[Movie]Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

at least our 7 movies are all fantastic where as Goerge Lucas like to take a dump on your precious Star Wars from time to time.

Misa Misa!

 

Good point.

 

Spoiler

This is explained in explicitly in the book that I don't know why there is so much confusion on the subject on the matter. It has nothing to do with the deathly hallows. The resurrection stone enabled Harry to see his parents and uncle. It only allows people to communicate with the dead. It doesn't bring people back to life. This actually caused the original owner to commit suicide, because it made him miss his dead fiance even more and he wanted to be with her.

What kept Harry Potter alive was the fact that Voldemort took Harry's blood in a previous book to resurrect himself thinking it would make him stronger. The blood also contained the magic/love that kept Harry alive when he was a baby. The bond kept Harry alive this time also by providing a bond to the living world. Think of it like a horicrux made from good magic instead of dark magic. When Voldemort killed Harry, he destroyed the Voldemort's horicrux, but Harry's "horicrux" in Voldemort kept Harry alive.

 

Wow, thanks. That is definitely left out in the movie, as well as many other important information. I think this movie was made for people who've read the books.

 

agreed..
Original Star Wars movie were great.. (4,5,6)
The news one (1&2) Lucas didnt just take a dump on it but a nasty stinky slimy smelly chunky green diarrhea dump on it. Those movies sucked ass.
The 3rd one was okay but still crappy

Potter movies for the most part are decent. The books were simply fantastic and the movies were good but not amazing.

 

IMO basically all the movies were made for people who have read the books. You really are missing out on quite a lot of story if you have not read the books. The movies are like super cliff notes of each movie and I can't even really say that about most of the movies since there are quite a few character and plot changes.

 

Ep VI started to show the problems you later see magnified in the Phantom Menace, so it loses a little luster imo. Furry little ewoks defeating the Emperor's elite Stormtroopers?! EP IV is a little slow but has one of the all-time classic action scenes in the end. Phantom Menace had a lot of problems with two notable scenes (pod race and duel of the fates). AotC had some awesome action scenes, better acting but clunky dialogue. RotS was about near perfect. Epic. Empire is a classic. Empire>RotS>>ROTJ>AotC>ANH>>>>Phantom. The prequels aren't as bad as people make them out to be. Well Phantom Menace is, but the others are fine.

And I look at the Potter movies like LotR. I don't think you could have made films that are any better. There are few things I wish were added here and there to Potter, one thing in Half Blood that I wish had been pulled off better. But in general, the films did the books incredible justice. And the films on their own are still quite amazing (I didn't read 1, 2 and 4 and only just read 3 but could follow along fine)

 

Read the books and saw the movies. Neither were precisely clear wrt why Voldemort had trouble killing Harry. I was disappointed that Rowling did not clean this up, when all of the story arcs come together at the end. The movie actually clarified some of the points, that Rowling did not.

Spoiler

The important premises that the movie made clear are:

• Wands can not do damage to their masters.
• Harry's scar was an unintentional horicrux, which contained a part of Voldemort's soul.

The Elder Wand could not quite kill Harry but did kill Voldemort's horicrux, since Harry not Voldemort was the wand's master.

Of course, if Voldemort did own the wand, he may not have been able to kill Harry since killing Harry would also kill the horicrux's host and thus kill a part of his soul.

Likewise, Harry should never been able to kill Voldemort, since Voldemort had Harry's blood in him. The book, though not the movie, seem to imply that the Elder Wand backfired and killed Voldemort.

There. I have cleared it all up.

 

The books were pretty clear in those two points I thought. And because of those two things, I thought you could come to a reasonable conclusion as to why things happened the way they did. I like that it was a little ambiguous, because it gets you talking about the story more, adding your own insights.

 

Spoiler

The King's Cross scene was supposed to clear up pretty much all these questions asked, except the movie rushed through it. It was supposed to be as moving as Snape's pensieve history IMO. But in the movie they kept Dumbledore stony and cryptic while in the book he revealed pretty much everything and was crying because he knew he had been sacrificing Harry's life the whole 7 books.

Also since Harry had sacrificed himself to save his friends, it created the same kind of "love protection" that his mother had for him. But mostly I think he lived because of the elder wand belonging to harry and the blood bond that resurrected Voldemort in the first place. And like what was previously said, it was Voldemort's killing curse rebounding back that killed him.

But it makes you wonder if the rest of the people in the castle were using killing curses also. It looked like Mrs. Weasley straight up killed Bellatrix (Bonham Carter).

 

Spoiler

It was very clear. Here is the quote from the book from page 744.

"Voldemort was dead, killed by his own rebounding curse, and Harry stood with two wands in his hand, staring down at his enemy's shell"

 

WRT how Voldemort died, I remember that from the book, but not the movie ...

Spoiler

In the movie, the death of Nagini appeared to be the last straw. After Nagini was killed by Neville Longbottom, Harry was able to overpower and kill Voldemort with his wand.

As you mentioned, it is clear how Voldemort died in the book.

It is unclear why Voldemort nearly succeeded the first time when he tried to kill Harry with the Elder Wand. Logically, that curse should have rebounded and killed Voldemort then as well.

