Harry Potter 7.2

[Dr. Tina]

Let me say that as an avid reader of the books, I think the filmmakers did an excellent job of filming the seven Rowling books. The films were wonderfully cast -- the big three were excellent and the supporting cast, which featured almost every important British actor and actress of the era, were even better -- the set-decoration and special effects were wonderful. I know there were things left out -- Quiddich kind of got lost along the way -- and a few things were overly simplified, but for the most part I give them credit for faithfully capturing the essense of the story. I think that up until the end, the last movie is superb.

All that said, I come away from the eight films with two major and four minor quibbles.

The big big ones involve the ending of the HP6 and HP 7.2. I wish Yates had included the battle up the Astronomy stairway between the Order and DA vs. the Death Eaters (and maybe the idea that Harry gave the last of his FF to his friends to protect them from harm), but I could live with that omission if they had just remembered to have Harry under his cloak, petrified by Dumbledore (which is what gave Draco time to disarm him). Harry Potter would not have stood by and watched that long, drawn-out murder of Dumbledore ... the character that JK Rowling created would not have, no matter what he promised Dumbledore.

My other major complaint is the same as Jason's and everyone else. WHY did they mess with the finale of 7.2 the way Rowling wrote it? I remember thinking when I read it that it was perfectly cinematic -- Harry and Voldie circling each other in the Great Hall, trading insults and being watched by the wizarding world. And Harry explaining to "Tom" why he's going to win before he does. I agree that there's no logical reason in the film for Voldemort to die -- I don't see how it can be a backfiring curse ... Harry disarms him with a (non-verbal) expelleramus, the Elder Wand flies through the air and Harry catches it, then without Harry doing anything else, Voldemort screams and disintergrates. I don't get it.

Oh yes, I have to agree about the casting for the whole Harry Potter series. There really isn't one character I can think of that isn't exactly how you'd imagine them just by reading the books. It was superbly cast. I don't think you can say enough about how RIGHT they got it when the picked all these amazing British actors and actresses, including the kids. Daniel, Emma, and Rupert really grew so much!

I touched upon the horcruxes and LV's demise in my other post, but I'm thinking that his soul was barely hanging on in the body he had. When Nagini was struck down, there was hardly anything left. His soul was so severely compromised and all 7 parts of it were dead. How strong could the 8th part, which needed magic to become a corporal body, really be?

[Jim3k]

I know there is some dissatisfaction here with the 3-D version. If you are willing to spend the extra money, I recommend the IMAX 3-D version. It is bright and clear and the music is awesome. True, the 3-D is the result of digitalization, so you don't get the stones landing in your lap or fire in your face sort of audience participation, but it is still worthwhile in the IMAX format.

[aimo]

I, too, wish that they had shown Harry repairing his own wand, after being told it was not fixable. I also wanted to see Harry in the Headmaster's office being applauded by the portraits and talking to Dumbledore's portrait. Also, in the movie Ollivander talks about the Deathly Hallows as a myth, but in the book, he had never heard of them. He only knew of the stories of the "ultimate" wand, and that's why Voldy went after it.
And I preferred the book's version of no one knowing Harry was going into the woods instead of the movie showing Hermione giving him a goodbye hug. It was much more powerful reading about the sound that Harry never imagined McGonagall could make when she saw Hagrid carrying him. And the excitement when Neville kills the snake and everything happens at once, and Harry uses it as a cover to sneak under the cloak and start zapping deatheaters with spells. And the drama of him not un-cloaking himself until the last minute in the great hall. Doesn't make sense why they took the movie in such a different direction. Has anyone heard any reasoning from the directors as to why they changed it?

[dukebsbll14]

I, too, wish that they had shown Harry repairing his own wand, after being told it was not fixable. I also wanted to see Harry in the Headmaster's office being applauded by the portraits and talking to Dumbledore's portrait. Also, in the movie Ollivander talks about the Deathly Hallows as a myth, but in the book, he had never heard of them. He only knew of the stories of the "ultimate" wand, and that's why Voldy went after it.
And I preferred the book's version of no one knowing Harry was going into the woods instead of the movie showing Hermione giving him a goodbye hug. It was much more powerful reading about the sound that Harry never imagined McGonagall could make when she saw Hagrid carrying him. And the excitement when Neville kills the snake and everything happens at once, and Harry uses it as a cover to sneak under the cloak and start zapping deatheaters with spells. And the drama of him not un-cloaking himself until the last minute in the great hall. Doesn't make sense why they took the movie in such a different direction. Has anyone heard any reasoning from the directors as to why they changed it?

