Deathly Hallows 2 review

[geri_chan]

I saw DH2 a few weeks ago, and realized that I never got around to writing up a review. I should've written it down while my memories were still fresh, but here are my somewhat haphazard impressions of the film:


I liked it very much, better than some of the earlier films. It moved at a good pace--I don't remember any place where I thought it dragged along too slowly. Of course, like all of the other movies, it does suffer a bit from "Cliff Notes" syndrome, which is understandable, since it would be impossible to cover everything that was in the book, even with stretching it out across two films. But people unfamiliar with the books might be wondering why Bill is able to give Harry advice about goblins. I assume it was mentioned in passing that he worked at Gringotts, although I don't really remember it, so it would be even easier for a movie-only watcher to miss. That's a nitpick, though--a more serious omission is the Teddy issue. In the first movie, there's a very subtle reference to Tonks's pregnancy--she starts to tell Harry about their "good news," and then Moody cuts her off. And then suddenly in the scene where Harry is walking through the forest to his (supposed) death with the spirits of his parents, Sirius, and Remus, he said something like, "What about your son?" And if you hadn't read the books, you might be wondering, "Since when does Remus have a son?" As usual, I saw the movie with Friend A (who has read the books) and Friend B (who hasn't), and after the movie was over, A and I had to explain to B about the whole Teddy subplot that was cut from the movie. But overall, B enjoyed the movie and wasn't bothered by the little plot details that went over his head. (Then again, he mainly goes to the HP movies to humor me and A.)

Helena Bonham-Carter was fantastic as Hermione playing Bellatrix--I really bought that it was Hermione in Bella's body! It was as hilarious as the scene in the previous movie, with with the adult actors who played the Trio polyjuiced into the Ministry workers.

The film removed the dubious aspects of Harry's morality/character that troubled me in the books:
-He doesn't try to cheat Griphook. When Ron asks how they're going to destroy the Horcrux without the sword, I think Harry says something like they need to get the Horcrux first and they'll figure the rest out later. Which seems to indicate that he doesn't plan to go back on his promise to give Griphook the sword. (Although as per the book, Griphook ends up betraying them instead.)
-He doesn't use the Cruciatus on Amycus Carrow. (In fact, the Carrows are barely in the movie.)
-He tries to help Snape when Snape is dying after the Nagini attack, and even though Snape is an enemy, that seems more in keeping with the Harry who spared Wormtail and saved Draco and Goyle (Draco and Blaise in the film). I was a bit disturbed that the kids just stood by and watched Snape bleed to death in the book, even though they were probably in shock and as far as they knew, Snape was a Death Eater and a murderer. Saving an enemy might not be the smartest strategic move, but I always thought that it would be in character for Hermione to do it anyway, almost as an automatic reflex, and as mentioned, Harry has a history of not killing his enemies, or even just letting them die by default. Though I could see Ron arguing that they shouldn't help an enemy, and that Snape will probably try to kill them after they save him.

Anyway, getting back to the movie...

I was disappointed that the backstory involving Dumbledore and Grindelwald and Ariana was cut, although I'm sure that it was cut for time reasons. I suppose it's not crucial to the main Harry vs. Voldemort plot, but I thought it gave an added facet--though not a pleasant one--to Dumbledore's character.

McGonagall's "I've always wanted to use that spell!" made me grin, even though I've read other reviews that think it's OOC.

I felt like Neville was kind of cheated in the movie--the film made him look like a bit of a buffoon when he stood on the bridge taunting Voldemort's army, then had to take off running when the protective barrier went down. And he was cheated of his big moment in killing Nagini. He did still kill Nagini, of course, but it was more of a group effort and not nearly as heroic as in the book. B said it would have been much more dramatic if (in the scene where Voldemort asks the Hogwarts students and staff to come over to his side) Neville had just walked over and cut Nagini's head off. Which shows that B has good instincts, I guess, since that isn't too far off from how it happened in the book.

And speaking of that scene, what was up with the Voldemort-hugging-Draco bit? That was really bizarre, like Voldie had been watching too much Oprah or Dr. Phil on TV!

The "Harry talks in his sleep" bit to explain how Ron can speak Parseltongue is pretty dumb, but no dumber--and maybe even a little less dumb--than the explanation given in the book.

B said he was surprised that Voldemort didn't kill Lucius in the boathouse scene, when Lucius suggested putting off the attack. Which is logical, since the last DE to contradict Voldie ended up being killed. I suggested that maybe Voldie keeps Lucius around because he enjoys seeing him broken and crawling, and my friend said, "Oh, like a pet that he enjoys kicking around." Or maybe it was just a practical consideration, because he still needed Lucius to go fetch Snape, but I do think that Voldemort gets some enjoyment out of Lucius's humiliation.

