Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (2011)
10 years of magic, all coming to an end.
★★★½
Much like the first film, this was also another big film. The hype was real. Fans were waiting for the day they get to see the beloved book series finally conclude on the big screen. It was a huge event. Everyone was talking about it. Even fans who haven't read the books. It was the big epic finale everyone went to see. Was it worth the wait? Well, let's find out.
In "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (2011)," the final battle between Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) and Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) reaches its epic conclusion. Harry, along with Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint), continues to hunt down the remaining Horcruxes to weaken Voldemort. The trio returns to Hogwarts, where a massive battle ensues between Voldemort’s forces and the defenders of the school. Key secrets are revealed, including Snape's (Alan Rickman) true allegiance and the significance of Harry's connection to Voldemort. The story builds to a dramatic final showdown, where Harry must make a life-altering sacrifice to defeat the Dark Lord once and for all. The film closes with a flash-forward, showing the characters years later.
"Part 2" is a better movie than Part 1, mainly for the final battle (which I have many problems with), the actual battle of Hogwarts, and Snape's memories. Which is why I'm only giving this film three and half stars out of four. The Battle of Hogwarts was a great mixture of partical and visual effects. The team did a great job with it, especially since the book briefly covered the actual battle. It mainly focused on the trio. But I do feel like David Yates ripped it off The Battle of Helm's Deep from "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers." It's not entierly bad, but a little uncreative. The finale battle differs from the book. Firstly, it takes place outside in the empty courtyard unlike in the book where it takes place in the great hall in front of everyone. Second, Voldemort doesn't die like a human, his body just disolves into tiny little pieces. In the book, he dies like a normal human in front of everyone, which humiliates him. This is something he wanted to avoid. Did David Yates think he could save more money if he filmed it like that, or was literally no one available that day? Also, why have Voldemort split into tiny pieces? Was he made out of paper or something? Those are just the few of the many complaints I have.
Snape's memories on the other hand is something I loved in this film. We learn mostly of his origins, his love for Lily Potter, and why he protected Harry all these years, despite him being a terrible person towards Harry (you can thank James Potter for that). Here's an interesting fact, Rickman had intended to leave the series after the second film, but Rowling persuaded him to stay since she thought Rickman was the ideal candidate for Snape. She gave him all of the knowledge about Snape's character, and he exploited it to his greatest advantage when filming. Those scenes were perfect for two reasons: Rickman and Rickman's information from Rowling. I still tear up when I watch that. Snape going to Godric's Hollow never happpened in the book. Instead, Snape read a letter from Lily with a picture of her, James, and baby Harry. The reaction of Snape's was the same, but the locations were different, which is one of the few changes I actually liked.
I have additional issues with this film. I have a problem with Draco Malfoy, who is mostly portrayed as the "enemy." Malfoy was filmed throwing Harry's wand to Harry, but the sequence was removed. Instead, Voldemort uncomfortably hugged Draco. According to Tom Felton, Ralph Fiennes improvised that sequence, making Felton uneasy. It's amusing to think about it, but that should've been cut and distributed as a deleted scene, and replaced with Malfoy instead throwing Harry's wand to him. I know it's out of line with his character, but it's better than Voldemort hugging Draco. But of course, we're talking about David Yates. He enjoys hijinks as much as Richard Lester.
Overall, this film is well constructed, the language is given due weight and is not rushed through, there are surprises that, in retrospect, appear reasonable, and "Harry Potter" now has an ending that befits the most profitable series in film history. These films will last for a long time. And, without disclosing anything, let me just say that the ending scene certainly leaves room for a sequel. No, "The Cursed Child" doesn't count.