More

Harry Potter Review: Final Film Is Better Than The Book

Harry Potter

First Posted: 07/15/11 12:29 AM ET Updated: 09/13/11 06:12 AM ET

We pick up right where we left off. Voldemort has broken into Dumbledore's grave and taken the Elder Wand. He lifts it into the air and sparks it like a bolt of lightning, vaguely evoking Harry's scar.

In this final installment of the "Harry Potter" series -- 10 years after the first film, and 14 years after we first came to know Harry Potter -- we find ourselves drawn back to motifs, like Harry's scar, often. The film is spotted with references to moments and characters who have defined it, almost like markers leading us through the final stretch, paying homage to everything that came before. Ollivander reminds us, as he first advised in Book One, that "the wand chooses the wizard," the giant spiders from Book Two still terrify us, and we even get to see Ron screaming like a little girl, just the way he used to before he hit puberty.

All this makes it easy to warm up to this film. But what this series was always about -- and what takes up the second half of Book Seven -- is beyond these nostalgic draws. It's about losing your innocence, as you literally watch Hogwarts, your childhood school, fall to pieces. In other words, it's always been leading up to the Battle at Hogwarts, where that whole good-vs.-evil problem could be hashed out. When it comes to executing this crucial component, Book Seven falters -- to be blunt, this was not J.K. Rowling's best work.

Looking back, its final battle scene is almost a blur. Wands were flying everywhere, spells were being shouted out left and right -- it was chaotic, and readers were just trying to get to the end. After all, the most prevalent question rumbling at the time was "Will Harry die?". Clearly, emotions were running high. Reading it was like a race to the finish, more of a desperate need to find out Harry's fate before anyone spilled the beans.

Closure, at that point, meant simply knowing what happened. Now, closure means fully understanding what happened. Seen in this context, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II" is a triumph of a finale, to both the film series and the entire "Harry Potter" franchise. What was muddled in the book comes into stunning focus with this final installment, and now we can really close the book on "Potter," so to speak.

In part, this is because "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I" absorbed most of the slow portions of the book, especially the trio's extended stay in a tent; but it's also that the sets, the special effects, the storyline and the acting in this movie come together tightly, forming a narrative, emotional, and visual thrill.

The pace is quick from the start, and within 10 minutes, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) has a plan to find the next Horcrux, which must be destroyed if he is to kill Lord Voldemort. Harry, Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) set off for Gringotts Bank, which was built in a flight shed for the production and has remarkably convincing faux marble all over its lobby.

Hogwarts is next, and it's here that the movie really takes off. Everything is carefully paced in the battle that unfolds, a point the book did not quite grasp. The film takes a more streamlined approach, communicating the chaos in the background, but tempering it with loud/soft rhythms and visuals that are mind-blowing, in one instance literally (you'll know it when you see it).

It almost goes without saying that Radcliffe, Grint and Watson are at their best here -- they're all grown up, and there's no question anymore as to whether they're right for their roles. They are their roles. The mid-sized roles of Luna Lovegood (Evanna Lynch) and Neville Longbottom (Matthew Lewis) are also crucial to the film, and Neville in a few instances shines as the film's star. Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) is portrayed accurately as an increasingly complicated figure, especially in the Room of Requirement -- when it comes down to him killing Harry, it's clear where his heart is.

The older cast, as always, is the backbone of the film. Ralph Fiennes expertly portrays a Voldemort growing more vulnerable, and yet somehow emboldened, with the the destruction of every Horcrux, each one hitting him like a spasm as he loses another sliver of his soul -- you can see a flicker pass through Fiennes' eyes every time, a sign of his unraveling. Voldemort in this final film is more disturbing than he's ever been, most so when he walks barefoot through the blood of the dead, shoving off attempts to help him, and clinging desperately to his snake, Nagini, who houses one last part of his soul. We don't just see him as an evil villain in this film, but as a sick, deranged madman.

This darkness is countered with that sense of unyielding hope, and strength in the face of adversity, we've also come to associate with "Harry Potter." If there is one line that stands out in the film, it's surely when the brilliant Professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith), who brings to life a platoon of stone soldiers to defend the castle, says, with obvious excitement, "I've always wanted to use that spell." Perfectly timed, and delivered.