Not sure why, I guess for the big screen, but when you think about it the original ending would have look just as cool if not cooler on screen. All I know is JK Rowling was one of the producers, so if there was anything she didn't like I'm sure the change wouldn't have happened.

[bjornolf]

Oh yes, I have to agree about the casting for the whole Harry Potter series. There really isn't one character I can think of that isn't exactly how you'd imagine them just by reading the books. It was superbly cast. I don't think you can say enough about how RIGHT they got it when the picked all these amazing British actors and actresses, including the kids. Daniel, Emma, and Rupert really grew so much!

I touched upon the horcruxes and LV's demise in my other post, but I'm thinking that his soul was barely hanging on in the body he had. When Nagini was struck down, there was hardly anything left. His soul was so severely compromised and all 7 parts of it were dead. How strong could the 8th part, which needed magic to become a corporal body, really be?

The casting was amazing. Alan Rickman was the ultimate Snape. When reading books, my wife and I will sometimes play a game where we guess who would play the characters in movies. Before we even heard that they were making the movies, I guessed Alan Rickman for Snape.

The only one I was disappointed in was through no fault of the casting director. My wife and I LOVED Richard Harris SO much as Dumbledore, Michael Gambon just had NO chance to replace him in our hearts. Harris portrayed AD's gentle strength and wisdom and kindness and sense of humor SO perfectly, Gambon came off as kind of harsh and unrefined. I'm sure if Gambon had been Dumbledore from the start, we'd never have known the difference, but Harris just ruined the part for pretty much anybody else.

[brevity]

The only one I was disappointed in was through no fault of the casting director. My wife and I LOVED Richard Harris SO much as Dumbledore, Michael Gambon just had NO chance to replace him in our hearts. Harris portrayed AD's gentle strength and wisdom and kindness and sense of humor SO perfectly, Gambon came off as kind of harsh and unrefined. I'm sure if Gambon had been Dumbledore from the start, we'd never have known the difference, but Harris just ruined the part for pretty much anybody else.

Most people feel the way you do. I respectfully disagree.

I can't say for certain that Michael Gambon is better, but I prefer him because he plays Dumbledore closer to the way the books depict the character. A little bit aloof and irreverent, even from the beginning, and probably a bit harsh by book 5, when we see him through Harry's petulant teenage eyes.

Richard Harris does a very gentle and fatherly portrayal, which I guess I don't mind, as it keeps in line with Chris Columbus' kiddie movie direction. But it's a very sanitized Dumbledore on the screen, and it seems off the mark in retrospect, given what J.K Rowling has revealed about him.

Mostly, I blame Columbus. Had Harris lived to make the third movie, I have a feeling Alfonso Cuaron would have him reshape his character a bit to match the books.

[aimo]

Most people feel the way you do. I respectfully disagree.

I can't say for certain that Michael Gambon is better, but I prefer him because he plays Dumbledore closer to the way the books depict the character. A little bit aloof and irreverent, even from the beginning, and probably a bit harsh by book 5, when we see him through Harry's petulant teenage eyes.

Richard Harris does a very gentle and fatherly portrayal, which I guess I don't mind, as it keeps in line with Chris Columbus' kiddie movie direction. But it's a very sanitized Dumbledore on the screen, and it seems off the mark in retrospect, given what J.K Rowling has revealed about him.

Mostly, I blame Columbus. Had Harris lived to make the third movie, I have a feeling Alfonso Cuaron would have him reshape his character a bit to match the books.

Wow, I completely disagree. I though Richard Harris WAS the Dumbledore from the books, older, softer-spoken, gentle except where necessary (like when he yelled SILENCE in the first movie when Quirrel announces the presence of the troll). Gambon is too young, too fat, too loud, speaks too fast, and to me is the anti-Dumbledore. Plus, whenever I see him, I can't help but think of the end of The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover. He got a little better later on, maybe, but if there had to be a replacement, I would have preferred John Hurt (who was already cast as Ollivander) or Ian McKellan (I read recently that he did not want to portray another iconic figure like he did with Gandalf.)

[ArkieDukie]

Wow, I completely disagree. I though Richard Harris WAS the Dumbledore from the books, older, softer-spoken, gentle except where necessary (like when he yelled SILENCE in the first movie when Quirrel announces the presence of the troll). Gambon is too young, too fat, too loud, speaks too fast, and to me is the anti-Dumbledore. Plus, whenever I see him, I can't help but think of the end of The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover. He got a little better later on, maybe, but if there had to be a replacement, I would have preferred John Hurt (who was already cast as Ollivander) or Ian McKellan (I read recently that he did not want to portray another iconic figure like he did with Gandalf.)

