Thoughts on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

It's been a little more than the most recent, and final, Harry Potter movies appeared in my house on DVD.  I have also watched them, out of order, and it inspired some more thoughts that I thought I would share.  First, and foremost, I really liked them, please don't misunderstand anything I say after this, I do really like them.  But seeing them nearly back to back (7.2 last night and 7.1 today), it inspired a few thoughts I hadn't considered when I first saw them in theaters.

First - how do they stack up as separate films?
The short answer is: they don't.  There is a lot in both films that, I imagine, would be hard to understand if you haven't read the book.  And because of the detail of J.K. Rowling's work, there is a lot that is left out or rearranged in order to make it into 2 films.  But the longer answer is that 7.2 could, with about 20 more minutes of introduction, be a film all on its own.  7.1 tells us a LOT of information and does a fair amount of character development and fills a lot of holes, but doesn't build to a particularly good ending.

Second - is one better than the other?
I wouldn't have guessed this, but I really liked 7.2 much better than 7.1.  I think a lot more happens and that action usually contains a fair amount of building the plot forward so that it makes for a more cohesive film.  However, there are scenes from 7.1 that I really enjoy - particularly the scene when 3 gifted actors other than Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint have to play Harry, Hermione and Ron in the Ministry of Magic.  That scene works wonderfully for humor, tension, and building the story.  I think 7.1 could have used more editing (trimming the time in the tent) and a stronger ending scene - the whole scene at Malfoy mansion is very strong in the book, and somehow wasn't brought to the proper climax on film - seriously we should have been crying and it just doesn't quite get there.

Third - other gripes?
Yes, 7.1 works visually on a large screen.  On my smallish TV during the day there were more than a few scenes where I could barely see anything on screen.  The whole scene where Ron fights the horcrux is nearly invisible.  For such a powerful scene, it was disappointing to have it disappear.  I don't know if the color scheme was completely deliberate, but it makes for a dull trudge through almost anything dark or in the woods.
Yes, 7.2 has some really terrific moments, but, in general, the dialogue (when it differs from the book, which much of the battle of Hogwarts does) is not great.  It's hard to tell if it's the acting ability of the cast or just bad acting moments, but in general the dialogue or lack thereof is not great - particularly when they're trying to get across something already known (ex - Ron and Hermione's relationship being exposed to Harry before he goes to the forest, or Neville's speech to Voldemort).

Last - is the epilogue worth the effort?
No.  The make-up, hair and costumes fails miserably to live up to the spectacular 8 movies that precede that final 7 minutes.  None of them actually look measurably older or specifically 19 years older.  Harry looks sick, Ron looks fat, Hermione looks busy, and Ginny looks chic, but none of them look older.  C'mon, they had all the money in the world and they seriously produced that?   As a completion of the film, it's okay since it's so short, but looking at it on it's own, I have to agree with Rachel - they should have put it AFTER the credits for those would might have wanted it.

I'm sure I'll have more and more thoughts as I watch this many times over the next many years, but these are my first set of thoughts on the movies seen within 24 hours, out of sequence.  Perhaps I need to try them again in order.  Since I have another 3 weeks before the spring semester starts, maybe I'll try that.  Advice?  Thoughts?

Belated Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows review

*Spoilers ahead*

Since I originally missed the first 12 minutes or so of the new Harry Potter, I wanted to be sure I saw the rest before I wrote my review.  And it turns out I was right to do so (I'm biased, I know).  My first opinion of the film was that it was much funnier than the first 6, with dark parts.  This was because I walked in just as the funnier parts were starting.  Yes, there was action, but watching lots of people transform into Harry was pretty funny - and Fred and George's humor was hysterical.  However, after seeing the very sad and then scary scenes that actually show before the humor, the movie is set up to be very dark, with few moments of levity to lighten the load.  Watching Hermione erase her parents' memories, and then watching the DeathEaters at Malfoy manner kill the Muggle studies teacher, you know you've been set up for a very dark film. 

My opinion of the rest of the film was well talked out in Episode 23 of the Reel Insight podcast.  In summary, I thought the acting was much improved over the previous incarnations, particularly Emma Watson's Hermione.  This could be because she wasn't forced into false laughter (which always bothered me) and the seriousness between all the characters made for better acting.  There were jump in your seat moments when the snake appears in Godric's Hollow, and what were they thinking moments with the silver body paint in Ron's nightmare, but overall, the movie flowed fairly well from moment to moment (with a slight dragging section in the middle, but I didn't mind that part, the good acting helped).  I did have a problem with the ending - it didn't feel even a tiny bit complete, but nor did it feel like a cliffhanger (the only acceptable Hollywood ending without resolution).  I think they needed to do a bit more with Dobby's funeral to give a feeling of completeness, but since the story was already running so long, they just stopped.  Oh well, I'll enjoy watching it again in preparation for Part II.  My score remains as previously stated 4.5 of 5 stars/lambs

Tuesdays Top-Grossing Reviews: 2001

Year: 2001

Film: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

Box Office Gross: $317, 557, 891

Awards: Nominated for 3 Academy Awards

Actors: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Maggie Smith, Richard Harris, Robbie Coltrane

Five of the top 50 highest grossing movies are the Harry Potter series, but only one was the highest grossing movie of its year. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is the first in the series and the highest grossing. I doubt there are any people who haven't seen the movie, or read the book, or at least know who Harry Potter is, but I like writing so here it goes. Harry Potter is an eleven-year-old, orphaned British boy who lives a fairly tortured existence with his aunt, uncle and cousin. On his birthday letters start arriving that freak out his family such that they run away to a cabin. The cabin door is knocked down and Hagrid, a half-giant, appears to wish Harry a happy birthday and make sure he received his letter from Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Harry is of course a wizard. He arrives at school to find out his whole life is known to all wizards as he managed to survive an attack from the worst wizard ever - Lord Voldemort. Harry meets friends, Ron Weasley (Grint) and Hermione Granger (Watson) and they learn magic and attempt to survive Voldemort's return.

I love the Harry Potter books, and the movies do a terrific job of capturing the spirit of the world of Harry Potter. The first one has the optimism and hope that the first book is about, and as the books got darker as Harry grows up and the danger increases. There is of course debate about the two Dumbledores - Richard Harris (for the first 2 movies) and Michael Gambon (for 3-7). I think Harris captured the older grandfatherly role of Dumbledore better, but I'm not sure Harris could have pulled off the powerful wizard Dumbledore needs to be in later books, so perhaps its a fortunate coincidence that Gambon was able to take over the role. I think these movies won't be the epitome of film making that perhaps the LOTR series will be, or even the genre changing that the Star Wars movies are, but they're wonderful family movies that will definitely stand the test of time. Which of the 5 so far is your favorite movie? I love the 3rd one, Prisoner of Azkaban, with Gary Oldman as Sirius Black!