Tags
THAT is how you make a movie. Thank you, Hollywood, for not sucking so much.
I know you all think I’m a terrible nit-picker (right) and that nothing can please me (wrong), so I’m happy to be able to prove you at least somewhat wrong.
I loved the final movie.
(spoiler alert)
As I had been promised, all of my pivotal points were present and accounted for. So was PH’s big request, which was for Neville to kill the snake.
- There were no Nazis. There WAS one random police man, which was stupid, but he was just in the background, so I’ll let it go.
- The invisibility cloak made an appearance, although not nearly as much as it should have.
- The shard of glass was somewhat explained.
- Ron and Hermione’s make-out scene was brilliant.
- The Battle of Hogwarts was beyond cool.
- Snape’s story made me cry.
- Harry was still a Horcrux (although I think the “hearing Horcruxes” thing was a little stupid, but I didn’t care enough).
- Harry sacrificed himself properly and with appropriate ceremony.
There were plot alterations, of course, but I didn’t mind them. I was disappointed not to see Ravenclaw Tower, but I totally understood why they cut out a lot of the running around to find the diadem. I approve of such cuts, which is why Harry Potter Goes Camping annoyed me so, because they replaced vital stuff with long pans of empty countryside, and Hermione cutting Harry’s hair. SNORE.
Similarly, I understand why they decided to combine the meeting of the students in the Great Halls with Snape’s escape from Hogwarts and Voldemort’s ultimatum. That meant cutting a lot of my favourite McGonnagle moments (“Professor Snape has “done a bunk”), but the screenwriters actually wrote her character well and gave her such excellent replacement moments that I didn’t mind a bit. If anything, I felt like I had been GIFTED with extra McGonnagle lines (“Yes, blow it up!”), and since she’s a favourite of mine (I was practically blowing kisses at Maggie Smith in my adoration), that’s all to the good.
I was especially willing to grant such cuts and plot changes because they used that gained time to actually show Ron and Hermione killing the Hufflepuff Horcrux: a scene which is glossed over in just a couple of lines of text in the book. That was awesome, because again, like those great McGonnagle lines, it felt like the movie was adding on to the books, instead of ripping off the books. I like to feel that a movie is a companion or appendix to the book it represents, rather than a pale imitation.
The lack of Crabbe in the Room of Requirement scene was a bit jarring – I realize the actor was all in jail and crap, but I think that it would have been better to make it just Malfoy and Goyle rather than attach a random Black kid. It felt a little too “The Black character always dies”.
However, the fiendfyre was FRICKING AWESOME, and Ron’s excellent line was kept, thank heavens.
Right up to Harry’s death, I was enjoying myself thoroughly.
After, it kind of went downhill.
First of all, do you remember how I complained about them cutting the Invisibility Cloak, a DEATHLY HALLOW, from the first Deathly Hallows movie? And do you remember how I complained in Half Blood Prince that the whole Half Blood Prince storyline seemed tacked-on, as if the screenwriters didn’t get why it should even be there, but had to put it in because of the title? Well, I felt a bit the same way towards the end of the movie.
When Harry had his conversation with Dumbledore, I understood why they cut out a lot of the “I was in love with Grindelwald, ok? I’m sorry,” stuff. I miss it, it makes me cry when I read it, but I understand that they can’t include EVERY story arc. It’s not like the book is called Dumbledore Hearts Grindelwald.
However, I do think that they should have discussed WHY he was able to come back to life.
In the book, Dumbledore “guesses” several things: That Harry’s mother’s sacrifice, now living in Voldemort’s veins, tied Harry to the mortal realm. That’s important in the book, because it explains why Dumbledore looked triumphant in The Goblet Of Fire when Harry says that Voldemort took his blood and was could touch Harry without pain. I can’t tell you how much that line had worried me, especially in the start of Deathly Hallows when all that bad stuff about Dumbledore started to come out.
So that’s important in the book, but if they had cut it out, I would have understood. The triumphant look thing didn’t exist in the movie, so they didn’t need such a complicated explanation.
