Blogorium Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two

 Forgive me, but I'm late to the party. By now, anybody who was going to see Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two has already seen it or will be buying the film on DVD / Blu-Ray when it comes out... Christmas? I just checked and there's still no announcement, so let's go with that for now. I've heard two opinions with respect to the film: the film faithfully represents the second half of the novel, or that it narrows its focus in such a way that the final battle lacks the scope it should. Many characters get what amount to cameos (including a "blink-and-you'll-miss-it" Emma Thompson shot), and characters that were set up (like Grawp) are totally left out. On the other hand, the film is often astonishingly bleak, in keeping with where Harry, Ron, and Hermione find themselves at the end of the last film.

 There doesn't seem to be much point in writing a plot recap, so I'll skip straight to my reaction. Lest ye wonder further, I really liked the film. I do understand the criticism of director David Yates and writer Steve Kloves' decision to focus solely on the trio of young wizards at the expense of a battle we've been waiting for these last four years. It was, in part, why fans were relieved when Warner Brothers split The Deathly Hallows into two films (a canny marketing strategy) - there was a sense that nothing crucial would be missing from the story, a problem that plagued various entries in different ways. The film begins, appropriately, to a grim and mournful march for students into Hogwarts. Escorted by Death Eaters, guarded by Dementors and overseen by the haunted visage of Severus Snape (Alan Rickman), this will not be the light hearted adventure that hid somewhere behind even the darkest entries into the series before. It opens The Deathly Hallows on a somber note of desperation - Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) has The Elder Wand and is consolidating all of this power to the single purpose of killing Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe).

 In the interest of keeping the film vaguely adventurous, Harry, Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson) are still hunting for Horcruxes scattered by Voldemort, including a trip back into Gringotts bank with Griphook (Warwick Davis). The moment is amusing if for nothing else than seeing Helena Bonham Carter playing Bellatrix Lestrange as Hermione might imagine her, a performance that allows Carter to have some fun. My guess is that the extended magical mine cart ride existed largely to justify the 3-D, and it works well enough with out it but takes longer than it needs to. I'm inclined to give it a pass because when it's time to have actual stakes, people actually die and a dragon does what dragons ought to do, even in a "children's" movie*. From here on out, it's a direct line to Hogwarts and the final showdown between good and evil.

 Before addressing the how's and why's of criticisms of The Battle of Hogwarts, allow me to take a moment to mention things I was very taken by in translation from novel to film: I really liked Abeforth Dumbledore (Ciarán Hinds), the jaded, resigned brother of Hogwarts' former headmaster. He was exactly the voice of reason the story lacked up to this point, even if his position is short-lived. The final revelation of Severus Snape was handled pitch-perfectly, and integrates itself into earlier films in such a way that explain lingering mysteries while wrapping up his narrative arc. Many characters get smaller moments to shine, including Molly Weasley (Julie Walters), Neville Longbottom (Matthew Lewis), Ollivander (John Hurt), Professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith), and especially the Malfoy family (Tom Felton, Jason Isaacs, and Helen McCrory) who have the opportunity to display a level of depth absent from the first five Harry Potter films.

 The film belongs by and large to Daniel Radcliffe and Ralph Fiennes, which is as it should be, but it does mean that there's a lot of Harry sneaking around while the battle rages around him. It leaves characters like Lupin, Tonks, the Weasley family, Flitwick, Professor Sprout, Fleur Delacour, Professor Trelawney, Madame Pomfrey, Luna Lovegood, and Kinglsey Shacklebolt reduced to fleeting glimpses as the violence intensifies, while Harry has a face-to-ghost moment with Helena Ravenclaw (Kelly MacDonald), a character heretofore unseen. While I'm not surprised to see James and Lily Potter in very small roles, there's scarcely a good reason to bring Gary Oldman back to play Sirius Black for what amounts to three minutes. The same can be said for Robbie Coltrane, who is absent for almost all of the film as Hagrid.

 Part of the justifiable complaint about The Battle of Hogwarts is that Yates sets up an epic showdown, staying with Voldemort and the Death Eaters as they assault the school, cutting back to concerned professors, members of the Order of the Phoenix, and students as they prepare what meager defenses they have. The films have been building to this point, where two opposing forces must clash, and nearly all of it happens on the other side of a doorway from the main action. Yes, it is important to follow Harry, Ron, and Hermione. Yes, they need to destroy the final Horcrux (well, next to final), but Yates doesn't give audiences who have been waiting for this moment since Voldemort killed Cedric Diggory in cold blood much more than a "oh, that's going on over there." Yet we're supposed to feel the loss from cursory cut-away's to fallen characters. If you haven't read the book, have fun trying to figure out which Weasley brother is supposed to be dead, by the way.

 Still, the final showdown between Potter and Voldemort is exactly as it should be, and is preceded by the second moment for Neville Longbottom that justifies his otherwise insignificant role in the film adaptations**, as well as the long payoff to the Malfoy subservience to the dark lord. On the other hand, if you haven't been paying close attention (or haven't seen The Half Blood Prince in a while), you might not grasp how Harry was able to defeat Voldemort, at least until he explains it at the end. The moment between Harry and Dumbledore in an in-between realm is touching, and the coda is strangely effective, even if the "older-age" makeup isn't wholly convincing.

 But I quibble too much. Are the some issues with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two? One could argue there are. Do they ultimately undermine the movie that is? I don't think so. I sense there's a longer cut out there somewhere, one that fills in many of the gaps in the second half of the film. As for the 3-D, I can't say that it would have helped the Room of Requirement of Gringotts any more than not having it hurt them, and the film works just fine in 2-D. I don't see the need to add gimmickry. The film is a fitting closing to the series, and considering that I nearly didn't come back after hating the first film, that says a lot to the Cap'n.




 * Which Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One and Two are not. If you take young children to this film, you're an idiot. Good luck with those nightmares, geniuses. Audiences are meant to age WITH the books / films, not be plopped down in front of the most adult films of the series because you assume they're for children.
** Stripped from the films entirely was the suggestion in Order of the Phoenix that the prophecy may have been in reference to Neville and not Harry.