 

Spoiler

Well to be fair Harry wasn't fighting back at all. Plus it did sap a lot of energy out of Voldemort when he tried to kill him. He wouldn't be killed regardless because because there was still one horcrux left

 

This!

 

hmm good points about the star wars films. I agree with some of the points. I guess the overuse of CGI and really horrible dialogue/acting ruined the new ones for me. Yes the old ones had horrible acting too (at least by Luke) but the others were okay.

As for the Harry Potter films I guess they are done pretty well but they definitely could have been better. I felt if Peter Jackson had directed the last three (Order of the Phoenix, Half Blood Prince, Deathly Hallows) that the movies would have been epic. There was just so much material that would have been so awesome to see. For example in the last movie deathly hallows part 2. The Hogwarts batter could have been so much epic. In the 5th movie (Order of the Phoenix) other species (Giants/Centaurs) were introduced which all joined in the final battle of good vs evil. It's almost like LOTR where all the differences races (Elves, Dwarves, Man, Hobbits) join together to battle a single evil force. Would have been awesome to see a epic battle scene like LOTRs.

They could have also made the Voldmort vs Dumbledore battle so much more epic also in the Half Blood Prince. They are good movies but I just think it lacks something the LOTR's movies had. It's just not as epic feeling. I understand Potter films is a bit harder since there are so many subplots and side stories so its harder to capture everything in a 2-3 hr movie. Maybe Potter would better as a TV series with each episode being a chapter from the book and the series can run for 7 seasons.

 

Was Duel of the fates the two on one duel against Darth Maul? What was the problem with that?

 

Nothing, I loved that part! I just meant that scene and the pod race were probably the only truly good parts of the movie.

 

Damn man I'm gonna have to watch this movie again. So many different explanations. But thanks for the clarification guys.

I was just disappointed that the 2 scenes I was waiting for because I heard in the book it got pretty emotional wasn't really addressed much.

Spoiler

I thought the scene where everybody dies would get more time, besides deaths are always emotional. It was a damn shame how they handled Ron's twin brother and professor warewolf and his gf. Seriously, they only had FIVE seconds where they showed their dead bodies. Didn't even know who killed them or how they died.

Also the part about Snape was confusing, but it's clear now thanks to you guys. But was Dumbledore really that LOST? He seemed like such a useless twit. Which reminds me, what was the story behind him and his brother? So apparently he was a power hungry dude who would sacrifice his own sister?? Not surprising he would do the same to Harry. Also he doesn't seem too smart. Like Snape was the smartest guy in the movie with the purest conscience.

 

Yeah definitely think he was too focused on the CGI to be concerned with getting the most out of his actors. Fortunately Ewan Macgregor and Natalie Portman were good enough to rise above the poor direction and found their comfort zone in 2 and 3. And Hayden wasn't too shabby either.

With Potter, definitely they had to cut things out, and I really wish they had extended editions available and its disappointing that hasn't happened. But I'm not so sure Jackson would have done a better job. Sure he handled LotR masterfully, but the Potter universe has a different complexity to it. I don't think Potter has ever been about the battle and action scenes. It's really about the characters and the world; the intricacies of Harry's relationship to Ron and Hermione, Dumbledore and Snape, etc. And I love how each director brought their own style to the universe and I think Yates brought the right gravity and darkness to the last installments. Those last several films in the series were beautifully shot, and I think if you combine Parts I and II you get a truly epic film. Not quite perfect like LotR, not quite on the same level, but close.

 

Yeah you really should read the books..or at least the last two.

Spoiler

I do wish they had shown maybe a little more of the deaths, but I still got emotional from what was shown. I don't think the books stated how they died either because the story almost always stays on Harry. But Lupin and Tonks were actually married and had a baby.

Dumbledore, on the contrary, I think is the one person in the whole series that knew exactly what was going on. He probably always knew Harry was an unintended Horcrux, but knew he had to live long enough to sacrifice himself in order to kill Voldemort. I'm thinking Dumbledore knew all along, that Harry alone would have to kill Voldemort, based on the prophecy of course. He alone knew Snape's allegiance. And he was one of the strongest protectors of Harry when he was alive. Having Snape kill him in Half Blood Prince saved Draco. And I think that's an incredibly strong moment. He saved him in more ways than one. Not only did he save his soul (stopped him from walking the dark path) but he saved his life. If Draco had killed Dumbledore and not Snape, then Draco would have been killed by Voldemort in Part II in order to gain ownership of the Elder Wand. And regarding his brother. Dumbledore did crave power as a younger wizard. And he sacrificed just about everything to achieve it. But he had a falling out with his best friend, Grindelwald (the one Voldemort sees in Part I regarding the Elder Wand), over how much power a wizard should have and what they should do with it. He has a troubled past, a troubled youth, but he turned out to be one of the greatest wizards of his time. And without his help Harry surely would not have triumphed over Voldemort.

Snape is almost like the Darth Vader of the series. Incredibly tormented by a burden that in end seemed to completely exhaust him. He did bad things. He was a Death Eater. But his love for Lily caused him to turn against Voldemort. And that love remained till the day he died. He was one of the best characters because of that, but make no mistake, he was bad at one time. And he could be pretty vindictive toward Harry at times too.