Much of the movie feels deeply satisfying in that way. Ron and Hermione always wanted to kiss, and they do; Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) and Harry always wanted to have a final battle, and they do; and we viewers always wanted to see this series end, and we do. In part you can trace the film's energy by looking at the color return to Voldemort's lips. That's the infusion of life that builds and builds, in Voldemort and in the viewers, until finally it must end.

To be sure, this is not a movie without flaws, and it makes its most notable fumble at the end. The book's saccharine, fan-fiction-y epilogue is included in the film, but instead of using older actors to play Harry, Ginny, Ron and Hermione as adults -- 19 years later, married with children -- the regular actors have been "aged" for the roles. This doesn't work out very well -- Hermione looks like a 25-year-old with a 12-year-old child. What has held this series together is a powerful tale of friendship, not a tale of their families from the future. If only it had ended a few minutes earlier, with Harry, Ron and Hermione standing together, having just saved the world. Let's pretend it did.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST CULTURE

We pick up right where we left off. Voldemort has broken into Dumbledore's grave and taken the Elder Wand. He lifts it into the air and sparks it like a bolt of lightning, vaguely evoking Harry's scar...
We pick up right where we left off. Voldemort has broken into Dumbledore's grave and taken the Elder Wand. He lifts it into the air and sparks it like a bolt of lightning, vaguely evoking Harry's scar...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 326
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cabrobst
Return the top rate to 90%.
01:22 PM on 07/24/2011
I would say, Different.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
cmfrtblebbw
My micro bio is empty
05:36 PM on 07/22/2011
I didnt see any of the movies or read any of the books, but this is the first time I've EVER heard that the movie was better. That means the book was complete poo, since the movie sucked according to popular opinion. Wow.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SteagleCobEagle
12:11 PM on 07/23/2011
Overwhelming critical and popular opinion is that the film was an amazing conclusion to one of the largest film franchises of all time. (96% fresh rating at RottenTomatoes.com, 8.5/10 on imdb.com)

Not sure how many people you've talked to or what reviews you've read, but expand your horizons.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
cmfrtblebbw
My micro bio is empty
04:20 PM on 07/23/2011
Popular, has never been an indication of good.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cabrobst
Return the top rate to 90%.
01:30 PM on 07/24/2011
The books were great and the last film the best of them all.
The box office tells it all, Harry Potter kicked Twilight into the dust and put a solid gold stake through it's heart.
01:47 PM on 07/21/2011
I'm glad that book 7 was filmed in two parts. I wish the same had been done for book 5, the film version of which I thought was the weakest of the lot. What I find most memorable of all about part 2 of book 7 is the surprising and unsung heroism of the heretofore geeky character, Neville Longbottom. What an amazing plot device after all the goings-on with Harry Potter, his friends, and Voldemort.
01:09 PM on 07/21/2011
I think it was Stephen King who said, "Books and movies are like apples an oranges--they're both delicious!"

There are 2 things I dislike about HP

1. the ending

2. the righteous fans (I scrolled through around 15 comments and saw the word "blasphemy" twice).

I agree this movie was better than the book
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SteagleCobEagle
12:17 PM on 07/23/2011
Thank you! First thing I thought of when i saw the title was "apples and oranges".

1. The ending was so-so. But the filmmakers were met with a bit of a daunting task.They had to add the epilogue. It's one of those things that needed to be done to stay true to the source material and satisfy the fans which, like it or not is one of the major jobs of the production. As much as the actors have aged since the first film, they don't look a day older than 21. Making them convincingly 37(ish?) was going to fall a bit flat as a final scene. But, I think Radcliffe's performance put a great cap on it.