I agree with you, aimo. In fact, I still think of Richard Harris as Dumbledore. I was a bit surprised when I realized that, in fact, Gambon played Dumbledore for more movies than Harris did. Like you, I thought that Ian McKellan would've been a great replacement for Harris.

[davekay1971]

I agree with you, aimo. In fact, I still think of Richard Harris as Dumbledore. I was a bit surprised when I realized that, in fact, Gambon played Dumbledore for more movies than Harris did. Like you, I thought that Ian McKellan would've been a great replacement for Harris.

He would have been. McKellan is a phenomenal actor and would have owned the role. It would never have happened, however. Not only would McKellan have been very leery of being typecast as a wizard after portraying Gandalf, but the HP producers probably would have avoided casting him even if he'd wanted the role. Remember that the first 2 HP movies came out about the same time as Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, and the Chris Columbus HP movies suffered by comparison. Although Azkaban was released in June 2004 (6 months after ROTK), I suspect the HP producers would not want to have drawn any further direct comparison to the LOTR movies by casting LOTR's great wizard to play their own.

FWIW, having read the books, I also thought Richard Harris was perfect as Dumbledore. Gambon was a suitable replacement and seemed to fit the role better as the movies went on.

[bjornolf]

Most people feel the way you do. I respectfully disagree.

I can't say for certain that Michael Gambon is better, but I prefer him because he plays Dumbledore closer to the way the books depict the character. A little bit aloof and irreverent, even from the beginning, and probably a bit harsh by book 5, when we see him through Harry's petulant teenage eyes.

Richard Harris does a very gentle and fatherly portrayal, which I guess I don't mind, as it keeps in line with Chris Columbus' kiddie movie direction. But it's a very sanitized Dumbledore on the screen, and it seems off the mark in retrospect, given what J.K Rowling has revealed about him.

Mostly, I blame Columbus. Had Harris lived to make the third movie, I have a feeling Alfonso Cuaron would have him reshape his character a bit to match the books.

Dumbledore did act gentle and fatherly toward Harry the first few books, and we only really saw the other sides of him as he became more involved with Harry and his adventures. I think Richard Harris would have adapted similarly.

The two iconic British actors I missed in these movies were Michael Caine, who I would have loved as Slughorn, though Broadbent was really good too. Maybe as Fudge or something. I also missed Jeremy Irons as a villain. I was hoping he'd be Voldemort. Fiennes was very good in the role, but I always pictured Voldemort as somewhat older, and I've always LOVED Irons in that role. He certainly could have played one of the other evil roles as well. Again, not saying they miscast those roles, I just would have loved to see those actors in the movies somewhere.

I will say that Kenneth Branagh was a totally inspired choice as Lockhart, as was Staunton as Umbridge. Man was she perfect. And Maggie Smith was almost as awesome as McGonagall as Rickman was as Snape. Another genius move was Gary Oldman as Sirius Black.

[aimo]

Dumbledore did act gentle and fatherly toward Harry the first few books, and we only really saw the other sides of him as he became more involved with Harry and his adventures. I think Richard Harris would have adapted similarly.

The two iconic British actors I missed in these movies were Michael Caine, who I would have loved as Slughorn, though Broadbent was really good too. Maybe as Fudge or something. I also missed Jeremy Irons as a villain. I was hoping he'd be Voldemort. Fiennes was very good in the role, but I always pictured Voldemort as somewhat older, and I've always LOVED Irons in that role. He certainly could have played one of the other evil roles as well. Again, not saying they miscast those roles, I just would have loved to see those actors in the movies somewhere.

I will say that Kenneth Branagh was a totally inspired choice as Lockhart, as was Staunton as Umbridge. Man was she perfect. And Maggie Smith was almost as awesome as McGonagall as Rickman was as Snape. Another genius move was Gary Oldman as Sirius Black.

I also loved Emma Thompson as Prof Trelawney. She makes me laugh out loud. I wish they had shown her a bit more in this last movie. I still wish they had Hugh Laurie play Xeno Lovegood, as small a part as it was, and I pictured Angela Lansbury as Aunt Miriam, who was also made just a small part in the movie. And how can they have so many British actors and not use Stephen Fry?

[davekay1971]

I will say that Kenneth Branagh was a totally inspired choice as Lockhart, as was Staunton as Umbridge. Man was she perfect. And Maggie Smith was almost as awesome as McGonagall as Rickman was as Snape. Another genius move was Gary Oldman as Sirius Black.

