Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows (Parts I and II) discussion (1 Viewer)

[Greg.K]

Originally Posted by Simon Massey Harry Potter and the Very Long Camping Trip.

That seems like a pretty apt description to me. There were parts I liked, but I sure don't crave a 2nd viewing.


OTOH I think Part 2 will be awesome.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

One thing that this film emphasizes, and is key to the success of the series, is how fundamentally decent Harry is. He chafes the least under the burden of the locket, he worries about others more than himself at virtually every turn, he sees how broken up Hermione is about Ron leaving, and he gives her that moment of frivilous fun dancing to the radio to ease it a bit. He's not the smartest, he's not the strongest, he's not the tallest, he's not the most dashing. But he's the most decent. He may not have started out that way, but the journey of the past six movies has crafted a person who has had everyone who's loved him taken away, but loves no less himself for it. When Luna's father betrays them, he's sees a father's desperation and not some sinister purpose. After retrieving the locket, when it comes to choosing between making the fastest flight from the Ministry after retreating and saving the accused, they he saves the accused. He even tries to spare his closest friends the misery of the ordeal, even though Ron sensibly stops him. The scene where he holds a dying Dobby and, after Hermione's face makes it clear that she has nothing in her bag of tricks to save him, holds back his grief and focuses on ensuring that Dobby feels loved in his final moments particularly brings this home. The best weapon in Harry's arsenal is that Voldemort is everything he is not.


Harry's always sort of been a cipher in his own movies, but this movie really uses the luxury of its extra time to present a very unconventional hero worth rooting for, even if he seems completely and utterly screwed.

 

[Patrick Sun]

My 2-word review: Deathly Dull.


There are interminably long stretches of just nothingness to this film, and it just felt un-cinematic, and had a rather more pedestrian feel in the filmmaking. Bringing back Yates was a mistake. Even though it felt like there was about 45 minutes of plot in this film, it was staggering that it ran for about 2.5 hours.


I give it 2 stars or a grade of C. (being generous)

 

[Cory S.]

Adam,


Agreed with everything you said even if I thought that Yates pulled in a brilliant Half-Blood Prince. But, after seeing it a second time, the film has only one real problem that I don't know if they're saving for Part 2 or they just decided to not include it. If you really break down this film as a three act film, Harry only has half a character arc. Ron and Hermione have full characterizations in this film. But with the truncated aspect of Dumbledore's past in this particular part, they've cut down an essential element of Harry's growth toward the end of the story, and that's his crisis of faith during this journey.


We get slight glimpses of it but I don't know if it's enough when compared with what we got with Ron and Hermione. At the same time, I might be getting ahead of myself because we still have one film to go.

Another thing, which my wife brought up last night, was the point of Voldemort killing Potter. Technically speaking, how does Voldemort know he's suppose to take out Potter? If you look at the seven films, it isn't stated anywhere how Voldemort came to choose Potter in the first place. Now, as a book reader, I know how he got to that point. But, technically the film hasn't told us yet. I know where it should've gone, in terms of canon but I'm not including that when it comes to analyzing these films. We still have one film to go and honestly, they're running out of spots to tell the audience the full story and that piece of information is absolutely essential to understand the overarching plot to the Potter saga.


As it stands though, this film is tied with Half-Blood Prince as my favorite. It is definitely one half of a long movie and you almost can't judge it until we get the last half...hence the reason I'm not going to throw it under the bus for some crucial information into understanding the whole thing.

 

[Larry Sutliff]

I saw it yesterday, enjoyed it a lot, but was disappointed with the abruptness of the ending. I really don't feel like waiting until July to see the rest. I hope I can keep myself from reading the book in the meantime.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

To paraphrase the famous Indiana Jones's line, 'Snakes! Why did it have to be snakes?';


'Tents! Why did it have to be tents?'


The movie, or very much so as the title states, half a movie aka Part I follows the books slavishly including the dreaded camping scenes. What was a slog in the book is interminable in the movie. At my showing the youngsters in attendance became restless enough that they resorted to running up and down the aisles. Indeed, at times there was more entertainment in the aisles than up on the screen.

 

[Simon Massey]

Interesting - I thought they did a good job of making the camping scenes not feel interminable, far better than the book IMO.