Snape's death scene is horrific without being explicit--really well done from a cinematic standpoint. You can understand the kids being horrified and maybe even having a bit of pity for Snape after watching his body being slammed against the window, even though they have every reason to hate him. I know others have complained about the location being changed from the Shrieking Shack, which is admittedly more symbolic, but I was actually kind of glad that Snape didn't have to die in a place that must be one of his worst nightmares--a very small mercy. David Yates talks on Mugglecast episode #235 about how they changed the location for cinematic reasons and because they wrote themselves into a hole by blowing up the bridge, which is the only way to reach the Shrieking Shack in the movie. (Although shouldn't someone have noticed early on, while the script could still have been rewritten to fix that loophole?) Oh, and A thought the tears worked better cinematically than silvery stuff oozing out of Snape's eyes (and ears and mouth, according to the book).

"The Prince's Tale" sequence in the movie cuts out the backstory of how Lily and Snape's friendship ended with the "Mudblood" insult, but since most of Snape's backstory was cut out of the earlier films, it worked within the context of the movie-verse. (It also cuts out the stalkerish feel of the way that young Snape watches Lily in the books, which is okay by me, since I felt it was a bit unfair to brand a lonely nine-year-old kid as a stalker for wanting to meet a friend who shares his magical abilities.) Young Snape is adorable--I just want to give him a hug--and has a slightly melancholy air that fits his character despite most of the backstory being cut out. And as short as the scenes were, I did feel it conveyed a better sense of genuine friendship between Lily and Snape than the book did. I also felt like it gave a better sense of Harry identifying with Snape, as we watch Snape's memories through Harry's eyes.

The de-aging of Alan Rickman was a bit distracting. It didn't look realistic to me, and I felt it would have been better to either cast another actor in the young Snape role, or to use some sort of filter to blur his features and give the sequence a dreamlike, hazy air.

B didn't mention this, but another friend at work said that the person she saw the movie with (who hasn't read the books) asked, "So, was Snape actually Harry's dad?" Apparently other non-book moviegoers have gotten this mistaken impression, from what I've heard. Maybe they should be introduced to Severitus (i.e. "Snape is Harry's real father") fanfics? ;-)

I was infuriated by the treatment of the Slytherins, which is even worse than in the books. You're going to lock up and condemn ALL the Slytherins, even the little first years? I wouldn't blame them if they went over to Voldemort's side after that! A was also outraged over this. And if you believe that they're all budding Death Eaters, why on earth would you send Filch to escort them to the dungeons and lock them up? As a squib, they could easily overpower him! The threat of detention and/or expulsion is enough to keep the students in line normally, I'm sure, but during a battle, when both sides are fighting for survival, I don't think that the Slytherins would be worrying about detention! The fact that they didn't try to overpower Filch ought to be enough to prove their innocence, imho. The theme of "House unity--except for Slytherin" is my number one pet peeve about the books, and I was hoping that the movie would handle it a little better, but apparently not.

I felt really bad for poor Goyle--what a horrible way to die! Friend A liked the way he tried to shake loose the fire from his wand, but only ended up making things worse. (In a cinematic sense, that is--not because she wanted Goyle to die!) Of course in the books, it's Crabbe who died, but as I recall, the actor who played him was arrested for drug possession or something like that, so he was cut from the films and his role was essentially switched to Goyle, with Blaise Zabini standing in as sidekick. Which worked fine in the movie, and at least the actor who played Blaise got a bit of extra screen time.

Book!Dumbledore came off as manipulative and ruthless to me. Michael Gambon did a good job of portraying Dumbledore's regret at having to be so ruthless--I had a better sense that yes, he would let Harry die if that was the only way to defeat Voldemort, but also that he cared about Harry and truly regretted the necessity. Sort of a weary air of reluctant resignation. But I liked that the movie kept Snape's "pig to slaughter" line.

B wondered why Harry threw himself and Voldemort off the tower. I guess it was just to be more dramatic.

In the final pre-epilogue scene, where Harry broke the wand and threw it off the castle walls, was I the only one worried he might slip and fall to his death, thereby becoming the Boy Who Survived Voldemort But Was Killed By His Own Stupidity? (Although I am glad that he destroyed the wand.)

B felt that the film would have ended on a more powerful emotional note if it had ended just before the epilogue. A and I agreed, but I'm pretty sure that JKR would have insisted that the epilogue be included. That said, I did like the scene between Harry and Albus Severus, which had a nice tender quality to it. And Al's vulnerability was sweet and touching--and I'm still rooting for him to go into Slytherin! The aging-up of the kids didn't look that realistic to me, but it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be, judging from reviews I'd read prior to seeing the movie that thought it was really horrible. Though I still feel bad for Draco and his receding hairline!