though.  

There's some weird hazy outline of the kids as they go through the wall that really calls attention to the fakeness of it. Im glad I'm not the only one who noticed it, even in a film full of dodgy CG.

Can't wait for all this to go away as it does nish for me. Anyhoo though saw the poster with Potter and the Nasally challenged fella and thought I had seen it before? Whats the thing Dennis Quaid did with the Alien who was also minus a beak eons ago? Enemy Mine was it? Same poster? 

 

My audience laughed, but it was more of an appreciative "Aww, look at them all!" rather than "This is shit!" laughter.  There was a lot of sniffling at the reveal of Harry's children.

 

I had a feeling we'd get the old music again, so I was prepared, but when I saw that chocolate frog on the kids' window I lost it crying.

 

You know, normally I'd hold it against the film that I never got a huge lump in my throat the way I did with the LOTR films... but at this point, it's fitting.  None of the Potter movies have ever gotten me to that point.  This one probably got the closest, but even then.  But it felt natural.  I'm all for a movie making me its bitch, but this felt appropriately consistent.

 

Did anyone... ANYONE... think of Zack Snyder during some of the shots of Snape's past?  Particularly the kicker where we see him grieving with Lily in his arms?  It looks like something that could've been in Sucker Punch; only stuff like that has no effect in Snyder's film because ALL of it looks like that.

Jeeez.  I just had a chat with a friend who had just seen the film, and he thought that the film was implying that Snape was the baby daddy.  He sounded legit shocked when I explained the truth to him.  If people are seriously drawing this conclusion, then boy did that section of the film fail big time.

What confuses me is that if Snape is the dad, what did those people think the other guy's ghost was doing there in the forest scene?

Considering the sheer amount of stuff that isn't explained in the movies, they probably just think it's fan-service for those who have read the book.  Another minor character who just comes and goes in these movies.

 

The movie definitely seems to be failing to get across certain information clearly, but I figure... if it still hits them emotionally, what's the harm?  At this point in the story, James Potter is an afterthought to the audience AND Harry anyway.  At least, that's how it seemed to me ever since Harry found out what a douche his dad was.  At a certain point, Harry really only seems to consider his mother as THE parent.

 

I'm interested in the way that Snape's penseive memories re-incorporated the footage that PoA (or was it CoS) used for one of Harry's moving photos of his parents.  Did they recreate the footage of his parents dancing in slow-motion or did they just reuse it?  Either way, it was a really nice callback.

 

I would really like to see the movie again right away.  I've never felt that way about any of the Potter movies.  Not even Azkaban.

And the other movies have gone out of their way to say over and over that Harry is a dead ringer for James, save for his mother's eyes.

 

I think most people don't retain that kind of information unless they're already fans of the property.  They're just movies that they watch and then forget about.  That each of these films don't really stand alone as single films doesn't help.

 

It also says something about what people expect from 'sagas' like this.  They all have to have the "I'm your father" kind of reveal!

I think it's the fact that it stands apart from most of the magical photos in this series as one that isn't simply people standing in front of a camera and looking around and making expressions.  It doesn't just look like a 'moving photo'.  It looks like a most happy memory.  It really is quite lovely.

 

EDIT:  Seeing Kelly MacDonald as Helena Ravenclaw was a nice surprise.  She has a bit of a 'angry Galadriel' moment in the movie where her eyes go bulging.  Freaky.

 

Also, even though Desplat's score isn't one that I'll listen to on its own, it had some great moments even when it wasn't referring to John Williams' themes.  One particular cue I really liked was just one tone.  It was when Draco's mom goes to check on Harry.  It's simply an ominous single note on an organ (I think).  I love that kind of simplicity.

 

Edited by mcnooj82 - 7/16/11 at 5:21pm

 

Wands forcibly taken in circumstances of purely competitive or friendly nature, or are stolen without attacking the previous master will not change allegiance.

 

Although it could be thought of as lazy, I love that Yates chose to reuse Hooper's Dumbledore's Farewell to cap off the Snape flashback. It works really damn well.

 

The soundtrack to the film meshed together so well, that I didn't even think about the fact that it reused Hooper's themes as well.  That's a damned good cue. 

I haven't read the book since it came out and my memory of it is a bit hazy. It's not necessarily a bad thing as it helps me assess the movie from a fresher perspective. Random knit picks:

 

The first part of the movie didn't really work for me. I just couldn't get into it. How abysmally did the trio plan the Gringott's heist? Everything from Hermione not knowing how Bellatrix would act despite being tortured by her several hours ago, down to no one knowing anything about the bank's defenses, etc.

 

There should have been more build up regarding the trio's return to Hogwarts. It seemed terribly easy and all rather ho-hum.

 

They took time to mention that Death Eaters were on the Hogwarts staff, but they didn't do anything.

 

The Hogwarts staff was pretty thin. McGonagall, Flitwick, Sprout, and Slughorn. The one shot of Trelawney doesn't count. Hagrid was notably absent from all proceedings. Where the heck was this dude? I imagine there's a deleted scene somewhere of Death Eaters capturing him before the battle, but I'm surprised he played no part in setting up Hogwart's defenses.

