REVIEW: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (2011): Dir. David Yates. Written by: Steve Kloves. Based on the novel by J.K. Rowling. Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Ralph Fiennes and Alan Rickman. Rated PG-13 (Dark curses are cast and lives are lost). Running time: 131 minutes.

3 stars (out of four)

You want an epic finale? You sure as heck get one in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2, the eighth and final film in the franchise. The movie is packed with action, only pausing a handful of times to breathe before the last half hour, which gets metaphysical and sentimental in that order. This is a movie designed for supreme audience satisfaction. Fans will find few alterations from the book to squabble about and all moviegoers – dedicated readers and casual watchers alike – would have difficulty saying in good faith that the film does not offer enough magical bang for your 10+ bucks.

Beginning where Part 1 ended (there is a brief recap if you forgot what happened in the last scene), Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) and friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) continue their search for the remaining horcruxes, pieces of Voldemort’s (Ralph Fiennes) soul trapped in hidden objects that must be destroyed before our heroes can hope to kill the Dark Lord. In the opening scenes, the characters are kind enough to give some explanatory exposition for forgetful viewers but this is not a film that stands on its own to be enjoyed by the uninitiated. It assumes – rightfully so – that its viewers are familiar with the wizarding world of Harry Potter and perhaps have even been to the Wizarding World of Harry Potter theme park in Orlando, Florida.

I will resist commenting that the choice to divide The Deathly Hallows into two films was financially motivated. Though the studio heads were no doubt pleased with the prospect of double the box office, I believe the filmmakers genuinely wanted the additional running time to adapt the novel as best they could. True, the film has time for scenes that might have been cut in a single Deathly Hallows movie (Part 1 in particular benefited from the lack of time constraints) but as a viewer, diving into a movie already half underway does not quite make for a narratively satisfying experience either.

My mind drifts now to Return of the King, the final Lord of the Rings film, which was wholly satisfying in part because of its lengthy running time. Return of the King stands on its own narratively and the final battle functions as the climax of both the individual film and the series on a whole. TDH Part 2, however, is all epic battle, a separate unit from the rest of the series and not really a narrative in its own right.

But to criticize the final Harry Potter film for being non-stop climax seems rather silly and more than a little futile too. There are moments of big-budget grandeur on display here that can only be afforded when you are making the eighth movie of a multi-billion dollar franchise. The sheer size of the film and its relentlessly epic tone are effective; it’s hard not to get caught up in this film.

This is also the most beautifully photographed Harry Potter film and equal credit should be given to director David Yates, cinematographer Eduardo Serra and production designer Stuart Craig for crafting a true spectacle. There are sweeping wide shots of the castle under fire and expressive close-ups of our heroes in battle, assembled together with a virtuoso artistry by editor Mark Day.

Of course, no one doubted the technical proficiency of this film and its visuals, impressive though they are, are not its main attractors. Fans have invested a great deal of time and money on these characters and the filmmakers do not forget the actors in the sea of lavish sets and computer animation. Alan Rickman’s Severus Snape, mostly unseen in the last film, gets more screen time and Rickman gets to show off his eloquent snarl one last time before quietly capturing the character’s poignant conclusion to his series-long arc. As Voldemort, Ralph Fiennes enunciates his words in hushed, sinister tones. He commands the frame whenever he is onscreen.

The story is faithfully told according to J.K. Rowling’s novel, which means the film also adopts a few of the novel’s shortcomings. There are moments of Great Drama that occasionally come off a little clumsy; characters are prone to giving speeches atop rubble about the truths of love and friendship and bravery. I don’t mean to sound cynical; one of the charms of Rowling’s writing has always been its willingness to embrace these sentimental themes with unabashed innocence. The Potter films have subsequently adopted this openness of emotion though the characters’ tearjerking declarations work better on page than they do cinematically.

I do not imagine this film will disappoint many people. It delivers on fans’ expectations for a grand finale. Might it have worked even better as an undivided whole, as a nearly four-hour epic audiences would likely have seen (and paid for only once) without complaint? Maybe, but there are future DVD marathons (or rereads of the books, I suppose) for that. At the moment, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 exists as undeniably grand pop cultural event that concludes the series with no shortage of stylistic wizardry.

- Steve Avigliano, 7/23/11

REVIEW: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 (2010): Dir. David Yates and Ben Hibon (animated sequence). Written by Steve Kloves, based on the novel by J.K. Rowling. Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham Carter, Alan Rickman. Rated PG-13 (some sequences of intense action violence, frightening images and brief sensuality). Running time: 146 minutes.

3 stars (out of four)

The Harry Potter franchise has always faced a catch-22. The first film was released while J.K. Rowling was only halfway through writing the series, so for many fans, the books and movies are intertwined in a way unlike any other book-to-movie adaptation. During a summer when we were bombarded with simultaneous ads for the final novel and the fifth movie, how could one read The Deathly Hallows without picturing Daniel Radcliffe as Harry or imagining how certain scenes would eventually play out onscreen? The movies changed the way we pictured the world and characters of the novels. Similarly, it is difficult watch the films without making constant mental comparisons to the books still fresh in our minds.