The righteous fans will poo-poo any small change or detail that didn't match exactly to the book or their personal taste that made it into the movie. Much like Jackson's adaptation of Lord of the Rings, the HP films took a dense, complex source and made great films that stayed true to the message, themes, and world created by the author.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cabrobst
Return the top rate to 90%.
01:34 PM on 07/24/2011
What I dislike about HP is THAT it ended.
02:28 AM on 07/20/2011
The film was astounding, however, I found the book to be more informative. I loved the fast pace of the movie. The book definitely drew out the ending...there was so much information to be gained. This certainly was an emotion journey in the movie theater. The movie kind of minimized some major deaths (Lupin, tonks, fred). They even forgot poor Collin Creevey. The ending epilogue seemed rather amateur. I enjoyed it nonetheless. The full circle feeling was spectacular. It was hard to feel sad knowing that Voldemort was defeated and our hero's were happy and now their own children would begin their magical journey.
In all, the movie was awesome, but nothing beats the full story you can grasp from the novel!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
elblanc0
Whatever good things we build end up building us.
11:32 PM on 07/19/2011
I agree about the epilogue. It felt tacked on to make sure nothing could come after it (and it was probably a Rowling requirement that it was in the last film). Even so, I loved Deathly Hallows.
04:21 PM on 07/19/2011
I, for one, liked the ending... the very end, ending. It made me happy to believe that these kids were alright. I loved it. Not the best CGI of aging, but who really cares? It was a very, very fun trip.
These books helped a generation of kids to become readers. The movies helped the readers to become thinkers and debaters.
Thanks to all who helped create it from a teacher and a parent.
Even we parents can appreciate a tale as juvenile and majestic as this.
05:12 AM on 07/19/2011
As a single dad who read all 7 books out loud with my son, did all the movies, spent $5-600, and hundreds of hours for the privilege of experiencing it all with him, one of the finest moments of all was at the very end, which you described as a blunder, as Harry, Hermione, Ron were seeing their children off to Hogwarts. My son, now 21, put his arm around me. I looked round and this was happening all over the theater. The idea that they did save the world and allowed that moment of joy was a parent's payoff that clearly wasn't lost on my kid or several others in our sold out house.
I've just seen you on Charlie Rose and it seems that you have no kids, and read the books on your own rather than sharing it with your parents. Your loss. But J.K. Rowling knew what she was doing. She wrote a few thousand pages for her kid and that last little bit for herself and the rest of us, andcreated closure for EVERYBODY, young and old. The story doesn't end after the battle of Hogwarts. Life goes on. The kids survive, find great friends, wonderful soul mates and have little ones of their own, in short, every parent's dream. J.K. created more than kids' books. She knew enough of life to include us.
02:27 AM on 07/25/2011
Agree and well said.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
llen
11:03 PM on 07/18/2011
These books were unbelievable, they grew with the reader. The first book was something a young person could get into, as the child gets older the books seem to be older. I loved the movies also, can't wait to see this new one.
photo
bad spelling grammar
Help save Big Cats from extinction!
04:49 PM on 07/18/2011
the film was kind of a let down, they should of made part 2 longer so they could of included more. The death of you know who was super lame.
03:10 PM on 07/18/2011
Well, I saw the first film! Don't remember it though.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Erewhon7
Join atheists, our non-prophet organization
11:12 AM on 07/18/2011
In our intensely multi-media environment it is nonsensical to try to separatee The Book from the other formats this story is presented in.
One format cross-feeds the other. Certainly those who have seen even one of the films will no longer be able to adhere to their own mind-eye view of the characters. For better or worse, Daniel Radcliffe face, voice and mannerisms became-- Harry Potter.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DeloresT
Writer/retired teacher
10:34 PM on 07/17/2011
When I left this movie I thought the same thing! This film was so much better than the book...although it was true to the story. I feel bad for those who saw the film and had not read the book ( they missed a lot).
12:48 PM on 07/18/2011
so... how could you think the film was better than the book if you feel bad for those who didn't read the book because they would have missed so much in the film?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
c-tom
Badges we don't need no stinking badges
08:41 PM on 07/17/2011
The film was better if you can't read. But assuming you are literate the film or (since they made 2) films are not better than the book.
12:48 PM on 07/18/2011
amen.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ignacio sanabria
Mirror synapses at work
05:51 PM on 07/17/2011
Getting tired of Harry Potter but not of Emma.