Suprised few have commented on the wonderful animated sequence of the Deathly Hallows too. And I thought the infiltration into the Ministry of Magic was very well done.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Originally Posted by Simon Massey

Interesting - I thought they did a good job of making the camping scenes not feel interminable, far better than the book IMO.


Suprised few have commented on the wonderful animated sequence of the Deathly Hallows too. And I thought the infiltration into the Ministry of Magic was very well done.

Better? I suppose in the way that a movie encompasses less time to sit through than a book.


Yes the animated sequence was very delightful. The MoM stuff was very well done.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Yates best HP film to date. Yes, it gets a bit lost in the woods, but paces it better than the book (the only time it betters the book, aside from the final scene with Dobby). But it looks beautiful, and it focuses on the three lead characters, adding quite a bit. My passion will remain with the books, especially reading the 7th, but I did enjoy this movie. It still trails Azkaban, but not by a lot. Still a bit of ground to cover in Part 2. I remain bitter and cynical about the decision to split the book in two, but they ended it right where a few of us had expected and speculated when they announced it, and I think they did a pretty good job with the split. Still pissed that I have to pay twice. But at least this film was worth the money.

 

[JonZ]

Originally Posted by Cory S. Technically speaking, how does Voldemort know he's suppose to take out Potter? If you look at the seven films, it isn't stated anywhere how Voldemort came to choose Potter in the first place.

I've nagged on about this in threads before. I though it was a big mistake not to include the Neville/ Harry thing in the OOTF film, and how Voldemort actually brought about his own demise by choosing the Potters. Dumbledore talked about it in the book. I think its important.


I wont spoil it for nonbook readers, but a scene in Part2, if they filmed and include it, will explain exactly how Voldemort choose the Potters. It does include The Prophecy, but theres more. I hope they dont screw it up and include that bit, because it not only answers your question, but some of the stuff left incomplete by the OOTF film.


I'm not one who really carries on about how much is missing from the books, but 2 scenes I really wish were included in HBP involve Voldemort. His visit to a certain woman who liked to collect "things", and his return to Hogwarts to ask Dumbledore for a job. Neither would have needed much time, and would have helped nonreaders understand the importance of the Horcruxes to Voldemort as well as given some really nice insight into his character.

 

[Cory S.]

JonZ,


It'll be there. They have no choice. We know why Voldemort wants to kill Potter (as stated by Tom Riddle in Chamber of Secrets) but how he choose him hasn't be told yet. They only have two places to do it.

 

[RobertR]

Saw it this morning and enjoyed it. The film does a good job of conveying the feel of the book. The camping scenes are what they are--meant to portray the loneliness and desperation of the situation. Criticism of them is criticism of the story. I wouldn't have wanted them to be left out. I applaud the decision to split the book in two. The Deathly Hallows is the most epic of the Potter books, and it needs plenty of room to breathe.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Originally Posted by Simon Massey

Suprised few have commented on the wonderful animated sequence of the Deathly Hallows too.

Loved the antimated sequence of the Tale of the Three Brothers. The animation did a terrific job not breaking from the color palette of the film, while playing wonderfully with the use of light. Even more than the animation itself, this story was a unique opportunity for Kloves to take a large chunk of prose directly from the source material, and he seized on it. Now, I wasn't following along with my hardcover of DH in the theater, but from my best recollection Hermione's telling of the story was word for word verbatim from the book.

Originally Posted by JonZ

I applaud the decision to split the book in two. The Deathly Hallows is the most epic of the Potter books, and it needs plenty of room to breathe.

I agree. While I can understand the grumbling about having to pay for two movie tickets to see essentially one story, one has to ask himself, "Did I get a full movie's worth of entertainment out of each part?" I think the answer, for Part 1 at least, will be yes for most people. As little as they left out of this movie, I think there will be even less left out of the next one, since there's only a little more than 250 pages worth of story left.

 

[Cory S.]

Adam,


I think that because they did 2/3's of the book in Part 1, a lot of "exposition gaps" that were not filled in from movies 5 and 6 will be added to Part 2 to fill it out. Personally, I think the Neville aspect of the Prophecy was a wonderful detail in the book, but it doesn't really add anything to Harry's story. Now, "how" Voldemort learned of it and made Harry his greatest nemesis HAS to be included in Part 2. When it was absent in Half-Blood Prince, I just sort of knew that Kloves was probably going to save it for "the moment" in Part 2. Adam and Jon, I'm almost positive you know where it'll go...if it is in fact in the narrative of Part 2.