Great tangent to the thread. The casting of this entire series of movies has been, as the Brits would say, spot-on! They really nailed the vast majority of the roles, both with the kids and the adults. The kids' casting I find truly exceptional, as they managed to get the right 11 year olds for movie 1 who grew beautifully into the perfect 20 year olds for movie 7/8. Neville stands out as the best of the bunch in this regard, to me.

As for the adults, my favorite casting choices have been Alan Rickman and Gary Oldman, with David Thewlis as Lupin right behind. How about a poll for best supporting actor casting in the series? I bet we'd see a broad spread of choices, with everyone being right!

[bjornolf]

Great tangent to the thread. The casting of this entire series of movies has been, as the Brits would say, spot-on! They really nailed the vast majority of the roles, both with the kids and the adults. The kids' casting I find truly exceptional, as they managed to get the right 11 year olds for movie 1 who grew beautifully into the perfect 20 year olds for movie 7/8. Neville stands out as the best of the bunch in this regard, to me.

As for the adults, my favorite casting choices have been Alan Rickman and Gary Oldman, with David Thewlis as Lupin right behind. How about a poll for best supporting actor casting in the series? I bet we'd see a broad spread of choices, with everyone being right!

Ah, man, I forgot all about David Thewlis as Lupin! He was really good too. My dad's biggest complaint about the casting has always been that Watson's too attractive for Granger.

[dukebsbll14]

My dad's biggest complaint about the casting has always been that Watson's too attractive for Granger.

BAHAHAHA. I love the casting of Emma Watson! As pretty much everyone has said, there's not a certain character I know of where I can say, "you know, I think they would have done better with a different actor." I actually loved Gambon as Dumbledore. He was incredible in Snape's memories and the Kings Cross scenes.

Has anyone seen this:


I'll warn you though, if you're a Potter fan you might need to grab a tissue...

[Dr. Tina]

BAHAHAHA. I love the casting of Emma Watson! As pretty much everyone has said, there's not a certain character I know of where I can say, "you know, I think they would have done better with a different actor." I actually loved Gambon as Dumbledore. He was incredible in Snape's memories and the Kings Cross scenes.

Has anyone seen this:


I'll warn you though, if you're a Potter fan you might need to grab a tissue...

Yes, I saw this, along with a host of other HP2 Behind the Scenes segments, right after seeing the movie. It is very touching to watch when you realize how unique this experience has been. They've shared something very special and have become a family of sorts. I really loved seeing how each cast member was acknowledged on the his/her last day on the set. I think what got me most is the very end when they show DR, EW, and RG in the 1st movie and then show them at the end. How far they've come!

[Billy Dat]

My Harry Potter bona fides are having a wife who read all the books take me to the movies as they came out. I really enjoyed them, and after seeing Order of the Phoenix, I read the final two books, then went back and read the rest. As a result, the last 3 movies are the only ones I saw AFTER reading the books. Half Blood Prince and DH1, therefore, suffered the same fate as most movie versions of books that you enjoy, they weren't nearly as good. But, I did not feel that way about DH2, I loved it. I guess I simply didn't expect it to be able to capture every detail of the book that I loved, and the previews that have been running for the past few years prepared me for the final Harry/Voldy duel to be different than the book, so that wasn't as much of a letdown.

It's hard for the film series to stand on its own, and it probably does have all the problems/holes you have all pointed out. I have no idea how you'd really understand the final two films if you hadn't read the books. But, there's a simple and satisfying solution to that - read the books!

I assume there are a lot of Godfather I and II fans on this board. Clearly, that film stands on its own. However, reading Puzo's bestseller makes the movie 100x better as you learn so much additional backstory. Plus, there is entire movie worth of Johnny Fontane story that never made the films. Point is, fans of the HP movies need to go back and read the books, and then watch the movies again, and then read the books again, and then watch the movies again...the gift that keeps on giving.

[Billy Dat]

Also, meant to mention, I thought Daniel Radcliffe really rose to the occasion in this film. As an earlier poster mentioned, the portion of the film from when he sees Snape's memory in the pensieve to meeting Voldemort in the Forbidden Forest was excellent because of his acting, very worthy of the written material. Also, the scene that most choked me up, as others have mentioned, was the surviving teachers, led by McGonagle, casting the protective enchantments around the school.

[northernduke]

I would be interested in other answers/observations of what killed Voldemort. Was it Harry's spell? Was it Neville slaying the last Horcrux/Nagini? Was it the wand backfiring (if so, it was NEVER explained in the movie and the only way we could know this would be to read the book)?

