I'll be honest. I never really got into Harry Potter. That's not to say I didn't enjoy the films but I never had a particular attachment to them. For what it's worth, I never read the books which I heard is a requirement to love these films, but that's kind of a ridiculous argument. Guess what, I never read Lord of the Rings either and I really liked those movies. I just found it hard to really get into the Harry Potter films, but I will say that for the most part I have enjoyed the series even though I can barely remember any of them. (I distinctly remember disliking at least one of them, probably The Half Blood Prince, but it's all a blur to me now.) It's hard to believe that The Sorcerer's Stone came out in 2001 when Daniel Radcliffe was just eleven years old. We've watched him grow up before our eyes and ten years and seven films later he's matching wits and wands with Ralph Fiennes as a full grown adult in the last installment of the most successful movie franchise ever. The Deathly Hallows Part 2 probably does the best it can do in closing out the series respectfully, perhaps even impressively. Certainly as the last film it has a lot to live up to and I think it does a good enough job.
Given that the series has spanned eight films over ten years and that I don't think I've ever seen any individual one more than once, you can excuse me for not being up to date on all the matters of Hogwarts. There are a lot of characters to keep up with and lots of subplots that I needed reminding of. I'm sure there were parts of Deathly Hallows 2 I should have known better if only the other movies were a little fresher in my mind. Not that the movie is a complete puzzle, it's pretty clear what Harry and company must do and I just took the minute details as part of the ambiance of the film. I may not know who this flying ghost is, but I don't really have to, I just know that she exists in the world of Hogwarts and is one of the little quirks I should come to expect. I suppose that was the huge appeal to the Harry Potter books. In them, J.K. Rowling created a magical little world with its own mythology and lexicon. I'd imagine half the fun of the books was just learning the mythology.
I won't divulge into details but here is a brief rundown. Harry, Ron and Hermione must find and destroy the rest of the horcruxes. There is an epic battle between the forces of good and evil at Hogwarts and of course the final showdown between Harry and Voldemort that all the films have been leading up to. So how does the film handle all this? Slowly but surely. I wouldn't really call this a rip roaring action adventure, there is a good deal of exposition involved, but the action sequences are interspaced nicely throughout. I will say though that as grandiose as the final showdown may look, I feel it lacks the emotional punch required to make you care for it. We see familiar faces fighting for the good guys but they aren't given much to do other than wave their wands. We see bodies lying everywhere but without proper development to the characters or scene, you're more like, "Oh" than "Aw." Of course this film isn't required to build that much up. It is the culmination of all the previous films which were developed solely for this one, so we were already supposed to care for what happens because of those movies. Obviously nobody is going to watch Deathly Hallows 2 as their very first Harry Potter film, but if you were never particularly attached to the other films, it might be hard for you to suddenly get up for this one.
Cinematically speaking, the film is dark and moody and has the appropriate cinematography to match. I've always felt that the Harry Potter movies were well shot. I've never really been impressed by Daniel Radcliffe, who is good but not great, though to be fair Harry Potter as a character is a little bland. He is the hero but is he really that interesting? Compare that to his supporting cast who cover a greater range. There is Ralph Fiennes as his evil foil Voldemort who relishes in his role as the bad guy. Alan Rickman as Snape wasn't given much to do last film and even here he shows up in limited capacity, but his mere presence on screen overshadows anything Radcliffe does. I must say that I am a huge fan of Helena Bonham Cater who plays the bewitching Bellatrix. She's been stellar in her past several movies including The King's Speech, Alice in Wonderland and Sweeny Todd.
I think between Harry, Ron and Hermione, Emma Watson has by far the biggest potential. It goes to show just how much growth and experience pays off because I thought she was the pretty bad in the first couple ones, now I think she has a chance to be a real star if she choses to. I think she has stated she'd like to go to college after Harry Potter and it is easy to forget that she, like Radcliffe and Rupert Grint, was thrust into basically a ten year role at such young a young age. Perhaps it was never her childhood dream to become an actress? As far as Radcliffe himself? I'd like to see him do well, but I think he will probably suffer after this. He is just way too recognizable as Harry Potter. Just ask Mark Hamill about life after Star Wars.
Grade: B
No comments:
Post a Comment