Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, part 2 (2011). ***½/5. Cleans up the mess of part one but still ordinary in many respects

I am finally able to review Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows now that the two parts have been released and I can say that it is a good film however something is missing. If you put the two parts together you realize that the complete whole is awkwardly balanced and part 2 with its crisp editing and visual set pieces steals the show. The same weakness that appeared in part 1 was visible in part 2: it is too potter centric and does not address issues that appear universal apart from the mundane tale of good vs. evil. The script is also hampered by the adolescent perspective and does not seem to go beyond it so that it would manifest itself into a film that adults could tolerate. I am not blaming the screenwriter (Steve Kloves) and the director (David Yates); I place the blame squarely on the books that have too much of a tendency towards predictability and so does not warrant all this illusory praise. Potter fans were only excited because they were obviously proud to see the characters they know and love from the books on screen that is all. Similar to part one the screenwriters cater only to the fans and leave the neutrals in the dark by refusing to address the universal issues in the story. One of Rowling’s failures is that it seems that she waited to the very end to reveal all thereby trying to condense all the elements in the series into one last craze. She was able to overcome this because of the luxury of print and her idea of keeping the fans guessing while they waited for the next installment. In this film it seems bewildering as the screenwriter tries to condense all the elements of the previous 6 films into one and there is no doubt that there will be neutrals left in the dark that will only be able to cherish the visual set pieces and the cornball moments of humour. The potter centric element comes in the form of its serialization and the seemingly internal logic in Rowling’s fantasy world.  There are some good elements in the film that are clearly borrowed from The Lord of the Rings series. It is still astonishing to hear these so called top critics stating that it is a classic/great film and will live on forever. It will live on only for potter fans while the world moves on. The potter fans will buy the books for their children and their children for their children and so on. It is the books that are classic and not necessarily the films. The films over the years have adapted the books too literally and so vanish from the imagination as soon as you see them. I recently watched some of the films based on the books set in the muddle (lets say books 3-5) and realized how forgettable they are; they probably do not seem that way if one is presented with a box set of all the films. Apart from The Sorcerers stone the other films are hardly resonant and after ten years who is keeping count. I have always been annoyed with the coincidence that all the books are broken down into 7 years which conveniently represents the length of the high school system in Britain. There is no sense of overlapping.  These top critics are pouring illusory praise on a film that will vanish come next year for it does not offer a definitive film going experience (i.e. it offers nothing new to the genre) and relies solely on the strength of the books on which it is based and  populist elements to keep it going; populist elements that have occurred in many other films with The Lord of the Rings being the most recent ( I refuse to comment on Pirates of the Caribbean which is possibly the worst fantasy series ever released). Some critics are saying that it should be nominated for best film. This is likely but when it is nominated it likely only to win in the usual technical categories (Best Visual Effects. It will definitely not win for Best music, the score seems like a rip off of other huge blockbusters of the past) and even this is not a certainty since the visual effects are no better than part 1. This film as it stands is good but had there been only one deathly hallows I would have appreciated it more. There is a shot near the end where the three protagonists: Harry, Ron and Hermione seem to be taking a shot for the camera. If that does not support my claims about its limited artistic achievements nothing else will.

The film picks up where part 1 ended: the protagonists (Harry, Ron and Hermione) hunting for the horcruxes to kill Voldemort. The horcruxes are objects scattered all over Britain (not the globe thankfully) that house pieces of his soul. I agree with roger Ebert that Voldemort was really careless to have left these things hanging around yet he keeps his snake so close (hope I didn’t say too much). Once these are not found he remains invincible.  Everything is brought to a head in the final battle between Harry and Voldemort at Hogwarts where the fates of the two men (boy and man) are inextricably linked.  It is here (conveniently in his 7^th year in school) that Harry’s true destiny will be revealed. Is it any wonder that after these eventful 7 years in which the books are set harry and friends have led uneventful lives 19 years later when we see them again? Look for the  horrible feature at the end with the sentimental fanfare where the filmmakers try and make the protagonists look 35+.

What’s good about this film?

