Cut to the chase: Unbridled and dazzling, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 caps the venerable decade-long franchise in suitably magical fashion. It’s as thrilling as it is gripping, offering the thematic maturity and defining revelations the franchise so desperately lacked since Prisoner of Azkaban.
I feel that I should begin with a disclaimer: I never read the Harry Potter books. They never really appealed to me and by the time I began even considering reading them, the first film had already been released. So, I was perfectly content with experiencing our favorite boy-wizard’s adventures on the silver screen. Similarly, it should come as no surprise that I don’t watch each film as a springboard for comparison to its paperbound counterpart; I merely view each Harry Potter film for exactly what it is: a film.
Deathly Hallows Part 2 catches up where Deathly Hallows Part 1 ends: Harry and the gang continue on their journey to destroy the hidden Horcruxes – objects containing the splintered soul of the Dark Lord Voldemort. Soon enough, their expedition brings them back to Hogwarts where Voldemort and his peons await Harry for the ultimate showdown. And essentially, the bulk of the film is just that: a climactic showdown between Harry and Voldemort, good and evil, love and hate, etc.
Holistically, Deathly Hallows Part 2 is a good notch (or two) above its immediate predecessor, Deathly Hallows Part 1. Where the first part stalled and meandered, this film quickens the pace and raises the stakes. Where the first part bored us with exposition and talked more than it showed, this film manages to evoke a breadth of emotions through visuals alone. Indeed, the greatest strength of this film arguably lies in its nostalgia (For everyone who’s already read the books and even for those who haven’t, the ending really isn’t anything to write home about – Harry lives). So, it’s understandable that one could see this film as more of a tribute to the seven-film, multi-billion-dollar, decade-long franchise that came before it, harkening back to its veritable pantheon of England’s greatest actors, invoking the most pivotal moments in the heroes’ journey up to this point. Its intent is clear: close out the Potter saga respectfully and amicably; and truly, it does so with great aplomb.
I’d be remiss to talk about this final entry in the canon without comparing it to my favorite entry: Prisoner of Azkaban. Cinematically, Prisoner of Azkaban stands as the strongest Potter film due to the depth of its emotional resonance. Unlike every other entry in the Potter saga, Azkaban featured a story that predominantly revolved around a relationship; it didn’t deal with Tri-Wizard tournaments or Chamber of Secrets or Horcruxes. It didn’t focus on the complexities of the plot or the mysteries of the Potter-universe. It pushed the intricacies of the lore and fanciful aspects of wizardry into the background; instead, it told an accessible coming-of-age story of self-discovery, featuring a simple yet profound examination of the ubiquitous father-son dynamic by introducing Sirius Black, Harry’s godfather.
Prisoner of Azkaban was directed by Alfonso Cuaron, the stellar director responsible for Children of Men. With him at the helm, Prisoner of Azkaban fulfilled a more mature, darker, deeper story, marking the first and greatest step the Harry Potter franchise took on its evolution from a children’s product to a cultural phenomenon. And yet, its greatest aspect is perhaps its simplicity: the film essentially tells the same story twice, back-to-back, with the climax resonating not from wand battles, but from an emotional epiphany that Harry is truly his father’s son.
I bring up Prisoner of Azkaban mainly because I expect that level of sophistication from the franchise. If it could deliver that depth in the saga’s third entry, why can’t it carry the same thematic weight now for its grand finale?
For the most part, Deathly Hallows Part 2 strives – and strives mightily – to do just that. Its scope is both limitless and intimate; its action is well-balanced with the drama. And yet, try as it might, Deathly Hallows Part 2 is no Prisoner of Azkaban. Granted, the action and final showdowns are dazzling. And I’d be hard-pressed to find actors who relish their lines more than Alan Rickman’s turn as the duplicitous Professor Snape or Ralph Fiennes’ slithery Lord Voldemort. But director David Yates (who’s helmed the last three entries) is regretfully heavy-handed when it comes to drama and tension. The teen-angst is an absolute cheese-fest, bordering on laughable. And unfortunately, Daniel Radcliffe’s juxtaposition next to England’s finest actors (Fiennes, Rickman, Oldman, Broadbent, Gambon, et al.) only further highlights just how young and inexperienced he is. Indeed, Radcliffe is sadly a product of unfortunate youth casting, pigeonholed into one of the world’s greatest roles and struggling to deliver more than just doe-eyed gazes and slack-jawed awe.
Cinematically, Deathly Hallows Part 2 can’t be considered anything less than a feat of genius. It manages to satiate the legions of fans without alienating the general audience. It offers everything one could want from the climactic conclusion to one of the world’s greatest sagas. And when the film finally lays off the gas pedal, I couldn’t help but feel a bit saddened that the Potter journey was coming to a close. For the die-hard Potter fans out there, Deathly Hallows Part 2 should prove to be everything they’d come to expect from Rowling’s ultimate creation. But for me, this was just a pretty damn good entry in the Potter canon.
But it's still not as good as Prisoner of Azkaban.
But it's still not as good as Prisoner of Azkaban.
