Harry Potter and the slam-bang finale

---

Finally, after all these years, it's over.

 

 

And this final movie, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part Two,” is the best of the lot.

 

 

All of the young actors know exactly what they're doing now. (It's been ten years, so they'd better.) It's wonderful to see Emma Watson as a calm and very confident young woman; Rupert Grint isn't goofy anymore, but stalwart and funny and sort of cute if you squint at him the right way; and dear Matthew Lewis as Neville Longbottom, the Wimpy Kid of Gryffindor, has matured beyond all recognition, and is now handsome and brave and pretty much the tallest kid in his class.

 

 

Daniel Radcliffe. Okay. He's excellent. But he's a place-holder. He's you, you see? He's your foothold in the story. You're supposed to identify with Harry, so they couldn't really cast anyone really dramatically distinctive in the role – not a funny redhead like Grint, not a zombie albino like the mutant who plays Draco Malfoy. Radcliffe is perfect in this regard, sort of like Elijah Wood over in “The Lord of the Rings”: he's got an interesting face and a pleasing personality, but he mostly reacts to stuff. Picture him in your mind. You're seeing him looking at something and reacting to it, aren't you? And that's perfect. I foresee a long and successful career for Mister Radcliffe, and more power to him.

 

 

The older actors – you know, the entire British acting community over the age of thirty – really only need to show up in costume. But it's wonderful to see Maggie Smith's deadly serious face when she's wand-to-wand with her adversary, and later to see her irrepressible giggle when she casts a spell that she's always wanted to cast. Nice to see Emma Thompson with her thick spectacles on; nice to see Julie Walters growling like a mother tiger, fighting with the terrifyingly insane-looking and insane-acting Helena Bonham Carter.

 

 

Hope I didn't spoil the movie for you with those glimpses.

 

 

But I didn't, did I?

 

 

And, see, that's the thing. There are no spoilers here. You've either read the book, in which case you know what's gonna happen, or you haven't, which means that – well, you pretty much know how it has to end, right? (Hint: don't get that Death Eater tattoo just yet.)

 

 

The cinematography is beautiful. I can't remember the last time I saw a movie with night scenes in which I could actually make out what was going on. (We saw it in 3D, and there are a few worthwhile effects – some of the spells, some of the pyrotechnics. But, kids, save your three dollars. You really won't miss a thing if you don't see it in 3D.)

 

 

The movie actually improves upon the book in a few places; it omits some of the tedious flashback stuff, and straightens out a few of the more roundabout plotlines. And maybe things don't happen quite like the book in a few places – but wouldn't it be a bore if they did?

 

 

And I am so effing grateful to see the bloody quidditch stadium burn down. Because – you know what? - I think quidditch is stupid.

 

 

But this movie is not stupid. It is really grave and beautiful and solemn.

 

 

And a lot of fun to watch.

 

 

So. Imperio! See this movie!

 

---

 

 

Harry Potter and the box-office juggernaut

---

Partner and I (and most of the rest of the Northern Hemisphere) saw the new Harry Potter movie yesterday. Now, I'm one of those people who read the ending of a book first, because I hate suspense. But I could not make head or tail of the ending of this book! (No spoilers here – but is there anyone who doesn't know how this story ends?) But still. I mean, if Harry's linked to Voldemort, that means he – but, wait a minute, Voldemort drank some of Harry's blood, so he – and there's the whole Horcrux thing, so they both – but they have the same wand, so they -

Anyway. This movie only gets us halfway through the book. We don't have to worry about the face-off between Harry and Voldemort until next July. In three-D. It will be spectacular.

Partner and I liked this movie. It's dark without being obscure. It breezes right along (mostly). It's a whole Who's Who of British cinema, too. (Colin Farrell, on Graham Norton this week, made a funny/sad observation that he hadn't been asked to be in it, and that he was probably the only actor in the British Isles who wasn't asked. It's a shame. He would have been adorable.) There are a few jump-out-of-your seat scenes, which are pleasantly startling without being heart-stopping. The magic is beautifully depicted; it's become so natural over the course of the past six movies, they don't need to feature it anymore. When a newspaper photo turns and looks at you, or someone lights a lamp with a wand, it's not even surprising, even for us Muggles. It just seems normal. (Also, now that Daniel Radcliffe is all grown up, he takes his clothes off a lot. It makes for a pleasant diversion.)

But there's a long dry spell in the middle of the movie: Ron and Harry and Hermione wander in the woods and bicker with one another. Time passes. The scenery is very stark and lovely. Aren't we on the clock here? Isn't Voldemort doing bad stuff off in the distance? Why are you guys just kicking around through the dead leaves and pouting at each other? It's exactly the same dry patch that the novel had, and I remember being very irritated with it. A couple of the novels gave me the sense that Rowling was just filling pages with words, to bulk up the novel – kids like their novels bulky! - and this was one of them.

The movie has a sad / ominous ending. Voldemort (what's with that nose? Do evil wizards get their noses revoked?) is winning. Helena Bonham Carter is a cackling maniac. And somebody nice dies.

But don't worry, kids. Stay tuned. All is not lost. There's more to come.

---