The best elements in the film are the visual effects, the action scenes, the crisp editing, the unraveling of the mystery of the deathly hallows and the slogan ‘It all ends’. What more can I say about it without giving away crucial element of the story?  Please, dear casual moviegoer, do not take the word of some critics that this film is powerfully acted. The actors are merely channeling the characters in the book however Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort and Alan Rickman as Severus Snape do add a bit of flair; everyone else, however, are just channeling these well known characters as opposed to infusing some sense of distinctness to make you say wow that was a great performance and should be nominated for an academy award.  I appreciated the final battle for one reason it was set in Hogwarts which is the most appropriate place and when the discharges from the wands of Voldemort and Harry clash look at the surrounding physical structure laying in ruins with the gloomy atmosphere with shades of grey due to the overcast sky. In my opinion that was the most unique shot in the film and that will determine whether or not it gets nominated for best cinematography.  It was a good scene because it was stripped of all its excessive visual effects (apart from the discharge from the wands).  The visual effects are good but you feel as if you have seen it before in the previous films. There are countless discharges from wands (zap zap, stupefy in place of rat a tat tat). There is a final battle that is reminiscent of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King where countless numbers are on screen to give some sense of scale. In The Lord of the Rings: the Return of the King these numbers seemed terrifying and there was a sense of dread; in this film the large numbers do not convey any real sign of impending doom. Even though that was supposed to be the idea it does not make you feel especially anxious. When you feel anxious in this film it is only when Voldemort is on screen. There are some large beasts also but it makes you wonder how we ordinary human beings (muggles) never even got a glimpse of what was going on. I wonder if Voldemort’s only vendetta is to kill Harry Potter for it is careless of him to have left the school so poorly guarded and then finding himself in the awkward position where he has to invade it. Is he seeking world domination? Or merely to rule Britain? Or just to rule the magical world? Also the visual effects make you wander how realistic Harry Potter really is; at least in The Lord of the Rings the visuals are set in a mystical land whereas the Harry Potter films are set in the modern day. The visual effects are still good in the quite moments where a simple glow seems organic and necessary.  There is even a taste of heaven however it reminds you of similar scenes in The Lord of the Rings where the character surrounded by the shadows of death finds himself basking in dreamy light. The intimate moments in this particular heavenly setting, where one piece of the puzzle is revealed showing you the true physical conception of Voldemort, is well done and reinforces my point that the visuals are most striking in the quiet moments.  Another good element is that Part 2 strengthens part 1 to the point where you forget about it and makes you wonder why part 1 was made in the first place since it was merely a meandering piece of work which will be forever buried (unless you release a box set of course).  I also appreciated the hunt for the horcruxes which are actual physical elements channeling mystical energies. It is clearly influenced by the concept of the one ring in The Lord of the Rings where when that was destroyed then the dark lord Sauron perished along with it. Sauron is uncannily similar in motivation to Voldemort only on a larger scale.  I have also appreciated Harry Potter for the fact that most of its magic seemed confined within the walls of Hogwarts, that towering physical element in the series and its most original feature which is home to many secrets. This was why I complained that in part 1 Hogwarts was largely absent. Apart from Hogwarts concrete physical structures include the Gringotts bank with a sensational chase and the sense of scale is appreciated. The populist element was there and the audience cheered which means they were absorbed by the set pieces and moments when certain characters kiss (oh goodie) which is a clear sign that the audience have truly grown with these characters however this could apply to other blockbusters.

What’s bad about this film?

Well, apart from all the illusory praise being heaped upon it by the false top critics, it is clear that this film will be forgotten in the years to come (unless it is released with the box set). People seem to confuse the fact that the books are classic and not the films. The films are a mere retread of the books and do not enhance the story to any great extent as Peter Jackson’s vision enhanced The Lord of the Rings thereby making it stand as its own independent creation. People are sad to see it go because as the slogan says ‘it all ends’ however as it has been with us for  ten years is it any wonder that people are saying to themselves, ‘is it really over?’The films seemed like they encapsulated an entire generation and so people saw it as part of their daily lives; it’s like they say you don’t know what you have till it’s gone. I was not impressed by the potter centric approach due to the confined elements of the story although one has to appreciate the internal logic of Rowling’s world. The potter centric element will exclude neutral filmgoers and deny the film of any true philosophical interpretations. The philosophical element prevalent in The Lord of the Rings was that it explored the fallibility of man(doom of man) as well as his redemption in a collective sense. In the Harry potter films it is merely about the many strange interactions between harry potter and the mystical world. It does not have a concrete philosophical core that keeps it moving. There is a scene for instance where one character recites some platitudinous statements that are supposed to be mistaken as profound.  Adolescents will no doubt find it profound. This absence of a concrete philosophical core clearly exposes the adolescent market it is targeting which I suppose cannot be avoided. I also spoke of my review of part 1 about the weakness of serialization where there is no sense of overlapping and it is only too convenient that harry’s adventures coincide with his 7 school years. Was he ever allowed to finish school? (Probably, for defeating Voldemort must have been the equivalent of getting a Phd). In any case it is difficult to see any film standing on its own two feet. It may be the most financially successful franchise but that is only because there are now 8 films on the subject (what did you really suspect if the books were that popular?). It has now reached the point where people are confusing financial success with artistic success. The great artistic fantasy film is still The Lord of the Rings trilogy. I also detested the final scene which was more sentimental pulp without any real emotional resonance (maybe because it was set 19 year later. A tactic Rowling used so she could avoid the possibility of doing any more books). I also detested one particular shot where the main characters seemed to be posing for the camera (literally). This is not a film you will be watching over and over; it is a film you watch because of the propaganda (the long lines, advertising frenzy and bourgeois inspired, exclusive premieres etc) which heightened the expectation. It is strange that despite it being the most successful franchise financially there are several duds in the mix. It is only when it is released as a box set that people will remember it; I guarantee that there are few of the 8 films in this franchise that can stand on their own two feet. One last criticism is that parts 1 and 2 together is ordinary with part 2 cleaning up the mess of part 1.

Conclusion

Part 2 of the deathly hallows is a good film but when it comes together with part 1 it is not a resounding artistic achievement. It is the books that will last and not the individual films in the franchise unless they are released as a box set. Do not confuse financial success with artistic success. I was grateful that even among the ruins Hogwarts still seemed prestigious. This material creation by Rowling deserves several artistic interpretations. I must still say thankfully it is all over and Harry Potter fans will be silenced for now.  It makes me wonder if some critics are being paid to announce that this one individual Harry Potter film is great.