Review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011) by Cameron J — 12 Apr 2014

It's always good to end big, people, and yet, this film still comes out being the shortest installment in the series. Usually, one would say that it's to be expected, seeing as how this is actually just the second part of a single installment, but come on, they've padded the series enough up to this point, so they could at least put in a little more filler... or depth to the exposition behind the action. No, folks, I suppose this film wraps things up pretty tightly, but we've successfully expanded on films that are mostly action before, so let's really mess with the kids' ADD one last time with "Harry Potter and the Return of the King". ...Huh, I just drew a comparison between "Harry Potter" and "The Lord of the Rings", and as Ross Geller put it in the finale of "Friends", when they addressed his ballet lessons, "do you realize we almost made it ten years without that coming up?" Well, I don't know about "we", because I'm the only one who hasn't said anything about the similarities between the two series up until now, which is alright, I suppose, for this is the end, my friends, and it's time start fulfilling some expectations and answering questions. Actually, if you're wondering if this finale is more like "The Return of the Jedi" or "The Revenge of the Sith", don't come talking to me, because in addition to being the only jerk to wait this long before drawing comparisons between this series and "The Lord of the Rings"... and "Star Wars", I'm also the only jerk who preferred "The Revenge of the Sith". Well, perhaps we can at least all agree that this film is better than either "Star Wars" trilogy finale, but boy, it's sure not "The Return of the King" (Come to think of it, a lot of trilogy closers feature the title "The Return of..."), and for plenty of reasons.

These installments have been gradually getting more and more formulaic, not necessarily as "Harry Potter" films, but in general, and for this grand finale, wow, they at least go all out in that department, hitting one trope after another as the ultimately testament of good against evil, a epic of its type, and a blockbuster overall, until it quickly becomes predictable on a level that, well, is almost embarrassing, at least until gotten used to. Make no mistake, this film gives you plenty of time to get used to its generic formula, for although this is the shortest installment of the entire "Harry Potter" saga, at about 130 minutes, it's still a little lengthy, with a narrative that is, in some ways, light in layers, compensated for partly through meandering moments in material that at least feel draggy either when backed by bland dry spells in David Yates' thoughtful direction, or when layering gets to be too broad to flow about all that organically. Jokes aside, this film is very similar to, say, "Return of the Jedi", and it's particularly hard to ignore that when presented with a first act that is borderline filler in its keeping the central plot at bay in order to forcibly wrap up a loose end or two left by the predecessor, but not the only jarring shift in plotting, as there are a couple moments in which the film forces its way to different plot layers whose transitions would be more organic if the layers were more consistently fleshed out. The biggest issue with this film's direct predecessor was, of all things, rushing, or at least an underexploration of many promising plotting elements, and here, screenwriter Steve Kloves makes the same blasted mistake that he can't afford to make in a film that won't exactly see a sequel to make up for lapses in depth, really forcing in certain character motivations (Can't wait to see Ron and Hermione kiss? Well, the filmmakers just couldn't wait through all the pesky exposition either), and unevenly using certain characters in a manner that not only convolutes the film, but does potential depth a great injustice. Really, my biggest, maybe not problem, but aggravation with the film is that it's not quite as satisfactory of a finale as one might expect, being generally so well-directed and well-written that you get an adequate sense of closure, but not to where you can ignore questionable touches that range from handing the spotlight to the last characters you'd expect to get all that much attention (Wait, so, when did Neville Longbottom become awesome?), while giving little attention to figures who have been major throughout the series (Seriously, Neville, at least give Ron Weasley that clichéd "We will fight with the fallen as inspiration" speech), and opening many a glaring plot hole that provides a couple disappointing touches, at least in J. K. Rowling's narrative and Steve Kloves' writing, and makes it hard to overlook such natural shortcomings as the occasional placement of style over substance. The film is so good and so promising, and Rowling, I feel, dropped the ball in certain places, just as Kloves does with his own conclusion of this saga, so through all the inspiration is a film that is improvable, both as a finale and as a dramatic blockbuster by its own right. Nevertheless, as I said, the film is adequately satisfying, at least in its generally being strong enough to transcend its shortcomings and achieve, maybe not the excellence that the series had secured a number of times before, but thorough engagement value, both with substance and style.

