Can't believe we've finally made it up to this point: the last (well, next to last) entry in the Harry Potter movie series hits theaters.  Following in the footsteps of The Order of the Phoenix and The Half-Blood Prince, I figured it was time to make a thread for The Deathly Hallows.

-Official Trailer 1
-Official Trailer 2

Anybody seen it yet?  I'm in for an IMAX viewing over the weekend, so I'll have my thoughts up soon.  In the meantime, I'll be giving Alexandre Desplat's score a thorough listen today.  I'm hoping for good things on the music front.

I really did not care for the 7th book.  I couldn't even remember why... until I saw the movie.  It's just so darned plodding...  I feel like every aspect of the plot involves jumping from one crucial moment to another... with lots of interjected parts that are about absolutely nothing happening at all.  But in the end, not much seems to really develop.  It just plods from one point to the next.  I completely blame the book for the overall similar feeling I had during the movie.
The story about the deathly hallows themselves is very nicely done in the movie though.

I read this post before going to see it myself yesterday, and I thought it sounded a bit negative, but now that I have seen it myself, I agree 100%.

It is incredibly plodding.
The opening is action-packed and there are definitely some cool moments, but halfway through, the movie just comes to a stand-still without any significant development whatsoever. Plodding describes it perfectly.
And I also agree that this is not so much the movie or the director's fault, as it is simply a matter of the original book being like that in the first place.
They chose a good moment the end part 1 on, though, nicely ominous.

It looks great though, there are some lovely environments, and as you said, one of the absolute highlights of the movie was the story of the Deathly Hallows itself, which is wonderfully visualized.

I look forward to the sequel, but I don't think this one bears repeated watching.

Action schmaction! You'll get all your whiz-bang in Part 2. I think Part 1 is a great opening for the saga finale with its deliberate pacing. It's handled better than in the book, actually. The Half-Blood Prince film could have done with a similar pacing. After that, I was worried for this, but Part 1 has given new reason to look forward to the finishing episode.

.

I think the best way to describe the movie for me is: I sure didn't feel the 2.5 hours.

I thought it was decent.  Not as good as what Yates did with Book 6, but FAR better than the crap he turned in with Book 5.  This movie finally had the despair that was missing from the film adaptation of the fifth book (something I'm not likely to forgive any time soon).  It moved slowly and despite being exposition heavy, still completely skips over the Dumbledore-Gridenwald relationship.  More than any of the previous films, I really felt someone who hadn't read the books wouldn't have a clue as to what was going on here.  That said, I still enjoyed it, especially with Desplat taking over the music from Hooper.  I also appreciate how directly the film compares the new Ministry of Magic to Nazi Germany and the shades of Terry Gilliam's Brazil seen in the bureaucracy within.

For those who don't mind being spoiled on Part 2, The Leaky Cauldron.org has a full report on the working cut of the full film that was test screened in Chicago this weekend.  Check it out here, but again be forewarned, it pretty much spoils the ENTIRE movie.

It sounds promising.  With the final battle taking up a good chunk of the near two hour cut, it looks like they're going to be putting their all into it.  It's great to hear that Alan Rickman and Maggie Smith will feature prominently, and it's especially pleasing that the ....... "The Prince's Tale" chapter is being handled with the utmost care, even going so far as to say that it's one of the best moments in the entire series.

Apple's got the premiere trailer for Part 2 up.  Let the war begin.

Trailer is meh. Will watch on opening day.

I'm not a fan but that's one of the most wowsome trailers I've seen in a long time.  Might actually re-watch the earlier films for the first time (maybe not 1 & 2, not sure if I could stomach them again) to lead up to it.

Appropriately epic, I'd say.  Looking forward to it.

Seeing as how The Deathly Hallows Part 2 is essentially the other half of a single entity, I thought it best to continue discussion on the upcoming film in this thread, rather than take it to a whole new one.  (EDIT: Thanks for the subject header change, Adam!)

After the world premiere in London yesterday, it looks like the movie is off to an extremely promising start with the critics.  Says Todd McCarthy: "Fully justifying the decision, once thought purely mercenary, of splitting J.K. Rowling's final book into two parts, [Part 2] is an exciting and, to put it mildly, massively eventful finale that will grip and greatly please anyone who has been at all a fan of the series up to now. If ever there was a sure thing commercially, this stout farewell is it." 

Other reviewers have gone on to state that the movie even manages to make up for the book's inherent shortcomings, bringing more cohesiveness to the big battle and emotional parts of the narrative.

Have they said if it includes the epilogue?

Oh I sure hope not!

They keep waffling about it. It's filmed and will be on the DVD, but whether it's in the theatrical cut depends on who you ask and what day you ask them.

It'll be in the theatrical cut.  The reviews have stated as much.

The bigger question is how well they pulled off the effects necessary to make it work.

