A film review by Craig J. Koban July 22, 2011 |
|||||
HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY
HALLOWS: PART 2
Harry Potter: Daniel Radcliffe / Ron Weasley: Rupert Grint / Hermione
Granger: Emma Watson / Bellatrix Lestrange: Helena Bonham Carter /
Hagrid: Robbie Coltrane / Lord Voldemort: Ralph Fiennes / Dumbledore:
Michael Gambon / Minerva McGonagall: Maggie Smith / Sirius Black:
Gary Oldman / Snape: Alan Rickman / Remus Lupin: David
Thewlis |
|||||
I have waited…and waited…and
waited for the HARRY POTTER film series to stop talking about
delivering on its promise of the ultimate donnybrook showdown between its
ever-maturing title character and its frustratingly enigmatic and
under-developed villain, Lord Voldemort.
Was it too much, dare I ask, for this film series to stop
pontificating about this climatic battle to end all wizard battles and
finally just deliver it? I
don’t think so, and that’s precisely what bothered me with the frankly
unnecessary HARRY
POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 1 and many of the recent past
entries: seven films and 14-plus hours into this story and we still have
not had any satisfying showdown between hero and baddie and the monotonous
build up to it has been, to me, an endurance test.
I know,
I know. I have been routinely
chastised for being oh-so-tough on the cinematic adventures of the
once-boy now approaching manhood wizard, Harry Potter.
Yet, as a hopeless “muggle” (that’s HARRY POTTER gobbledygook
speak for “outsider” or “non-wizard”) to the narrative odyssey
left by J.K. Rowling’s inordinately popular book series, I just found
that the ten years worth of seven films (eight including this new
adventure) have exhausted me more than thrilled or entertained me.
Of course, to the feverously loyal and obsessive Rowling/Potterite fan
base, the silver screen adaptations are essentially critic proof.
To an agnostic follower of POTTER, I have more or less
tolerated them. I guess that it is only
inevitable that HARRY POTTER
AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 2, or HARRY POTTER 8, or HARRY POTTER: THE
END…however you slice it…finally does deliver on what I have been
waiting for, so on those levels the film succeeds and cuts
through my criticisms of the series as a whole.
After the sloth-like expository nature of the needlessly
long-winded 150 minute PART 1, PART 2 thankfully gets the
momentum really running with a mercifully short 130 minutes, which is the
shortest of all the series’ films and perhaps its best paced because of
it. And once all of the
tedious and elephantine dialogue exchanges are done and the
film develops a real breakneck packing towards the final act’s Battle of
Hogwarts and the Harry versus Voldemort face-off extravaganza, even the
cynical POTTER critic in me found it difficult not to get jacked up. Equally satisfying is that, as
this story resumes, Harry (Radcliffe), and his BFFs Hermione (Emma Watson)
and Ron (Rupert Grint) are nearly done the last film’s somewhat sluggish and unexciting
quest to destroy seven magic Horcruxes (that contain pieces of
Voldemort’s very soul) so that we can get down
to brass tax. While the
heroic trio is attempted to finish their near impossible task, Voldemort
(Ralph Fiennes, with a CGI-altered face, sun deprived bleached skin, and a venomous inflection) has
just uncovered one of the most powerful wands ever that he hopes to wield
to defeat Potter once and for all. When
he is not pursing Potter to all ends of the world, Voldemort is hatching a
plan to unleash an armada of Death-Eaters, giant trolls and spiders, and
all of his loyal minions to strike out in an all-out blitz on Hogwarts so
that he can devastate it into utter submission.
I should point out that there
is still quite a bit of exposition to PART 2, some of which still involves
the quest for the Horcruxes (still a weakly cobbled together MacGuffin)
and other times the script (by Steve Kloves, who has had the dubious and
thankless task of adapting six of the seven books) dabbles into Severus
Snape’s background and how his somewhat duplicitous nature and
relationship to both Potter and Hogwarts' key overseer (now dead)
Professor Dumbledore (Michael Gambon).
I found the sub-plots involving Alan Rickman’s Snape to be more
compelling and intriguing than what the character has been given in the
past, and I always have loved how Rickman has a deliciously mannered
predilection for uttering his lines with
just…the…right…dramatic…pauses.
I also appreciated how Snape’s much more rounded and interesting
persona adds more of a twisted complexity to Harry’s final end game,
which gives PART 2 more genuine suspense and thrills.
Not only that, but the way this side story recoils back on the
entirety of the POTTER mythos is equally compelling.
Peter Yates, who also adeptly
filmed the last two films of the series, once again directs PART 2 with
poise, assuredness, and a professional sheen.
