(spoilers)
Having read all of the books multiple times, it strikes me that this film shifts dramatically depending on how it is viewed - thus, a tri-review.
As A Movie
Splitting the seventh book into two films was a smart move in some respects, for example much more attention could be devoted to individual plot points (not to mention the financial benefits of charging two tickets to one movie), however this decision wrecked havoc on the structure of the film.
Because we're effectively entering in the middle of a story, we immediately find ourselves in a bit of a lull. The audience is thrust into boring events without any precursor to even introduce them to why they should care about these boring events. I watched the film with two people who had never read the book nor seen Part 1 for several months, and to say they were a bit lost was an understatement. Perhaps you're not meant to go into this a stand alone film, but then why does it market and present itself as one? This continues throughout the entire film: my parents walked with me out and immediately barraged me with important plot questions which the movie found no reason to answer - "alienating" is an apt description.
The action is all very well and exciting, but it actually serves to severely undermine the overall tone of the film. At one moment it feels like we're watching an intelligent fantasy film, and at the next it feels as though we're watching Die Hard with wands instead of guns (this problem has actually been present in the films since about the fifth one, actually). Plus, I don't know why the film is trying so hard to be a summer action flick when it's just so freaking dreary - I understand it's part of the story and what-not, but at no point did I feel like I was having "fun", even during the extensive and intricate action scenes.
The acting is a bit of a curiosity - on the one hand, you have superb (and I mean superb) actors and actresses, most notably Alan Rickman, Ralph Fiennes, John Hurt, and Maggie Smith. On the other, there are so many stale deliveries, confusing facial expressions, and painful screams coming from other parts of the cast (interestingly from the more adolescent actors), that it almost serves to even out the stellar performances at the other end. Smack in the middle are the films three main protagonists, Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint. The three have certainly very, very much improved over time (this being Radcliffe's best performance yet), but there were still moments in which I just didn't buy them as their characters. Perhaps it was the occasionally questionable writing or incredibly obvious use of CGI, but whenever they were on I was usually being reminded that I was watching a film.
The climax didn't feel like a climax, the beginning didn't feel like a beginning, and the middle felt like the end.
As A Movie With Respect To The Book
The movie departed from the book in several specific ways, and unfortunately many of them seemed to make little to no sense to me. Why was the entire sub-plot of the harrows of the young Dumbledores exorcised? Was it necessary to intertwine Voldemort and Harry's conversation at the end with a "thrilling" action scene? Why was the conversation between Dumbledore and Harry in King's Cross so considerably shortened? As I've hinted, I greatly fear that the answer is to make room for the action scenes, and this itself hints at the greatest problem the movie has with respect to the book: it is dumbed down.
Why do the filmmakers seem to assume the audience couldn't understand that a disgusting baby, moments after Harry is murdered by Voldemort, is Voldemort himself? It may seem a minor point that, as opposed to the book, Dumbledore readily answers Harry "That is what's left of Voldemort's soul", but it's further evidence that the film-makers felt the audience couldn't understand interesting and intelligent symbolism without holding their hand.
This "dumbing down" actually raises one of my biggest issues with the films: why do wands now function as (like I said before) laser guns? The best part about warfare in the books was watching characters duel using mind and matter, employing clever jinxes or using environmental objects (such as statues) to their benefit. None of this occurs in the film. The entirety of dueling is shooting and blocking, and occasionally two laser beams meeting in the middle. Everyone says this movie has respect for the source material, but does no one consider that this phenomenon (lasers from the wands meeting in the middle) is an extremely circumstantial event which the books describe (importantly) as only occurring in the fourth? It's nitpicking I know, but it just disappoints me that this decision was made, seemingly, for the audience's "benefit".
On that note, it's also a serious flaw in the film that evil characters have needlessly gory deaths. Perhaps not "gory", there's no blood or guts or anything, but the beauty of the book's description of Bellatrix and Voldemort's death is that they both died exactly as every other character would - with a simple, undignified fall to the ground. Not only does it not make sense within the world's rules of magic, but it feels like the filmmakers are trying to draw catharsis out of events which the book specifically states are, inherently, absent of drama.
The most positive point I can say about the filmmaking in respect to the book is that, somehow, the epilogue works considerably better in comparison. I don't know what it is, but (story issues aside) I found the film's portrayal of the epilogue as somehow more interesting and clever than the books.
My only other minor nitpick is with Michael Gambon's portrayal of Albus Dumbledore. I'm not sure what it is, but somehow the character in the film is lacking so much of the charm and, frankly, cheeriness of the character in the book that I have a hard time connecting the two. I never felt the same affection for Gambon that Rowling's writing inspired in me for the character.
But now we get to the heart of the matter...
As A Story (i.e. Briefly Reviewing The Book)
People love these characters. I know this - a woman one row in front of me literally sobbed almost the entire second act. And it's understandable - they're good characters, it's hard to not be fond of them (especially when we've been following them, in one form or another, for the better part of fifteen years). The problem, though, is that Mrs. Rowling herself became far too fond of her own characters.
Yes, there are certain, painful, unprecedented,
surprising deaths of important characters. And these deaths do mean something. But what I can't bring myself to understand is why, even though the whole series seems to be about dealing with heartbreak and loss, at the end our three protagonists go on to lead a completely perfect life. A "happily ever after" ending, if you will, feels so out of place in a series which until now benefited from mixing fun and fantasy with serious themes about the hardship and challenge of life itself, the loss which we all must suffer at one point. With the last book, it just feels like Rowling undermined this incredible tension she kept up for so long in favor of feeling happy - and this fundamental problem is carried over into the film.
Overall then, I must admit I was a bit disappointed. There are one or two very positive points worth mentioning though.
Alan Rickman is beyond brilliant. I highly doubt any actor in the entire world could so successfully carry this complex character, highlighting his strong and weak points, and playing so believably that I never once felt like I was watching "Alan Rickman".
Further, most of the technical aspects of the film are superbly done. For some reason my theatre was incredibly dark, but I give the film the benefit of the doubt in assuming that this was the problem with the theatre. The camera angles, the cinematography, and some of the visual effects were top notch, though (as I said before) the CGI was generally sub-par, and I always, always noticed it.
To sum up, then: Harry Potter is as much, if not more, a part of my childhood as any other story. I love the books dearly, warts and all - I must say, though, that the movies always seemed somehow lacking to me. I'm not one of those snobs who presumes that source material must necessarily be better than that which is based on it (see: The Godfather), but in this case this truism rings loud and clear. Ambitious, legendary, and successful, the movies were entertaining, though they will never hold the same place in my mind or heart as the books on which they were based.
