My main issue with this movie, though I did highly enjoy it, is how it played as a third act to Part 1. What I mean is, I understand this was always going to be half a movie in certain respects, but they could have done more to give Part 2 a cinematic shape of its own. Even if it meant a longer film.

The whole idea of releasing two parts was breathing room for the massive story, right? Yet this felt rushed. So many characters barely registered. Examples: Bellatrix LeStrange, Hagrid (who didn't even seem upset Harry had "died"), Lucius Malfoy, Lupin, Molly Weasley ("Not my daughter, you bitch!" wasn't as epic as it could have been and came out of the blue). I can forgive a few peripheral characters being given blink-and-you'll-it cameos, Trelawney for example, but others I can't. Even Ron and Hermione felt minor.

Yet then there's the whole breaking-into-the-vault/dragon sequence, which was 20 or so minutes long and felt very self-contained. It would've been more at home in Part 1. It felt very, "Here's 20 more minutes of Part 1, then we quickly jump into the final battle for Hogwarts."

I already feel this movie becoming a blur in my head. It needed to be more...distinct. So much of it is just noisy action. I wanted more character and emotion. This is the most shallow Potter movie since Chamber of Secrets.

We went to the Deathly Hallows double-feature, and I think that helped IMMENSELY. Your comments, Gunslinger, makes me hope that maybe TPTB will release a special edition DVD that combines the two movies together into one LOTR-length movie. Because if you do put them together--just splice off the recap of the end of DH1 and go straight to the shots of Snape/Hogwarts and take out the WB logo and the title, paste the movie to the end of DH1 and BAM, you have just one very long movie on par with an extended edition LOTR movie.

But Gunslinger is right. It was too rushed, even if they were pieced together. Too many things were random, such as the inclusion of Dumbledore's brother, Ableforth, despite giving no explanation of Dumbeldore's background story (a thematic crime really). It make it seem so emotionally random. Also, yes, Mrs. Weasley's line makes so much less sense as they glossed over Fred's death.

Even pasted together, this wishes it would come close to the emotional impact and artistry of LOTR.

I'm not the biggest fan of LOTR, but it does a much, much better job at get you investing into the storyline and its characters.

It was a good movie, but I didn't feel for any of the characters. The grand finale should be emotional, which it wasn't. But then again I am not that big of a harry potter fan.

7/10 for the action scenes and nice visuals.

I am so glad this franchise is over.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

My reaction to this is just as surprising as its opening day number is. It was entertaining but Part I was overall better! This wasn't the EPIC finale that I was expecting and the reviews and the marketing suggested. The emotion involved and the action is nowhere near as good as ROTK or ROTS. The pacing and set-up was also a lot better in those two. I can't say that I'm all feeling this because I'm not a huge fan of the series because I also didn't see all Star Wars films yet I still ended up loving the last film.

B

I still haven't seen the first three films, so GoF is still the best of the series for me.

A wonderfully satisfying, thrilling and emotional end to the series. The best has been saved for last here. I've read every one of these books and seen every one of these movies, and this movie made me misty-eyed on numerous occasions. The acting is wonderful: gone are any wooden or stiff qualities Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint showed as children...they have been replaced by confident, expressive adults. Radcliffe is particularly impressive in this one; now that the films are over, it's hard to imagine anyone else ever having played Harry. As the personification of evil, Ralph Fiennes is truly chilling. And while Alan Rickman has always been great in this series, Deathly Hallows Part 2 finally culminates with Snape's true arc and gives Rickman wonderful material to work with. Furthermore, Maggie Smith and Michael Gambon's dignified performances are true highlights. The film is wonderfully shot and, unlike the more languid of pace of Part 1, never stops to breathe. This results in a relatively short running time which shortchanges some of the novel's big moments a bit, which is my only complaint. And unlike some people, I thought the epilogue worked in the novel and it works here too. A film series has probably never taken on such drastic shifts in tone; the first Harry Potter film was a certified family film, capturing the innocence and youth of a magical world. The epilogue brings that back full circle, which is what the end of a series should do. Everyone involved in these films should be very proud of what they have accomplished over the last decade. A-

Thanks for all the comments everyone. Ended up sick -- won't be able to see this for a couple days, but I'm certainly looking forward to it. We can nitpick every one of the films if we wanted to, but overall I think they've done a very good job.