Although he still may not be everyone’s ideal candidate for
helming such a fantasy spectacle like this, Yates has always – even with
the last two lackluster entries – managed to make these films look
pleasantly and epically mounted. He is greatly assisted by the dark and oppressively muted
color scheme presented by Eduardo Serra’s ominous cinematography, which
makes PART 2 arguably the most satisfyingly dark and dreary POTTER film of
the bunch (it’s almost impossible now, in hindsight, to look back at the
first film’s bright and colorfully innocent look).
The production design and
visual effects have hit upper echelons as well for the entire
franchise’s history. From scenes of thousands of dark wizards descending on
Hogwarts that echoes images from the battles of THE LORD OF THE RINGS to the
fantastical sights of all sorts of hellish beasties duking it out with the
last vestiges of Hogwarts, PART 2 is a pure audio-visual nirvana of
unearthly treasures. Individual
set pieces themselves are technically as bravura as ever, like an early
sequence that has Harry and his friends attempting to sneak into Gingnotts
bank past the accountant goblins and past a chained-up dragon and
into Bellatrix Lestrange’s vault, which holds the last of the Horcruxes.
The wholes sequence is not only suspenseful because of Yates'
restrained direction, but also because of how technically precise and
confident the visual effects are. HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY
HALLOWS: PART 2 is still not air tight from disparagement.
As stated, the Horcrux quest – although thankfully brief –
still holds back the first third of the film, not to mention that
characters still do an awful lot of explaining as to the story particulars
(great films should show us what they are about, not tell us).
There is also an epilogue presented (no need for spoiler warning
here for die hard readers of the books) where we see the characters
19-years older; the shoddy makeup design here all but betrays the splendid
and magnificent imagery that preceded it (perhaps Radcliffe, Watson, and
Grint are still so youthful looking that any attempt at
artificially aging them would have been tricky).
Then there is the last minute 3D upconversion, which PART 1
more-than-wisely abstained from. Considering
the muted and shadowy textures of PART 2 as a whole, the 3D adds little
other than to make certain dark scenes almost incomprehensible to follow.
The cash-grab-excess minded decision to give this film a
multi-dimensional facelift hurts it more than assists it. Perhaps I'm in the minority,
but the film’s many wizard on wizard skirmishes and large battles are
also kind of visually disinteresting.
Most of the time, when the magic users do go mano-a-mano, they
essentially shoot out bolts of lightning, plasma-like clouds, energy and…whatever…at each other, which grows a bit tedious to look at as
the film progresses. There is
also something correct to be said in terms of the climatic fanboy-gasmic
final battle between Harry and Voldemort itself, which for as much as I
liked the tension of the whole sequence, is ultimately kind of
anti-climatic. Voldemort
himself, played in a very game performance by Fiennes, is given more to do
in PART 2, to be sure, but the antagonist still remains a weakly
developed one that perhaps spent far, far too much of this eight film
series in the background as a spoken-about presence. If there were one final
criticism I will relay it would be this: I
have always found Radcliffe to be somewhat stiff and bland in his title
role, but he, Watson and Grint have been given the wholeheartedly
intimidating task of not only committing most of their adolescent lives to one
film series, but they also have had to hold their own against some of the
finest character actors from Britain that have populated this series.
I may have always had my issues with their individual performances,
but I nonetheless believe that they deserve serious accolades for their
steadfast dedication to this series.
The producers too deserve merit for having the perseverance of
keeping this cast together for so long: one treat of the POTTER films –
even in the wake of my lack of fondness for many of them – is how we
have been given a very rare opportunity to witness both the actors and
their respective characters grow and mature on screen.
Just consider the unthinkable of what re-casting these roles would
have done to the franchise. Loyal devotees of these novels and films will no doubt have mixed and bitter sweet feelings of happiness and depression with HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 2, seeing as their most beloved characters and storylines come to an end. I myself have more feelings of relief, perhaps more because after enduring so much talky and dull build up over the last four films that we finally have an emotionally and dramatically satisfying end. I know, I know...I have been tough on poor Harry, but the legacy of this series – regardless of my opinion on it – can’t be refuted (not including PART 2, the series has now become more profitable than even the six STAR WARS films, an unbelievable accomplishment). At least this POTTER entry goes out not with a whimper, but with an euphoric bang and, as required, with a hint of magic too. |
|||||
CrAiGeR's other
REVIEWS:
Harry Potter and the PRISONER OF AZKABAN (2004) Harry Potter and the GOBLET OF FIRE (2005) 1/2 Harry Potter and the ORDER OF THE PHOENIX (2007) Harry Potter and the half blood prince (2009) 1/2 Harry Potter and the DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 1 (2010) And, for what it's worth, CrAiGeR's ranking of HARRY POTTER films:
1. HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF
SECRETS (2002)
2. 3. HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 2 (2011)
5. HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE (2005) 1/2
7. HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF BLOOD PRINCE (2009) 8. HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 1 (2010)
|
|||||
|
|||||