As for the two memories not included in Half-Blood Prince, the second you mentioned Adam, I fretted about for a long time. It's probably my second favorite sequence in that book but it really would not have had a place, as you said, in the film's narrative. I just don't know where you'd put it. As for the first memory you mentioned, Part 1 rectified that problem in the climax if you were paying attention.


What's amazing about Part 1 is that they did all that work in 2 hours and 15 minutes. I've read a couple of rumors that Part 2 might be well over 2 and a half hours long. Not entirely sure I buy that, considering how Yates cut back way too much on Order of the Phoenix, but he was way more forgiving on Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows Part 1.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Originally Posted by RobertR

The camping scenes are what they are--meant to portray the loneliness and desperation of the situation. Criticism of them is criticism of the story.

Absolutely on both counts. Though those feelings had been pretty well mapped out since the first book. A redundancy not needed in the final book or needed to occupy such a large portion of it.


Disappointed the major weakness of the book was merely transported straight into the movie. An improvement opportunity via cinematic adaptation existed. None was even attempted.


IMO, of course.


On the bright side, Part 2 should crackle now that the narrative null zone of the tent is concluded.

 

[JonZ]

"Leaving out the first one puts them in a quandary for DH Part 2, because without it there's no way for Harry to know about that particular item."


Exactly my point, only you said it better than I did.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I also wanted to chime in with love for the animated sequence. Whether they cribbed the concept from the various video games that use it or from Hellboy 2, it played perfectly in the film. A smooth way to communicate a critical chunk of exposition, which also doubles as critical thematic meaning (based on Adam's observation of 3 years ago about who the Brothers represent). I loved the sequence, and it is the one thing my son kept asking me about. Adam also hits one of my favorite elements of this story. Harry's fundamental goodness and decency. Radcliffe has played it well in the films, capturing it without overdoing it. Even better, JKR doesn't make that decency a nice bonus, but rather the tipping point that enables his victory. Being a good person is what makes him win. That linkage is important. I still really miss those memories in HBP. A little bit of humanizing for Voldemort would go a long way to balancing Fiennes' somewhat campy performance. It would also drive home the Riddle/Potter comparisons. Anyways, I agree it isn't necessary, but it would have made the films better. IMO, of course.

 

[Cory S.]

JonZ,


But, this film did in fact fix that problem of Harry and his pals finding that particular Horcrux. It's in the torture sequence with Hermione, Bellatrix, and Griphook.

 

[Jim_C]

Originally Posted by Lou Sytsma

The camping scenes are what they are--meant to portray the loneliness and desperation of the situation. Criticism of them is criticism of the story.

Absolutely on both counts. Though those feelings had been pretty well mapped out since the first book. A redundancy not needed in the final book or needed to occupy such a large portion of it.


Disappointed the major weakness of the book was merely transported straight into the movie. An improvement opportunity via cinematic adaptation existed. None was even attempted.


IMO, of course.


On the bright side, Part 2 should crackle now that the narrative null zone of the tent is concluded.

[/QUOTE]

I have to disagree in that the desperation in the 7th book is unique to the series and that the camping scenes are important. For the first time Harry is without guidance or protection from Dumbledore. He doesn't know what to do or where to go. He knows his mission but doesn't know how to complete it. He has Hermione and Ron to help but they're looking to him for direction. The camping scenes in the book/movie are necessary to create that sense of directionless wandering, that sense of being up against something and not having any idea how to tackle it. Plus, you know that not only are your best friends counting on you but the whole wizarding world. What would people think if the three of them quickly figured out what to do and where to go? I'd feel short-changed because after the lengths we saw Voldemort go to to hide the locket in the cave I'd find it impossible to believe that the other horcruxes were easy to find.


I loved the book and love the movie. I thought it ended perfectly and can't wait for part 2. First impressions is that DH part 1 is up there with PoA and HBP as my favorite films of the series.

 

[RobertR]

That was well said, Jim.