Instead, I expected them to attribute it to the Master of Death thing, but oddly, they didn’t. I mean, all it takes is one line: “The invisibility cloak is a hallow, the resurrection stone is a hallow, and Harry is the true master of the Elder wand, so therefore he is the master of death.”
Seems logical considering that it’s THE NAME OF THE MOVIE.
The fact that Harry goes to meet his death wearing the invisibility cloak, while holding the resurrection stone, is significant. We don’t know it yet, but he is also the master of the Elder wand, which means that when he goes to die, he is the master of the Deathly Hallows and consequently of death himself. Considering that he survives AGAIN, I feel that that is a big deal, and no one even points that out in the movie. Harry doesn’t even use his invisibility cloak when he goes to meet his death, OR afterwards, so we don’t even know if he has it on him. Maybe Hermione has it in her purse.
So I really think they should have been clearer on that point: Instead of repeating “Help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it/deserve it” again and again with significant eyebrow wriggles, Dumbledore could have been like “by the way, you know that you have the hallows, right? So I think you’re still alive.”
I also feel like the return of Voldemort scene could have been better done. What’s with Neville’s sappy little speech, and then why delay the death of the snake for so long, taking up precious movie minutes? Have him whip out the sword and kill the damn snake already, and then LET THE BATTLE BEGIN.
I also think it would have been better to have everyone trying to cast curses at the good guys, only to have the curses rebound. Harry died to save them, just as his mother died to save him, so they are protected in the same way. That’s a big deal, and really awesome because it means that Voldemort screwed up big time.
And that’s my final beef: I am a vindictive little snot, so I like the bad guy to KNOW that he is well and truly beaten. If I were a bad guy myself, I’d be the kind who starts monologuing, thus giving the hero time to save the day.
I love that in the book Harry gives Voldemort a big dressing-down, basically telling him:
- You still don’t understand the power of sacrifice, and you’ve just done it again, YOU MORON.
- You forgot that Malfoy disarmed Dumbledore, not Snape, so you killed your favourite dude for no reason YOU IDIOT.
- Oh, by the way, I defeated Malfoy, so now your wand actually holds its allegiance to me, SUCKER.
- Your horcruxes are all destroyed, and I own your wand, so you had better start repenting. GO ON, REPENT!
Not to mention that this is done in front of everyone, Death Eaters and all, so EVERYONE gets to see how wrong Voldemort is, and then watch Harry triumph.
That’s satisfying.
The way they did it in the movie was a lot less exciting for me. Voldemort was just like “Huh?” and crumbles, and no one is even around to see Harry’s big moment. That’s just disappointing and anticlimactic, that is.
All in all, though, it was an excellent movie and very enjoyable to watch.
I’d see it again.
I found it a bit worrisome in the book, actually, that Harry demonstrated that he has the loyalty of the Elder Wand in front of such a very large audience. That really seems to put such a big target on his head … maybe grounds for another sequel?
I always assumed that Harry survived because what Voldemort killed was the Horcrux part of him (the weird crying baby bit).
Not according to JK Rowling. He survived because his mother’s sacrifice lived on in Voldemort’s veins.
As for the whole Elder wand thing, since probably most people don’t know that he put it back in Dumbledore’s grave (although I think snapping it as in the movie was actually a better idea), and since he survived being murdered by Voldemort TWICE, and then killed the most powerful wizard of all time, I’m betting there weren’t many people who wanted to try to take him on.
Dark wizards probably shat themselves whenever they saw Auror Potter coming at them…
I agree about the anti-climatic ending. I re-read the last few pages of the chapter where Voldemort is killed over and over again, precisely because it was so. Damn. Satisfying.
Still, I enjoyed the movie very, very much. Seen it twice already (The second time my MIL took husband and I and his sister and step-sister to the DRIVE-IN to see it. Yes, the drive in apparently gets current movies now!).