I just saw the movie yesterday, and as somone who hasn't read the series, maybe I can be of some help in this question. To the casual observer (i.e., non-reader) it was assumed (at least among the folks I spoke with) Neville slaying the final Horcrux made Voldemort a mortal and enabled Harry to bring about his fate. Earlier in the movie you witnessed the elder wand beginning to crack when Voldemort used a spell to break the "forcefield" over Hogwarts. That alluded to his growing weakness which was capped off with the destruction of the final Horcrux.

I don't remember Harry ever being at Malfoy's dungeon with Luna in the 7.1, unless that was the place where Bellatrix killed Dobby just before they ported to the beach (fuzzy on remembering whose residence that was).

[Olympic Fan]

I just saw the movie yesterday, and as somone who hasn't read the series, maybe I can be of some help in this question. To the casual observer (i.e., non-reader) it was assumed (at least among the folks I spoke with) Neville slaying the final Horcrux made Voldemort a mortal and enabled Harry to bring about his fate. Earlier in the movie you witnessed the elder wand beginning to crack when Voldemort used a spell to break the "forcefield" over Hogwarts. That alluded to his growing weakness which was capped off with the destruction of the final Horcrux.

I don't remember Harry ever being at Malfoy's dungeon with Luna in the 7.1, unless that was the place where Bellatrix killed Dobby just before they ported to the beach (fuzzy on remembering whose residence that was).

Harry was definitely in the dungeon at Malfoy's in 7.1 -- Harry and Ron were thrown in the dungeon with Luna, Ollivander and Griphook while Bellatrix was torturing Hermione upstairs. Dobby arrived to help them escape -- he took Luna and Ollivender out by apparition, then helped Harry and Ron get past Wormtail ... which led to the fight upstairs, where Harry ended up with Draco's wand and Bellatrix threw the knife that killed Dobby has he was apparating Harry, Ron, Hermione and Griphook to Shell Cottage.

I still have problems with the death of Voldemort. No problem with the idea that he was getting weaker and that the Elder Wand was not working well for him, but he still shouldn't have been easy to kill -- none of the other Horcruxes died easily, so even if he were left with only a small portion of his soul, he would have still be tough to kill.

But what kills him? Hary and Voldemort are dueling and their wands seemed linked as they were in the graveyard at the end of GOF -- which made sense then because the to wands shared the same core. But even if the Elder Wand recognized the weilder to Draco's wand as it's true master, it still wasn't visually portrayed correctly. Harry and Voldemort duel with the colored spells linking them, then they break the connection and Voldemort just stands there. He's not hit by a backlash -- not visually -- he's hit by nothing. One minute he's standing there looking at Harry and neither is casting a spell. Then the next instant -- again without either Harry or Voldemort casting a spell -- he disintegrates.

I agree with Jason ... why?

I realize this is a pretty stupid thing to argue about, but I did admire the series and I think that even fantasy needs to be consistent to its internal rules. I admire the series -- that's why the sloppy ending bothers me so much.

[bjornolf]

But what kills him? Hary and Voldemort are dueling and their wands seemed linked as they were in the graveyard at the end of GOF -- which made sense then because the to wands shared the same core. But even if the Elder Wand recognized the weilder to Draco's wand as it's true master, it still wasn't visually portrayed correctly. Harry and Voldemort duel with the colored spells linking them, then they break the connection and Voldemort just stands there. He's not hit by a backlash -- not visually -- he's hit by nothing. One minute he's standing there looking at Harry and neither is casting a spell. Then the next instant -- again without either Harry or Voldemort casting a spell -- he disintegrates.

I agree with Jason ... why?

I realize this is a pretty stupid thing to argue about, but I did admire the series and I think that even fantasy needs to be consistent to its internal rules. I admire the series -- that's why the sloppy ending bothers me so much.

As the "owner" of the elder wand, it should be nearly impossible for Voldemort to hurt Harry with it, unless maybe he stabbed him with it. Therefore, it wouldn't be so hard for Harry to beat him, and with only 1/8th of a soul, he would be pretty fragile, I would think. More dead than alive already. Can't say why he'd die without anyone casting a spell, but I can see why he wouldn't be too hard to defeat, for Harry (for others it would be a different matter all together). Many of the other horcruxes were so difficult not because they were strong from Voldermort's soul being in them but because Voldemort had set up defenses around/in them, or they had defenses of their own, at least that's how I read/viewed it. Since Voldemort's greatest defense (the elder wand) was stripped away, he was easy pickings, again, for Harry if no one else.