A little less meditative than, say, "The Deathly Hallows - Part 1", this film is a touch more celebratory of Alexandre Desplat's scoring abilities, which are still not especially sharp here, but still grand enough in tastefulness and ranging from bitingly subtle to sweeping in order to keep things lively and beautiful, at least musically, while visual beauty goes anchored by cinematographer Eduardo Serra's ruggedly gritty glaze over intricate art direction by (Okay, strap in for this...) Andrew Ackland-Snow, Mark Bartholomew, Alastair Bullock, Peter Dorme, Martin Foley, Kate Grimble, Nicholas Henderson, Christian Huband, Molly Hughes, Neil Lamont, Hattie Storey, Gary Tomkins, Ashley Winter (Whew!). Visual style is, of course, augmented by visual effects that are about as spectacular as they've every been, with exhaustive dynamicity and seamless rendering that offer much eye candy, particularly in the midst of action sequences that I don't find as tight as the action in "Part 1", but still outstanding in their sweeping staging, punctuated by more small-scale duels that offer about as much tension as the grander battles offer spectacle. I don't know if it's because action segments outstay their welcome at times that could have used more exposition, or if it's because the film has the nerve to shy away from certain deaths, not to avoid disturbances, but to avoid consequentiality to the battles, but style is often placed over substance, and if depth was brought more to the level of prominence with all the superficial spectacle, the final product would have perhaps stood as excellent at the very least, and yet, as things stand, the film owes much of its engagement value to its being so sweepingly well-crafted as a blockbuster, as surely as it is generally well-crafted as a drama. As I said, there are a lot of strong places that this story could have gone if J. K. Rowling, for whatever reason, didn't laze out a bit when it comes to originality and fulfilling expectations and depths, and yet, Rowling still establishes a grand, layered epic narrative with enough dramatic weight to set up solid potential that Steve Kloves fulfills more often than not, being also pretty faulty in a number of ways as storyteller, but clever enough areas to hold a consistent degree of momentum, as well as tight in enough areas to give you an adequate sense of range to characterization that often overcomes underexplorations and overexplorations of supporting roles and endears you to this ensemble piece. What anchors the more human depths of this epic and therefore plays a big part in making the final product so compelling, despite its storytelling missteps, is, of course, the acting, which is solid across the board, with some solid highlights that include a Ralph Fiennes who nails the intensity and vulnerability of the evil Lord Voldemort antagonist, an Alan Rickman whose penetrating dramatic subtlety exposes the depths we've always wanted to see the in the primarily subdued Severus Snape character, and, of course, a Daniel Radcliffe who continues to expose how far alone he's come as a talent with his own subtle dramatic heights and layering which gives you a sense of resolution to Harry Potter's characterization as a human, but strong, sacrificial protagonist. While too underwritten to be tremendous, the performances exceed the writing in crafting an effective drama, and by that, I don't just mean the onscreen performances, because even though David Yates, this time around, is given way too many holes to work around in scripted storytelling to craft yet another excellent installment in the "Harry Potter" segment, he continues to compensate as best he can, with style and an immense sense of scale that captures epic sweep and entertainment value, until punctuated by subtlety to storytelling that is often thoughtful to the point of dryness, but primarily controlled enough to draw on what depths there are to this often superficial drama, and establish piercing tension during the more momentous set pieces, until incorporating resonance during the more subdued moments that do, in fact, provide a sense of consequence, humanity and overall closure. If this film leaves nothing else solidified, it is Yates' position as far-and-away this series' best director, and by the time we come to latter acts that often hit about as hard as you want them to, it becomes clear that without the many highlights that Yates orchestrates so powerfully, the film might not have been underwhelming by its own right, but it still would have been generally underwhelming as a finale to this saga, so as things stand, while there are too many aspects which leave you kind of cold for an excellent film to be crafted, Yates, with the help of technical value and acting that are as inspired as ever, crafts an epic that is resonant enough to satisfy just fine as a series finale, and satisfy thoroughly as pure entertainment.

All in all, this series finale is a little too formulaic for its own good, and it is surely too unevenly paced and focused, and underexploratory of promising elements and depths to stand as excellent, let alone wholly satisfy, but through all of the shortcomings, there is enough taste to the scoring and visual style, spectacle to the art direction, effects and action sequences, thoughtfulness to the writing, inspiration to the acting and - last, but not least - realization to David Yates' outstanding stylistic and dramatic direction to make "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2" gripping as a dramatic blockbuster, and generally quite satisfying as the grand conclusion to a magical and classic saga.

3.25/5 - Strong.