As with Super 8, ditto what BJ said.

It improved the book in some areas, such as the epilogue which in print was like bad fanfic and also the movie's pairing of Neville and Luna was better than Rowling's romantic fates for them.

Keep in mind I could nitpick Casablanca and these two points don't detract from the movie in any way that really matters but...

- when they were on the dragon escaping the bank, why not just apparate? They are out, free, just teleport. They did it mid-air jumping out a window in DH part 1.

- when the bank guy asked for Bellatrix's wand, why not just show him it? They had it, we'd seen it 5 minutes earlier. Now it might be that there's some reason they gave in the book like the wand might give away that it's not her somehow, it has been a while since I read the book. But in the movie it didn't make sense.

Still great fun, and better than any of the LOTR films.

HP4 has no sense of magic to it at all. It's as dull as Columbus' films.

It did have Jarvis Cocker and Jonny Greenwood, though. Magical.

It's a big disappointment because it's carried by the source material. Prisoner of Azkaban is its own film. Order of the Phoenix is its own film. Half-Blood Prince, Deathly Hallows, etc. But Goblet of Fire is just a collection of scenes from the book thrown together for 150-odd minutes. It just lucks about by the book being really damn good.

Yeah, I just watched Goblet of Fire again, and I was stunned by just how badly directed the thing is. It's a total botch job.

It's sorta saved by the actors and the production design and the songs, but not really.

I thought it was really good, I wasn't a fan of the bank vault break in (felt too easy) but everything after that was put together excellently. The Harry-Voldemort fights are awesome. The best scene for me though is Voldemort and the death eaters marching up to Hogwarts thinking they're carrying a dead Harry, I thought the whole scene with the crowds confrontation in front of the castle and build up was great.

Wasn't a huge fan of either Bellatrix's or Voldemort's deaths. Voldemort's in particular, at least let the rebounding beam knock the fuck out of him before he disappears to give it some oomph.

I would say Deathly Hallows Part I is easily the best Potter film, Part II is the 2nd best. 3-6 do nothing for me. I actually like the Chris Columbus ones but maybe it's nostalgia

Dunno about your first question, but in regards to the second:

Security at Gringotts had already been alerted to the presence of the Trio. That's why they asked for "Bella's" wand; it would have disarmed Hermione. Not a good move. You never give up your wand, especially in a tense situation like that.

1. I don't think apparition is possible inside of Gringotts Bank, similar to Hogwarts and other places. They could have once they were in the air I suppose, though. I guess they tried to avoid apparating, too, since Ron is bad at it and was injured before.


2. Also, it's likely they knew Bellatrix had lost her wand, and were on the lookout for it.

After Bellatrix believed the trio had broken into her vault previously, she probably went to check on it right after they escaped the Manor. Hermione giving the Goblins the wand would prove that she was an impostor given the real one didn't have her wand.

Thanks for the responses. I meant once they were out of the bank flying away but Ron being not good at it might be a good reason not to do it.

One more question: I don't remember them explaining in the movie (I'm pretty sure she did in the book) how the sword of Gryffindor ended up at Hogwarts when the last we'd seen of it was when Harry gave it to the guy for helping them get in the bank.

Just like Harry did in the Chamber of Secrets.

One thing that bothers me is that Wormtail never appears again after having been stunned by Dobby in Part 1. I liked his death in the books...

Strangling himself to death would look awfully silly on screen.

That's what Yates said. Never showing him again isn't good either, though.

I agree. If I'd written the thing, he would have woken up, gone upstairs, and taken a misplaced killing curse from Bellatrix during the quick fight.