No, of course not. But I fully expect BBC in the future (in 10 years perhaps) to adapt the series, like it has done with all of the English literature classics.

Just saw this movie for the first time tonight, and while I agree it's all buildup, I already knew that going in. Just like with Part 1 and 2 of The Lord of the Rings, I think it's unfair to complain that the story ends on a cliffhanger when you go in knowing that fact from the beginning.

I've only known the Harry Potter characters through the movies, and I enjoyed this movie very much. I didn't even have trouble following the story here. I agree about Madeye Moody, the screenwriters had him go down like a punk, but aside from that I remained engaged the entire time. JB's Return of the Jedi comparison is apt; this movie is enjoyable not so much for its plot developments but for the fact that we get to spend time with characters we've gotten close to for six movies.

If I were reviewing movies and assigning ratings, this one wouldn't get a star rating, just an "Incomplete." Ultimately, given all the characters and plot threads that need to be wrapped up, splitting Deathly Hallows looks like it was the right move after all.

Although I agree with the decision to break the movie into two parts, I agree with you James that the movie felt flat in many respects. It lurched from one action sequence to the next, but the pacing of the movie still felt strangely sluggish.

I also agree that the filmmakers have completely abandoned any attempt to make the movie accessible to those who have not read the books. Very little is explained, despite the dizzying whirlwind of complex central plots (like horcruxes), subplots, and an array of new and/or obscure characters. It must be a very frustrating experience for those who do not have any background, as it seems like the filmmakers just keep conveniently making things up as they go along.



Finally, the terrible decision by Rowling to have Ron and Hermione get together instead of Harry and Hermione, is on full display in the movie. Whereas Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson have good chemistry, there is absolutely no chemistry between Rupert Grint and Emma Watson. Their romantic scenes are excruciatingly painful to watch. It is impossible to believe that such a brilliant person like Hermione would fall in love with Ron, who repeatedly shows that he is nothing more than a dim-witted clown who only serves the purpose of providing comic relief. He also shows in "Deathly Hallows" how spiteful and vindictive he can be. An incredibly intelligent person like Hermione would never fall for a pathetic loser like that.

I just noticed something about the movie's responses from reading here, at the Rottentomatoes forum, and from my friends. (I haven't seen the film yet) People who have read the book often came out of the movie often saying that it isn't quite fully satisfying and they thought people who haven't read the book wouldn't be able to follow it. But then I read the responses from the ones who only followed the story through the films, and a lot of them quite like the movie, with almost all of them saying that asides from a few plot points and a few unknown faces, they followed it fine. Weird pattern.

With the issues in the spoiler above,

I agree with you though about pairing Harry and Hermione. Before the sixth book, I was so certain that they were meant to be a couple. And all the stuff with Ron was just misleading from Rowling. I even found the clues here and there in the preceding books that I thought pointed to Harry/Hermione. Sigh.

I saw the movie with a friend. I've read all the books several times, he's only seen the movies. From what I could tell, he had no trouble following the film (although it probably helped that we had a two-day marathon of the first six films prior to seeing the new one).

Obviously guys you haven't seen Star Wars. The Harry-Hermione-Ron triangle is actually a rip-off of Luke-Leia-Han. I'm actually surprised that Rowling didn't make Hermione Harry's long lost sister.



I said it before that for some bizarre reason the screenwriters thought that butchering Ron's character and enhancing Hermione's would be a good idea. In the books Ron is a far more interesting individual, much more knowledgeable and resourceful than his movie incarnation.
Same goes for Hermione, whose insecurities and social ineptitude never made it to the screen, presenting us instead with this near perfect smart-and-beautiful heroine that almost overshadows the series' protagonist.

I thought Ron's character was best represented in Order of the Phoenix (the one adapted by Michael Goldenberg instead of Steve Kloves).

No it really isn't. Two guys and one girl doesn't equate automatically to a well known cliché. Nobody said the same about Two Guys, a Girl and a Pizza whatever it was called.

Totally agreed with Alice other than the questions raised in the spoiler; one of which has been answered already however the other issue regarding good fortune is something I also thought about until going back over the older books. As I said in my previous post, Everything that occurs in the final story has origins, sometimes as far back as the first story. Absolutely nothing is left to chance which is WHY I personally disagree with a lot of the decisions made by Kloves in the adaptation.

In the books it was slightly more plausible that Hermione could end up with somebody like Ron. He does have a certain level of wisdom and humanity that could be found to be appealing. His faults and negative traits are many and sometimes bubble to the surface but Rowling at least pens a likeable guy. I've never liked Rupert Grint however Deathly Hallows is just yet more proof of his total butchering of the character. When Harry thinks about leaving The Burrow by himself, Ron seems to be a real prick about it, stating that what they did wasn't for Harry's sake (in fact it WAS all for his sake but let's not pick yet more holes in the adaptation). Grint's Ron seems to be nothing more than a thuggish simpleton who uses brief moments of self deprecating humour to remind us that he's really a loveable scamp... (this scene wasn't in the book I might add so there's nobody to blame here but Kloves, once again).

It's not the composition of the trio that makes it a Star Wars rip-off but the personalities and the relationship dynamics between them. Harry, Ron and Hermione fit too neatly in the same niches that Luke, Han and Leia occupied back then.

Even the quote mentioned above ("I love her like a sister") seems to me like a wink, a reference to Leia's quote from "Return of the Jedi", uttered under similar circumstances ("He is my brother").