I've read the makeup is pretty bad. I'm sure the rest of the movie will make up for that segment. I've listened to the soundtrack and it's good, albeit with more RC influences than the last score.

Yeah, Desplat's score for Part 2 is quite excellent.  It's still steeped in the dark undertones the series needs at this point, but I think this is the first time since Doyle's Goblet of Fire where there's a palpable sense of fantasy adventure to the sound.  Beyond that, I'm pleased that Desplat opted to integrate Hedwig's theme far more than he did in Part 1.  I've counted nine reprisals on the soundtrack release alone, and though they're subtle by nature, that's about twice as many as any of the post-Azkaban scores tried to muster.

RC influences?  I kind of get that sense because of the more bombastic nature of the score, but the only song that brings RC to my mind is "Statues."

Much of the Hogwarts battle material sounds less like Desplat to me and more like an RC composer. "Statues", obviously but also "Courtyard Apocalypse." "In the Chamber Secrets" has that familiar string chuggling line (first really heard in "Batman Begins") that's omnipresent in blockbuster films these days but the latter half very clearly moves away from it. Also, the last forty seconds of "Showdown" is very clearly in the "things exploding, slo-mo" RC sound. Reminded me a little of Beckett's death, actually.

Caught the 3 AM showing this morning! Good movie, probably my 2nd favorite in the series (but PoA still wins overall). The middle is easily the best part as the first twenty minutes is riddled with exposition and the big climax deviates heavily from the book, making everything bigger and grander. And yet, it still comes across as anti-climatic.

Unfortunately, Desplat's score is treated somewhat badly in the movie. Crucial cues are either chopped in half ("The Resurrection Stone") or dropped entirely ("Harry's Sacrifice"). Others are buried under sound effects. The music does get a chance to shine during the dragon flight and "Courtyard Apocalypse" also made an impression.

A midnight showing was my original intent, but I needed to bump it to the weekend due to my back condition.  But from home base, I've been following all the impressions, reviews, and box office tracking like a hawk -- and I'm positively gobsmacked at how well the movie is faring.  It's pretty insane.

Is there truth to them using Williams' original "Leaving Hogwarts" and "Hedwig's Theme" from The Sorcerer's Stone for the epilogue and end credits respectively?

Saw it tonight.  The super high metacritic rating is undeserved, to say the least.  The acting is fantastic, but that's really all it has going for it.  The pacing is wildly uneven with some scenes dragging on forever and other scenes feeling way too quick.  The worst part is that the movie has this strange anticlimactic feeling throughout.  This is the big climax, so why doesn't it feel climactic?

Yup. "Leaving Hogwarts" actually does a good job of making that scene tolerable (but like most people, I hated the epilogue from the book). "Hedwig's Theme" starts the end credits and then it goes through a bunch of Desplat's cues.

I'm not surprised the movie is doing well. I got to the theater just when the 14 midnight showings were letting out and the ensuing stampede vividly reminded me of the scene from Titanic when the rushing water is raging down the hallways.

Just came back from the theaters, watched the whole thing in IMAX 3D whathaveyou, and I have to say, I am immensely pleased with it.

I didn't feel it dragged for a single second. Sure there are some slower scenes, but they're appropriately paced given the circumstances. I was on the edge of my seat the whole time.

I am also very satisfied with the radically changed ending.
The book's ending was incredibly disappointing and anti-climactic (if you think this movie is anti-climactic you probably haven't read the books), and the changes made here make for a much more satisfying (dare I say, sensical?) conclusion to the saga.

If movie-going wasn't so stupidly expensive in this country I'd probably go again.

As a side note: they're showing Prisoner of Azkaban on TV right now, and the contrast is striking.
The older movies, the first 3 to be precise, are decidly more playful and...childish?...if you look at the later ones.
Pointless things like Harry blowing up his aunt and the bus for stray wizards seem almost uncharacteristically light-hearted for the series if you consider how it all ends.

JW, how much does it run there. Here, it would be about $14 to see a movie, plus outrageous prices for food/consessions (figure $10 for popcorn, soda and candy). I usually wait for DVD/Blu Ray releases, as a result

Where the heck do you live!?  I thought you were in the U.S.?

I had to look up what JW stands for :S

Anyway, it's 1800 yen for a regular movie, but if you go to the late show it's 1200.
IMAX movies are 2200 regardless of what show you go to.
They were showing Deathly Hallows in a non-IMAX 3D version as well. which was also 2200 but the late show "only" cost 1600.

Consumptions are stupid expensive too, but that's a given.

Sounds about right actually. Around here a regular film is $10 and IMAX is $15. And our prices seem pretty reasonable. XD

I read the books.  I greatly enjoyed the seventh book, and I don't remember feeling that its ending was anticlimactic at all.  The movie feels anticlimactic because of how it was shot, cut, and scored.  I just don't think they did a great job of conveying the events of the book.

