Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2: Film Review

Yesterday after finishing the book for a second time i started getting nervous about this installment due to it's shorter running time and the amount of information that needs to be given even within the epic battle scene.

Now that i know that Snape's redemption is in there as well as Aberforth's re-telling of Dumbledore's past and the epilogue nineteen years later, I'm feeling much better.

However, i have yet to hear of anything regarding king's cross

quote:

---

I thought people said that most of the movies weren't that good

---

I loved the books and the movies. And I also think it is unfair to compare the two, because they are two entirely separate forms of media. To include everything from the books is just an impossibility.

My biggest gripe with HBP was the leaving out of so much of Voldemort's back story. Hell that is basically what book 6 was about.

I read yesterday that the epilogue is NOT in the movie.

I have no interest in reading the books, so the movies are ok to me.

When I first sat down and watched a HP movie last year, I was actually surprised how good it was after hearing how crap they are compared to the books.

quote:

---

However, i have yet to hear of anything regarding king's cross

---

It's in there, and Harry will be clothed.

Actually, my biggest gripe with the movies have always been that they are too respectful of the source material, particulaerly the first two films. It felt like it was just rushing to get to specific plot points. I do think they conciously failed to develop some characters, focusing primarily on Harry. This means some second tier characters have been abslutely gutted in the film, and come their "big moment", we don't really care that much about them - Tonks, the Weasley twins, even Neville to some extent.

I do think the films LOOK very good, and the films are much better at the action sequences, which Rowling sort of sucks at writing about. So I liked adding the attack on the burrows. It something the films do well that the books don't.

quote:

---

Actually, my biggest gripe with the movies have always been that they are too respectful of the source material, particulaerly the first two films.

---

Yeah the first two films are far too literal and uninspired.

quote:

---

It felt like it was just rushing to get to specific plot points. I do think they conciously failed to develop some characters, focusing primarily on Harry. This means some second tier characters have been abslutely gutted in the film, and come their "big moment", we don't really care that much about them

---

I'd say the biggest perputrator of this in the series was Goblet of Fire, which is why I rank it below Columbus' Film. It cared solely about the plot and rushing between the tasks that it took away pretty much all the spirit and tone of the novel it was based on, hell even the genre (mystery) it is based on. In the book there are like 7 suspects on who put Harry's name in the Goblet of Fire, and you (unless you are a genius), but the film tells you in the very first scene, and it makes it far too obvious that Moody is obsessed with him, so there is no mystery whatsoever. Its easy as hell to figure out.

quote:

---

I do think the films LOOK very good, and the films are much better at the action sequences, which Rowling sort of sucks at writing about. So I liked adding the attack on the burrows.

---

Aside from plotholes, what did it add? Anything? They don't talk about it again, there is really no sadness to it, and the scene is entirely pointless. Plus why wouldn't Voldemort himself show up and finish Harry off? Its as if the Death Eaters got shitfaced on Christmas and decided just to play a prank on them.

HBP shouldn't have had much action in it. They should have focused more on the characters' motivations from Slytherin, and while they did good on Draco and Slughorn, they utterly failed to develop Voldemort and Snape. This isn't a film that stayed too close to the plot to the book, it was just a terrible adaptation which turned the D-Plot in the novel to the A-plot of the film.

quote:

---

Aside from plotholes, what did it add? Anything? They don't talk about it again, there is really no sadness to it, and the scene is entirely pointless. Plus why wouldn't Voldemort himself show up and finish Harry off? Its as if the Death Eaters got shitfaced on Christmas and decided just to play a prank on them.

---

Well, it added a great visual sequence. Film, being a visual medium, needs a few of those. But I agree that it's like the DE's got hammered and just went out for the fun of it -- but doesn't that fit the characterization of the Death Eaters? That's what they did at the Quidditch World Cup, for example.

quote:

---

HBP shouldn't have had much action in it. They should have focused more on the characters' motivations from Slytherin, and while they did good on Draco and Slughorn, they utterly failed to develop Voldemort and Snape. This isn't a film that stayed too close to the plot to the book, it was just a terrible adaptation which turned the D-Plot in the novel to the A-plot of the film.

---

I agree with the criticism though I don't think it was a terrible adaptation. And I think the films, rightly, concentrated on Harry's point of view to make a more streamlined picture.