As the final installment of this very long movie series — they done good.
[No spoiler in the post, I think, but the comments may be another matter.]
If you’ve read the book, you know pretty much what to expect, though there a few adds (and a huge number of takes); even doing half the book ends up requiring a massive and distracting amount of exposition and info-dumping, especially at the beginning, but never really escaping the problem until the end.
(Not, as Kay noted, that Rowling eschewed the info-dumps, but in the context of a movie, it stands out. A lot.)
There’s also a massive number of characters — it’s great to see some many professors (and students) at Hogwarts for that part of the film, and good to see the faculty doing something other than sitting at the head table. Prof. McGonagall (Maggie Smith) gets a star turn or three, and, huzzah, Severus Snape (Alan Rickman) gets a lot of time on screen and in story.
What strikes me most about the film is how different it is from the first installment in the series. That was a kid’s film, through and through. This one has some damned scary moments for any young’uns, some tragic ones, too, as well as a structure and scenes (and blocks of exposition) that would make a lot of kids squirm.
As well, the whole “big, exciting romp” of the early films gives way to a much more sober, thoughtful, considered movie. Yeah, there’s plenty of exciting action, but in a lot of places it’s just in the background, something happening while Harry (and, to a lesser degree, Ron and Hermione) are trying to win their part of the war with Voldemort. It’s a bigger, flashier film than “Part 1,” but it remains tense and focused on the personal struggle. Even after the grand climax, there’s no parade and cheers and noble speeches, which is both fitting and not what one would expect if the movie were not taken from an existing book.
(And, yes, the last few minutes of the film are set as the epilogue of the book was, which doesn’t work quite as well as I might help (for ironic age reasons), but still provides some nice closure.)
The FX are solid, but nothing that’s going to win an Academy Award for innovation. We’ve pretty much seen it all, in fact — but that’s okay, because this is not a set piece about flash and fireworks.
Like the FX, the acting is good, but not spectacular — on a par with the last film, with maybe less material to work with between the explanations and the explosions. The folks there, leads or characters, know their roles and work them well. It will be interesting to see where Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint (not to mention Tom Felton and Matthew Lewis) go next.
Still, for all the characters, a lot of them other than the mains feel wasted — as much background as the FX are. Too many feel like they were there because they had to be there, but not enough is done with them, living or dead.
Kay and I saw the film in 3D (though not IMAX). I don’t regret it, but I don’t think it added as much to the film as it did to the ticket price. You can see this in 2D and not lose anything significant. It is worth seeing in a theater, though.
All in all, it was a fine way to send off a movie series that a lot of kids have grown up on, and even adults have grown used to. More importantly, it makes me want to go back and reread the books. Good show.
In your opinion, if you were going to show this to a new child who didn’t grow up waiting for each book or movie to come out, would you ration them out over six years so that your child may grow up along with them?
It sounds like showing 7.1 and 7.2 to someone who’s young and just started with 1 would be too soon in their development.
Forgot to check the “notify me” box so that I get to see an answer. 😉
I think a kid at the young end to see HP1 would not enjoy HP7.1 or 7.2, for a variety of reasons.
Offhand, I wouldn’t show either of the HP7s to a kid under, say, 8.
Nice, mildly spoilery interview with Matthew Lewis (Neville) here.