I'm curious why did you read the whole series? In fact, I wonder why so many adults read the whole series? I'm not even sure why Potter became such a hit. Of course, being the happy cynic that I am, I could not put my view better than Ursala Le Guin did:

"I have no great opinion of it. When so many adult critics were carrying on about the 'incredible originality' of the first Harry Potter book, I read it to find out what the fuss was about, and remained somewhat puzzled; it seemed a lively kid's fantasy crossed with a "school novel", good fare for its age group, but stylistically ordinary, imaginatively derivative, and ethically rather mean-spirited."

Although well written, I personally find very little original imagination in it. It's no Wizard of Oz, no Alice in Wonderland, no Chronicles of Narnia, certainly no Lord of the Rings... rather to me I found it to be a piecemeal of different classic books and myths put together. I also think it's so popular because adults are reading it far more than kids. The adults are also the ones spending so much money on the books and merchandise and making a brouhaha. Anyway, as you can tell, I'm not a fan at all, although I know we all have different tastes.

I'm really curious (and not trying to be disparaging here at all), how many who have read Potter have read the Wizard of Oz, Alice in Wonderland,  the Chronicles of Narnia, the Lord of the Rings, and other such fantasy classics?

I've read The Lord of the Rings once (and the Silmarillion, Zzzzz), the Chronicles of Narnia books at least three times, and the Harry Potter books twice, although when I came to The Deathly Hallows again I skimmed through about half of it. I thought Potter's world was very creative and the plot more intricate and satisfying than much of the adult fiction I read. Many novels today (and I read a variety of thriller--action/adventure, science, supernatural, mystery, etc.) have deep themes and intriguing plot devices, but the story is sometimes built around one big twist or a narrow subject, and then inflated to 400 pages. They can be boring if the writing isn't particularly beautiful or the characters are unimpressive. To me, there were so many interesting things going on in Harry's world that it was simply fun to read. LoTR was not always fun to read, but it's impact was much more substantial, and left me feeling "better" for having read it.

Yes to all of the above.  And honestly, to dismiss Harry Potter compared to any of those DOES reek of cynicism.  While still short of what Tolkien accomplished with his world, Rowling's work can and should stand with other fantasy classics because of what she managed to do with it.  Although starting as simple children's fare, I think it shows remarkable skill on her part that she manages to increase the maturity and complexity of both the language and the story in each subsequent book, allowing a generation of kids to grow up with the characters and never feel like they're being pandered to.  She also clearly had a very solid plan from the beginning - It's hard to find any series where everything ties together so nicely as it does in this one.  Little things early on in the books (and films) are often there because they're important and come back to be part of the bigger picture later.

Now granted, I'm sort of a casual fan of the books and movies (do I think there are better things out there?  Sure), but I don't understand how anyone can just dismiss them and be totally clueless as to WHY they are significant works.  It's really not a mere fluke of popularity.

The Harry Potter books are like fast food.
I know there's nothing but junk in them, but man are they hard to quit.

I agree that in terms of imagination it does very little that hasn't already been done before.
I remember reading praise for the books for making use of Roman mythology and other old folklore, to which my natural reaction was: "Final Fantasy has been doing that for aeons."

That said, the books have an interesting mythology of their own, they're fun, easy to read and like it or not, people crave those big twists.

As for you question, I have yet to read WoO and AiW, but I am very much familiar with their content.
I only ever saw the first CoN movie and the whole talking animals thing put me off.
I have read LotR and enjoyed it greatly, and I'm currently going through the second book of A Song of Ice and Fire, which may very well be the best Fantasy series I've ever read, although it's a close call with Terry Pratchett's Discworld series.

Harry Potter falls short in comparison to all of the above (apart from Narnia as far as I'm concerned), but like I said, it's junk food.

Well said, Amazing. I disagree with Qui-Gon, I do not consider Potter "significant". Popular and significant are too very distinct things. Beethoven is significant. Elvis is significant. Bieber is just popular. Likewise Potter is popular, and I personally do not believe it will go down as being particularly significant. Popular and a great success yes, but never significant like the other fantasy works (Narnia, etc). By the way Amazing, you might want to give The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe a try. The book is FAR better than the Disney adaptation which was just OK  (actually, I think the BBC production which was made many years earlier is far superior). The Narnia books are full of Christian symbolism. I personally do not care for that, but nevertheless it does show that Lewis did not just jut down the books in order to make a ton of money, he really wanted to write a book that dealt with moral issues. It ended up being a groundbreaking series, and there is good reason why the animals can talk (has to do with Lewis' view on the relationship between man and nature and Heaven). Anyway, I think Amazing's call of Potter as "fast food" certainly is correct!