J.K. really knows how to satisfy. She is the Snickers of fiction. I find the rebellion against Professor Umbridge similarly satisfying.
I’m going to go with a friend who has no other potter-fan friends. Maybe we’ll see it in 3-D this time!
The ‘random black guy’ was Blaise Zabini – a Slytherin who is briefly in movie 6, in the train compartment with Malfoy & Pansy Parkinson.
I wondered why no Crabbe – I’d forgotten about the whole prison thing. It took me a minute to remember Blaise and I agree it was a bit jarring, but at least they did use a character who had been seen before and did exist in the books (however minor he was).
I figured it must be Blaise, but I couldn’t remember how much he had figured in movie 6 – even in the book he’s a minor character – and he has no Death Eater ties, his mother is just a murderous fashionista.
Oh Crabbe, why you gots to do drugs?
(Should you be weird like mrs factually look at old posts for new comments…)
We finally saw this last night. I wanted to love it. I really did.
But I didn’t.
I think part of it is I have read the book enough times that the changes were just really distracting. When the movie was barely at the halfway point and they were already having the battle at Hogwarts I was perplexed. And I feel like the battle was so much more thrilling in the book.and where the he’ll was Grawp?!?
I also agree they gave Neville short shrift in killing Nagini. That whole scene in the book is so tightly paced that I probably forgot to breathe. Neville is such a hero (and remember, the prophecy just as well could have been about him) and I feel like they diluted his moment.
Finally, boathouse, schmoathouse. What was wrong with the creepy Shrieking Shack again?
Meh.
The swift arrival of the battle of Hogwarts was okay with me, since the movie started three quarters of the way through the book – I AM glad that they didn’t try to do the whole book in one movie.
But I agree with you on everything else. It didn’t make me rageful, like the last two movies, and therefore I give it a thumbs up, but it definitely had flaws.
Oh my. The bizarre typos and autocorrects up there.
“like me and actually”
Periods love spaces and then capital letters
Hi Carol, I know I am very late to comment here, but there is a pretty bothering change in the movies nobody has brought up so far. When Harry realised he had to die because he was a Horcrux in the book he told nobody that he will hand himself over to Voldemort because he knew they wouldn’t let him. In fact, Ron and Hermione probably would either force him to ask them to come with him or forcefully restrain him if necessary. The only thing he did was pass on the message that Nagini needed to be destroyed to Neville. Compare this with the change made in the movie, where after he told Ron and Hermione what’s going on they conceded pretty quickly he had to go and only Hermione gave him a hug while Ron sat in the background again. It shows again how Ron got sidelined in the movies and the Harry/Ron friendship, which is the strongest friendship within the trio in the books, gets downplayed or replaced with Harry/Hermione. Isn’t it pretty strange that Harry and his supposedly best-mate Ron didn’t hug but he had no problems hugging his best-mate’s girlfriend? This change feels pretty strange to me.
Yeah I thought that was pretty stupid.
Yeah it was. But I guess it’s really not surprising it’s there considering that in every movie Ron’s role has been cut or his lines given to Hermione and he was always dumbed down to someone providing only comedy relief. The books clearly tell us Harry’s best friend is Ron and not Hermione and he enjoys Ron’s company more than Hermione’s. You certainly don’t get that impression from the movies where the Harry/Ron friendship are shredded. The movies never show how much Harry resents Hermione’s insistent nagging or how much he ignores or lies to her instead they gave us moments where Harry and Hermione effectively comfort each other with Ron left in the background.
And then no one understands why Ron got the girl. The dancing/hair cutting scene in Hallows 1 made me want to burn things.
Exactly, the HBP and DH movie audience who haven’t read the books wouldn’t know that Hermione is supposed to be a sidekick just like Ron. Instead, they will probably be thinking how dare the stupid and cowardly sidekick get the “heroine” in the end?
Ginny and the Harry/Ginny relationship are also butchered in these films, so it feels like the director and scriptwriter are trying to move those annoying Weasleys out of the way to get everyone to focus on the hero and “heroine”.