Overall though, I have come to the realization that the Potter filmmakers, including "Deathly Hallows: Part II," seem to suffer from a fear of dialogue. Since "Prisoner of Azkaban," this series has omitted enough compelling conversation to fill the Great Hall in Hogwarts. Scenes that carry on for entire chapters have been whittled down to a matter of seconds...the skeleton of the stories has been left in tact but there's very little meat. The most crucial omissions came in "Half-Blood Prince," where we should have been given more knowledge of Voldemort's past than the just the minimum to further the story. I'm not talking 10 or even 5 minutes per conversation here but merely lines that dispersed throughout each film would add tremendous value. Key bits of knowledge that rooted the books so powerfully in my imagination are ignored.
In most cases, spoken exposition should be minimized or heavily disguised in films. However in this instance, you're working from not just a successful book, but the biggest cultural phenomenon of this generation. Wouldn't you think audiences would be willing to offer a little more wiggle room in the amount of expository conversation?
Let's look at this from a relative viewpoint. After 10 years and 8 movies the build to this climax should be unmatched. No other film franchise has endured this many episodes with a single underlying arc like this. The battle between Harry and Voldemort is something that we could foresee from the start. It was destined to happen and we just waited as the pieces fell into place. Nine and a half years later it's here, but it doesn't have the poetic grandeur you would expect from something nearly a decade in the making.
To put it in perspective, the first Harry Potter film was released before the first Lord of the Rings, even if only by a month. At the time I saw it in theatres, my family had yet to purchase a DVD player (we bought one a month later). Also, gas was averaging $1.46/gallon; the dollar was trading stronger than the euro; social networking websites were virtually unknown as friendster and myspace hadn't been launched and facebook was still two years away from being thought of; the New England Patriots would soon pull off their first Super Bowl; and Pluto was still a planet!
Will you be moved to the point of tears or even sobbing? It's likely if you're a fan of the saga. The emotions run high but that's attributable to J.K. Rowling's material more than it is the filmmaking. Like the highly acclaimed "Prisoner of Azkaban," this movie benefits greatly from its source. Unfortunately though, not even the source material is fully utilized. Rowling makes many Christian allusions in her book that are blatantly altered or omitted, such as one line that likened to Harry to a lamb and had no business being changed (I'll leave it at that to avoid spoilers). No matter what your faith may be, these references are of literary value and add tremendous depth to the material.
"Deathly Hallows: Part II" is a solid achievement, probably the best in the franchise but this is a franchise that has only been good and failed to achieve greatness. I have a bit of a love-hate relationship with the film series, which is not a position anyone wants their movie to be in. It means that despite my effort and strong desire to love your movie, you didn't quite reach your potential. Much has been accomplished in these nine and a half years, but much has been unfulfilled as well.
P.S. I greatly appreciated the 3D and thought that the depth it created enhanced many of the scenes
P.S.S. I don't think this movie will attain a Best Picture nomination as some predict. I do think it will get nods in Art Direction, Visual Effects, and Makeup (possibly sound too, but those categories can be tough to predict as theatres vary in their sound quality)
