This has admittedly been a slow year for me in terms of movie-watching. Since I essentially stopped renting films, I’ve been relying heavily on Netflix to catch up on all I’ve been missing. Unfortunately, Netflix is just a front for the siren song that is TV On Demand, I am no stranger to being lured in by siren songs.
Well, unless it's poorly written SG-1 fan-fiction.
Theaters, though, still attract me in a way that is rather inexplicable. Why would I be drawn to something that is an uncomfortable and overpriced public gallery of humanity’s worst offenders? Maybe it’s for the commercials and AMC’s “Closer Look” behind-the-scene segments. I mean, where else am I going to be forced to watch a five minute actor’s promo for The Smurfs? No, no that’s definitely not it either. While the mystery may remained unsolved, it definitely says something about my character.
A quick word of caution: this a very spoiler-light review, but if you are a die hard fan and for some reason haven’t yet seen it (at which point I question your fandom), then you might want to skip it until after you’ve watched it.
If you voted for this alliance, you've already seen the movie.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 is a title far too long to type more than once in a sitting, so I hope you enjoyed that while it lasted. It’s always hard to effectively review a studio-planned second part to something that was shot as a single movie (as it was with Kill Bill or Lord of the Rings), but since Warner Bros. wants me to consider it its own movie, I must.
And the first thing that comes to mind, then, when having to take this into account, is that the pacing is pretty unreliable. Part 1 felt very much like a final movie in a series from the opening credits sequence and carried pace all the way until the abrupt ending. There wasn’t really a point in the first part where I said “this would be great if it didn’t seem so disjointed”. This was sadly not the case for the second part. As those of you who have read the books will already know, the second part takes place more or less over the course of a single day, which isn’t a big deal in the book because the seventh book takes place over the course of months. But since the first film covered, you know, the months (as all the other HP movies did), we are left with what a Harry Potter movie would be if it were more serialized into a very specific chapter of a much larger story. Not that this is inherently bad, but what ends up happening is that you never really get a sense of adequate pacing. It goes from playing catch up, to a small action sequence, to brooding suspense, to epic action, and generally jumps around from there. I assume that if I were to watch the two films back to back this really wouldn’t be an issue. But since it’s been a long time since I’ve seen the first film (and even longer since I read the book), it was pretty noticeable and therefore hard to get too attached to the flow of any given scene.
The changes made from the story in this film (much like in the first part) are a non-issue for me, in a way that I can’t say about the other films in this series. One of my problems with the Harry Potter phenomenon in general is that every movie had a different director, and every director wanted to make their own individual mark on the universe by changing around things in the book and generally screwing everything up for everyone (both book and film fans alike). The universe established in the seventh and eighth films is arguably the closest to the books that we’re going to get, and the changes made are minor and artistic instead of story-destroying. If you, however, thought that DH Part 1 handled the adaptation poorly, then you’re going to be likely to think this for part 2 as well. I just want to make it clear that I don’t care, because this is a film review, and not a book review, and my reasoning is that we should judge them based on their sole film merit. If the entire series changes things back and forth so many times that it becomes nearly incomprehensible and noncontinuous, then we have a problem.
Michael Bay is familiar with the kind of problem I'm talking about.
The directing is really solid though, and Yates makes a number of bold choices in the second part much like he did with the animated sequence in the first. He seems to have a grasp on the incredible gravity of the scenes he’s showing, and aided by top-notch special effects he handles these heavy scenarios with relative ease. There’s a lot of loose ends to tie up (that unfortunately were not always properly addressed in previous films in the series), but Yates does a fine job sorting out the web and delivering us a cogent product.
Worth noting is the soundtrack. Alexandre Desplat (who also did the soundtrack to Part 1, but more notably did the scores for A Prophet, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, and The King’s Speech) does a fantastic job scoring what is arguably the most important film in the HP franchise. He tends to stay away from the old John Williams recurring themes, choosing instead to compose new and more appropriate tracks to accompany the various highs and lows in the finale. In fact, to my knowledge this is the only film that starts without the now-famous Harry Potter theme melody. This sets a very specific tone, and sends an all-bets-are-off kind of message, which I always enjoy. I’m not a fan of bets, and I’d rather them be off than on.
The acting is about as good as you can get out of the cast, although the performances in Part 1 did seem to outshine these a bit. Rickman was, however, at the top of his game, but then again when is he not? I mean, outside of Alice in Wonderland. And Love Actually. Other than that it’s nothing any more remarkable than it has been for the previous seven films.
...or Die Hard...
But the movie does succeed in bringing with it the concise air of finality that was to be expected. I know this doesn’t seem like it should be as big a deal as it is, but when you consider that the book had 18 chapters in which nothing happened–at all–and another half dozen where everything has to get wrapped up over and over again, it’s impressive. To be honest, most of the HP films have failed pretty hard at succinctly telling the story presented in a 3-4hr window, and we’re usually left mostly unsatisfied at how the story had been manhandled. Deathly Hallows, for my money, is the only film that efficiently adapts the story in question, and I give Yates and Kloves (the screenwriter) credit for this.
So, overall, it was as satisfying that it could be, all things considered. The adaptation was fulfilling, the directing was very good (in some scenes better than others), the acting was passable, and the score was quiet good. Naturally, if both parts were combined into a 4-5hr film I would appreciate it a lot more, but that goes without saying. Having to grade the film as is, though, is no difficult task.
Final Grade: B+
Radcliff's new film, "The Woman in Black", is probably not a secret sequel to Harry Potter. Probably.