I only feel there's even a remote connection with Harry and Luke. They both come from ordinary backgrounds and realise they have giant shoes to fill. Han Solo was a charismatic chap who you'd want to share a beer with whereas Ronald Weasley is (in the books anyway) a tactless coward who gets his path through life second hand from Harry. Princess Leia is a total air-head who would have actually died had it not been for her male companions. Hermionie Granger is wickedly smart and frequently has to save her male companions from torching their fingers off with their own wands.

Eh... There is literally nothing new under the sun.

Star Wars was hardly the pinnacle of originality.

For instance take the story in which a hero from an (ordinary/impovershed/unknown) background realizes that he is destined for greatness because he has the potential to control some mystical (force/magic/power). Usually, in most stories the hero starts out as a farmers (assistant/offspring) or is (small of stature/has physical handicap/fear of some situation bound to come up later on in story).

The hero then learns how to manage that mystical (force/magic/power) from a wise old (sage/wizard/jedi/kung fu master).

After which he sets out on an adventure to defeat the (evil/dark) (lord/wizard/dictator/king)... with his (trusty companions/love interest/new friends) at his side.

The above, I would like to think could be seen as describing a large portion of fantasy, science fiction, and greek mythology.

So, given Rowlings background, I'm not going to claim that the tropes used in Harry Potter are anything new, just that I don't think they came necessarily from Star Wars, or at least that Star Wars was Rowlings sole inspiration.

Ron is definitely tactless in the books (more than the films), but he is in no way a coward.

Perhaps I don't mean coward... I'm referring to his crippling ability to only stand up to/raise his voice to people whom society would deem as being lesser than himself (girls, younger students, animals etc). In addition, the fact it takes him until nearly the age of 17 to acknowledge that his younger sister might actually become romantically involved with a boy, possibly a result of his own romantic failings.

It's true that there is nothing new under the sun but what Rowling has done with all the known formula and clichés is rather satisfying. People might say she isn't a great writer but to be honest she is far more competent than a lot of 'famous' fantasy writers (like Brooks, he can fuck off).

He stands up to Snape and Sirius Black in "Prisoner of Azkaban"(the book), and his colleagues when they question Harry's truthfulness in "Order of the Phoenix" .
The main reason Steve Kloves is considered persona non grata among HP fans is because he transformed Ron to a bumbling coward, the exact opposite of the book character.



Harry and Luke are also so perfect and noble characters that they ultimately become bland and boring.
I disagree that Leia is an airhead. She is a no-nonsense smart woman and shows great bravery and loyalty to her people.
And Hermione in the books often folds under pressure and needs to be rescued herself, something that has again been conveniently lost in the movies.

Just saw it and loved it. Never read the books and didn't go back to refresh myself watching the movies again. I heard when they said that "they got" mad-eye, and honestly the rest of the nit-picking didnt make any difference to my complete enjoyment of the movie. The story is about Harry meeting Voldemont, and the friendship between the kids. All the rest is fun fantasy stuff and gets you from point A to point B, its not difficult to figure out whats relevant and whats just a writers indulgences...

I also think James just has a built in annoyance to bifurcated movies. Kill Bill anyone?

The only complaints I have... WHY did they have to use friggin hand held camera's on the last chase scene. Up to that point everything was filmed beautifully. It was almost as indecipherable as the opening chase scene in Quantom of Solace. I wish I knew the thinking to change they way they filmed the rest of the movie and all the other chase scenes for this mess.

Also, it would have been a bit better to end the Harry, Hermoine, Ron part of the movie a little less abruptly with them doing nothing much, although I loved the very last scene.

Thank GOD this wasn't in 3D.. Does anyone know if they will release a 2D version of Part II cause I have truly given up on any enjoyment of 3D whatsoever. Its just plain annoying and desaturating...

It took me awhile but I finally went to see this.

I can now see what James is saying in his review about the abrupt ending... they made no attempt to end it with any sort of resolution, nor have the characters come to some realization that they did not have at the beginning of the movie.

With that said, I did like it more than "Half-Blood Prince".

Some of the weaknesses of these final two films were there in the books.



I thought the camping scenes were particularly aimless, but this was a problem in the book too, though it didn't seem as bad. What exactly was the point of jumping from one random scenic location to another?

One thing I did like was they made Harry a lot less frustrating in this movie (they made Harry a lot more tolerable in "Order of the Phoenix" too; that's one film I preferred over the original story)... in the book, I wanted to knock him on the side of the head, especially with his obsession with Dumbledore's past and the Deathly Hallows. Here, it's a bit more balanced.

My biggest disappointment in this movie was the Ministry of Magic scene, which I loved in the book.

Overall, I do think it's an improvement over the last movie, though it's still not as good as my favorite two "Order of the Phoenix" and "Prisoner of Azkaban"

I'm really hoping at some point in the future James reviews part one and two as just one movie. I pretty much view them as one movie so reading reviews of the separate halves is pretty much meaningless to me.

He basically did that already. As one movie, the 2nd half is solid, the first is far too long (about an hour too long, imo).

The Harry/Ginny match makes sense when you remember Harry is an orphan and is attracted to the warmth of the Weesley family. Harry has lots of surrogate parents in the series, many of whom die in the course of the novel. Hermione is an only child whose parents are Muggles, so she may feel the same attraction toward joining a large and loving family, although it's not brought up as much in the novels.