One last time, with feeling
New recruit Dana Kimpton bids farewell to ‘that’ franchise – has the world’s favourite wizard saved his best tricks for last?
Is it a cliché to say that I grew up with Harry Potter? Usually, I’m using that phrase to defend myself, as in “Yes, I am going to the midnight premiere even though I’m 21 years old”, but now that the final installment has arrived, there seems no other way to describe it. Yes, I grew up with HP. My mom read the first books aloud to me, back in 1997, before I read them on my own. When the first movie came out in 2001, I was the same age as the characters. I’ve seen four directors, two Dumbledores and, now, eight movies come and go.
The ending is satisfying. Whereas the first part of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was quiet and sombre, the second is loud and theatrical – it unabashedly parades characters across the screen during the final Battle of Hogwarts, as if to remind us that the series has in fact had more characters than just Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grant) and Hermione (Emma Watson). (I had begun to have my doubts after the previous movie.) It’s action followed by action, but that’s really what we all wanted, wasn’t it? Best of all, the movie takes viewers back to Hogwarts and, I must admit, I had missed being away.
Director David Yates relies heavily on shots of Harry weaving through chaotic battlegrounds set to music – Potter’s task is to hunt for horcruxes throughout the school, while the rest of ‘Team Harry’ holds off Voldemort and company. (We’re supposed to believe that the hundreds of bad guys are too preoccupied fighting teenagers to curse Harry, or at least trip him as he runs past.) We see the scope of the battle between good and evil, and shed a tear for the massive destruction wrought upon Hogwarts Castle.
And the castle isn’t the only thing that’s looking beat up. We’re used to Harry looking battle-worn at the end of every movie, after the inevitable faceoff with Voldemort. Usually he narrowly escapes with a dirty face and a bloody lip. This time, all the characters spend the entire movie looking like they are on the losing end of a fight with the Whomping Willow. A bloody lip is the least of their problems. This time, people die.
But the movie does not dwell on the characters that are lost – there is a rather morose scene in which the survivors are caring for their dead, but it is short, and there is a nice job done of rounding out Snape’s character. Once again, we return to the pensieve, an object used to review memories, to find out what’s been grinding Snape’s gears all these years. The flashback montages are illuminating and well done, and Alan Rickman is finally able to show a little more emotion, which was nice after seven movies of slow speech and dripping disdain.
The special effects in Hallows are impressive too, though don’t waste your money on a 3D showing – the back-to-back-to-back action scenes let the crew embrace a variety of shots to show the castle under siege, and one of the coolest effects is when Professor Flitwick casts protective charms that form an invisible bubble around Hogwarts. I will never get tired of the effect when the camera seems to zoom through the bubble and the image is out of focus for a second, as if the lens has just passed through the barrier of spells. Yates does this a lot, not just with protective bubbles, but also when he is zooming through windows. Sometimes, it’s the little things that pull it all together.
The weakest part is the epilogue, but that’s hardly the fault of the moviemakers, as it’s horrendous in the book too – the worst thing is the hair and makeup that’s used to make the surviving main characters look like they’re in their late 30s. Let’s just say that some Hogwarts alumni age better than others.
Overall, the film was a good end to a defining series. Endings are difficult and bittersweet, but Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows focused more on the sweet, and watching it was a bit like watching a graduation. I laughed, cried, remembered old times and wondered what everyone is going to do now that it’s over. In a few years, we can come back and evaluate. For now, I’m going to quietly mourn the end of an era, and make plans to see it at least once more on the big screen.
130 mins.
Oh, bollocks. I was praying they would NOT include the epilogue. Damn it. Then again, I could leave five minutes before the end…
Yep, the epilogue was just as cheesy as it was in the book. Fun fact though – the girl who plays Malfoy’s wife in the epilogue is Tom Felton’s girlfriend in real life.
Thanks, guys, for spoiling the ending on two separate levels. You’re as bad as Peter Bradshaw.
Oh come on, CD, spoiling the ending for who, exactly? A late-comer who might just happen to stumble into the eighth film, and not know anything about what is going on? And just how many people are there like that around, do you think?
Which bit did I spoil, CD? Oh, hang on, you DO know where an ‘epilogue’ normally goes, I guess?
I loved it, but I’m feeling old. The wand of blah was, in the end, not controlled by Voldemort because the previous owner controlled the blah blah blah so Potter was the final unknown blah blah?! I was lost from start to finish. Everyone else seemed to know what was going on though, so I enjoyed it vicariously through them. And it’s always good to see Alan Rickman and Jason Isaacs – I loved the epilogue too, however cheesy it was.
Erm…I’m not trolling guys, but Potter? Really? Just thought someone should speak for the seven or so people on the entire planet who have never been that impressed.
Hey Nick,
Been trying to call you the past couple of days – you OK? Anyway, I pretty much agree with you – the craze just passed me by, I have not read a word of any of the books, and I have only seen the first two films which, let’s face it, were rubbish. They’re all about a young wizard, apparently, who grows up at a school for wizards, and gets into all sorts of japes. Whoopy. Fucking. Do.