This presents a problem for the filmmakers. Ideally, a film adaptation should be free to make whatever adjustments are necessary make the story work in movie form. For the Harry Potter films, however, the filmmakers feel extra pressure to remain faithful to the books. Change or condense too much and you upset the fans. Each installment in the series has handled this issue to varying degrees of success. The third, Prisoner of Azkaban took the greatest liberties with its source material but in some ways stayed most true to the tone of the novel. On the other hand, the fifth film, Order of the Phoenix, excised so many subplots that the pacing was thrown off. The movie moved too fast to tell such a complex story. Then again, maybe that was just the Potter fan in me disappointed to see my favorite book (a whopping 800+ pages long) condensed to a lean two hours.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is a different sort of beast for a few reasons. The filmmakers elected to divide the book into two movies and release them eight months apart, a decision that has its benefits and its drawbacks. By splitting the story down the middle, the viewer is left with the anticlimactic feeling of having only seen half a movie. Part 1 also ends on a pretty limp cliffhanger that fails to excite because we don’t yet understand how it fits into the larger picture.

Yet in spite of this unnatural division, the additional running time afforded by the two-part release plan gives the film a chance to breathe, something the last three films rarely got a chance to do.

The film opens with Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) hissing his plan to his Death Eater disciples (as if they didn’t already know): to kill Harry Potter. Here, Fiennes finally gets the opportunity to delve into the nastiness of Voldemort and his performance reminds us why the character is such a great villain.

Meanwhile, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) are on the search to find Voldemort’s missing horcruxes – objects that contain fragments of the Dark Lord’s soul. In order to kill You Know Who, they must first destroy the hidden horcruxes. This quest leads our young heroes away from Hogwarts, which means considerably less screen time for most of the supporting characters. Series favorites such as Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) and Severus Snape (Alan Rickman) only get a handful of scenes, but will no doubt return for Part 2.

The relaxed pacing of TDH Part 1 also allows for some wonderful scenes that might not have made it into a more condensed script. The best of these is an animated sequence that tells the mythical fable of “The Three Brothers,” which plays an important role in the story. The scene, directed by animator Ben Hibon, is one of the film’s most visually inventive moments and its inclusion enriches the mythology of Rowling’s universe.

The film also strikes a balance between the bleak tone of the later films and the ever-present whimsy of Rowling’s world. There’s even room for a few laughs when the gang infiltrates the Ministry of Magic disguised as wizarding adults.

The Deathly Hallows Part 1 is one of the strongest installments of the series and will hopefully become even better when taken into consideration with Part 2. Could the two films have been condensed into one longer film? Perhaps, but at the cost of which scenes? There may be no perfect way to adapt the books, but this may be as close as the films come to delivering a satisfying and faithful Harry Potter film.

- Steve Avigliano, 12/02/10

REVIEW: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009): Dir. David Yates. Written by: Steve Kloves. Based on the novel by: J.K. Rowling. Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Sir Michael Gambon, Jim Broadbent, Alan Rickman, Tom Felton, Helena Bonham Carter. Rated PG (scary images, some violence, language and mild sensuality). Running time: 153 minutes.

3 stars (out of four)

"No time for dancing, or lovey dovey. I ain't got time for that now."

So sings David Byrne of “Life During Wartime.” Screenwriter Steve Kloves and director David Yates however find considerable room for lovey dovey in the The Half-Blood Prince, an often lighthearted adaptation of J.K. Rowling’s sixth novel. The war between the Dark Lord and his resistors is just kicking into gear, but try telling that to the burgeoning hormones of a bunch of sixteen-year-olds.

The film opens darkly with the naysayers of the last film conceding that He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named has indeed returned and, along with his entourage, the Death Eaters, is wreaking havoc on both the wizarding and Muggle world. Life continues though and Harry, Ron and Hermione (Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson, respectively) return to Hogwarts to find an increase in security and a decrease in smiles. Meanwhile Dumbledore (Sir Michael Gambon) has been taking mysterious leaves of absence and Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) may or may not be serving the Dark Lord. There’s also a new professor inclined towards favoritism, Horace Slughorn, played with great humor by Jim Broadbent. As with most of the supporting roles in the Potter series, Broadbent’s performance is one of the film’s strengths, adding several laughs and bringing to life the easily excitable Potions teacher with something to hide. But all mysteries aside, the biggest changes going on in the lives of our heroes are the internal ones, and the romantic subplots often upstage the main storyline, remaining true to the snogfest of the book.

Like each of the Potter films after the first two, The Half-Blood Prince features heavy editing of its source material. The politics of the wizarding world, which were prominent in the last film, are gone, and many characters’ roles have been reduced or removed entirely (most regrettably, the begrudging house elf Kreacher who I understand is to return again in the next installment). All but two of the Voldemort flashbacks, which made up the dominant thread in the novel, have been cut and the climactic ending has been altered to include less action. There is however a new scene involving a thrilling chase through tall grass that punches up the film’s midsection.

Despite these deviations, The Half-Blood Prince is an improvement on Order of the Phoenix, which excised so many storylines from Rowling’s sprawling novel it felt far removed from the magic of the beloved castle. Each Potter film thus far has struggled, to varying degrees of success, to capture onscreen what makes the books so enjoyable, but always lacks Rowling’s sense of limitless invention. They remain, as blockbusters must, plot-oriented, and while they retain the overall outline of the books, they cut Rowling’s doodles in the margins, her embellishments that bring this fictional world to life.

This remains an entertaining film however, and remains true to the tone of the sixth novel, balancing the darkness of an impending war with adolescent angst. More so than other films of the series, The Half-Blood Prince strives to recreate at least some of Rowling’s magic on the page with visual flourishes and some truly funny moments. This ain’t no party, and this ain’t no disco, but we’ve got time to fool around a little before the two-part Deathly Hallows sobers things up.

- Steve Avigliano, 7/28/09