 

On the horcruxes, Harry and Dumbledore figure out that Voldemort wanted to make 7, but the trio arbitrarily decided to stop counting at 5 or 6?

 

They short-shrifted the Dumbledore storyline. I personally feel they could've cut it all out, but considering all the time they spent with that in Part 1, it had no bearing on Part 2. We get a grumbly Aberforth who is bitter over something the movie doesn't care about.

 

This film resolidifies my hatred of OOTP, where they cut scenes that would have given the film more emotional resonance in favor of that god-awful Hagrid's half-brother storyline. Not only did they not pay off Grawp in this one, they didn't make up for the completely botched "Snape's worst memory" bit.

 

I also wanted to echo some of the thoughts regarding the battle. They should've given more screentime to showing our favorite characters battling Death Eaters and the fates of the more recognizable Death Eaters. As others have said, Molly Weasley's duel with Bellatrix was awkwardly staged with the Weasley family essentially just standing on the left side of the frame watching their matriarch fight one of the most vicious Death Eaters around.

 

What the heck happened to Crabbe? They replaced him with a random black kid (or rather replaced him with Goyle, and replaced Goyle with a random black kid).

 

They also failed to explain the reappearence of Dean Thomas, who had gone missing (according to the radio reports in Part 1).

 

I don't recall Lupin and Tonks ever mentioning having a kid, and yet Harry asks the ghost Lupin about him? I imagine there's a deleted scene somewhere of Lupin visiting Harry and the gang at the cottage and taking Luna back to Hogwarts.

 

They never make the connection between Harry's invisibility cloak being one of the Deathly Hallows, but I guess it doesn't matter anyway all things considered.

 

Anyone else who would've preferred seeing Bellatrix and Voldemort's lifeless bodies hit the ground rather than them ridiculously exploding into a million pieces or disintegrating?

 

I also didn't care for the extended Nagini fight and Harry/Voldemort thing. Neville's moment in the book was just much more badass. While I didn't mind Harry and Voldemort's duel, it wasn't as impactful as it should have been. It never felt like Harry was in real danger and then it ended.

 

Anyway, I enjoyed it overall. I got all teary eyed twice and I'll probably watch it again next week. :)

 

According to IMDB trivia, the kid that played Crabbe got charged with drug possession or something, so the production had to get someone else.
 

 

HAHA, I was wondering that about Crabbe as well... "Hey, wasn't he white the last time we saw him??" Oh well, it didn't matter much...just a strange little bit.

 

I don't have much to add to the discussion, other than...I loved it. It hit plenty of big moments, and definitely opened the waterworks a few times. It was an improvement over the plodding Part 1, although the two pretty much can't be seen individually. Too bad Hagrid didn't show up any earlier in the film, because it's very odd that he just suddenly appears in the Forbidden Forest in chains with the Death Eaters.

 

Harry & Voldemort's final battle had a lot more emotional resonance in the books, but I still enjoyed the way it played out here...it was more cinematic, if less complex. I kinda wish Voldemort would've just dropped down dead, though, instead of flaking away. Mrs. Weasley's moment was great, but still seemed to come out of nowhere.

 

Neville was the star of the B-cast this time, though. I loved that final shot of him sitting next to Luna, smiling and getting his courage up...kinda reminded me of Sam Gamgee approaching Rosie to court her at the end of ROTK.

 

Another small but interesting detail was Griphook's death at Gringotts after Harry & Co. escape. Does the book ever state explicitly what happened to him after he stole the sword and took off? It was kind of an interesting "karma" moment.

 

Also, kudos to Alan Rickman for finally getting to let loose a little bit...he did great! I hope I can see this again soon...

I actually thought Warwick Davis's first scene as Griphook was some of the best acting in the movie. 

 

In retrospect, I think the main thing this movie needed was more Weasleys. Weasleys killing, Weasleys dying, Weasleys doing goofy shit. 

I really liked the scene with the Weasley twins before the battle. They were always a highlight throughout the films. Having their jokey exterior put under such strain, then seeing the famiy in mourning was pretty tough.

Ladies and gentlemen,

David Yates continues to show he can't pace. I even started a thread back in the day about order of the phoenix being off. I really feel after he took over, we've been watching Return of the Jedi, filmed by Brett Ratner.

The 1st 4 films built a lot of good momentum, and then we got bullet points.

The Snape scene was good.

This is a film of moments, and I'd say Yates and company nailed more of them than they missed. Yes, Molly Weasley's big moment in the final battle comes off a little flat. And too many important characters die off camera.

 

But Harry's return to Hogwarts, Neville's heroics, Snape's memories, Harry's forest reunion -- all perfect or nearly so. What an astonishing film experience this entire series turned out to be.

 

One last note: Maggie Smith destroys in this movie with only a few quick scenes. It's the most I've enjoyed that character since SORCERER'S STONE.