It’s true, the first two movies were shite. But they got better, see? And, by the end, they were much better than all that god-awful Lord of the Rings hogwash.
Plus, if you really *must* have adolescent wizards shooting off their magic wands at each other, I’d much rather they did it in a pastiche of an English public school…where it’s probably much more likely to happen, no?
Hi Chris,
Mate, all jokes aside, I must say that I am interested in what your definition of ‘hogwash’ is, ie, where does it begin and where does it end in the fantasy genre?
For myself, while I have only read The Fellowship of the Ring (ie, part one in Tolkein’s trilogy), I genuinely thought the …Rings films to be infinitely better staged, acted and executed than anything at Hogwarts that I have seen. Unless, as if by magic, parts three through eight turn into Eisenstein, is that it?
In my opinion, all fantasy movies are hogwash, really – something I probably have no right to say, given my taste for sci-fi and horror. But I just didn’t get LotR – even Peter Jackson’s endlessly swooping camera work didn’t save it for me. It’s like Blade Runner (1982) – everyone else seems to adore it, but I just thought it long-winded and dull. Mea culpa.
As for Potter, once Chris Columbus jumped ship, a few respectable directors took hold of the series and took it places that it had no right to go – I would actually say the third one was really quite good, and they definitely improved.
Sorry Dana, would have been a bit more diplomatic if I’d known a stranger had reviewed this, but I mistakenly thought it was James (I did wonder what his mum was doing reading to him in the 1990s).
Anyhoo – Chris, I’ve only seen the first two so thanks for the heads up. James – nothing showing on my phone, but you’re probably blocked.
No problem Nick – it’s still hogwash in Hogwarts, but the one where they go back in time and interfere with their future selves, I like that one a lot. I think it was the third part.
Hey James, maybe I can turn the tables on you here and you can clear up an issue I’ve had for decades – what is it about LotR that makes it such a treasured English literary classic? I mean, I get Austen and I even get Dickens and Hardy, but hobbits, goblins and speaking in elvish?! It’s not even for kids, really – what is it that I’m not seeing?
Hey Nick,
You see, that’s what happens when you pile-drive your quite enormous bulk into an argument, without actually bothering to read the entire review first. There was a bit of a clue given that it was Dana Kimpton writing, and it’s in the first paragraph. See if you can spot it?
Hey Chris,
Thanks for the interesting question; I am not, to be fair, *the* defender of all things Tolkien – as I have said previously, I have actually only read the first part of the LotR trilogy, The Fellowship of the Ring, as well as The Hobbit. How much of his work have you actually read, out of interest? However, I would say that I had the enormous pleasure during the latter part of 2010 and early 2011 of listening to the original Radio 4 production (which dates back to the early 1980s) with a very good friend of mine here in Brussels who is an absolute afficionado of the books.
This is radio drama that was made at a time when the BBC was still a public service broadcaster and, removed from the constraints of a visual version, is an amazingly engrossing, faithful, gripping and genuinely thrilling trip. Actors such as Ian Holm (Frodo) and Sir Michael Hordern (Gandalf) do an amazing job and, for me, it was a great way to play catch-up with what I had missed by not reading the entire trilogy (which I have said I will now do, in fact). I take your point on the aspects of the novels that are most definitely not your run-of-the-mill elements of what would normally be considered classics, but I suggest that you give the radio version a try, I’ll read the books in the meantime, and we can talk some more then, deal?
Best,
J
And, Chris, concerning Blade Runner, I have always loved it, particularly its dripping taps and pretentious dialogue, right Nick? Ah, memories…
I guess I could give the audio version a try. Is it as gloomy as the movies? As a matter of fact, Stephen Fry has done the audio versions of the Potter books and he really brings them to life. If, as you say, you don’t know what the fuss was all about, you could do worse than hunting one of his recordings down. Of course they’re not dramatized but read aloud, so Rawling’s prose remains intact…
‘Gloomy’, you say? Well, while I am not the biggest fan of the films, I really don’t think that they were gloomy but, then again, you found Craig Daniel’s performance in the simply marvellous Quantum of Solace (2008) to be ‘glum’, so who am I to contradict?
To answer your question, however, the tone of the radio dramatization is a lot closer to the books so, yes, probably more gloomy than the films. Fair enough? Interesting about the Fry readings – I too may give them a try.
J
Actually, after ten+ hours worth of Middle Earth gloom, Craig’s pouty-lipped performance in QofS is like a light soufflé of comic genius. It’s all relative, I suppose.
Well, I am going to get the master of Middle Earth, Alex, on the case, to see if he can answer your enquiry concerning LotR‘s classic status better than I, fair enough? Watch this space…
To: James Drew
I like the bit in Harry Potter when they’re all grown-ups and they have kids
because it’s fun, you get to see their kids and see them when they’re grown-ups
and that’s why I like it.
From: Mary
Age: 8
Dear Mary,
Thank you *so* much for your lovely comment, I really appreciate it.
Tell me, have you seen any of the other Harry Potter films? Which of the others are your favourites? Can’t wait to hear from you again. 
James Drew x