SPOILERS welcome!! Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows movie - Part 2

[disneyfav4ever]

Because you noticed a lot of the same things I did, I'm just going to quote you and add my comments in red.

But...

There were things different from the book and/or stuff that annoyed me:

Ariana's death is never really explained. I know they had to cut a lot for time, and this was something I didn't "miss" if you know what I mean.

Luna was with The Big Three at Shell Cottage before the break in to Gringotts, and then miraculously is at Hogwarts when The Big Three get there. She does not come later through the passage between The Hog's Head and the Room of Requirement. That annoyed me too. They could've easily just had her come in with the Order, like she's supposed to, and she still would be able to tell Harry to find the Grey Lady.

Harry does not use the Cruciatus Curse on Amycus Carrow. In fact, that entire scene does not happen. Both Carrows make only a very minor appearance. I really don't know why they even bothered with the Carrows at all. Neville took time to explain about them, but that seemed to be useless information since it never went anywhere. They could've easily spent that time on something they had cut out, or they could've bothered to do the scene with the Carrows. I think one of the best scenes in the book is when Harry curses Amycus for spitting on McGonogall.

Percy never shows up. You do see him, but I almost missed it, and it was like, an oh, okay, Percy is there moment for me. But as someone pointed out to me, they never really went into the fact that Percy had basically disowned his family in the movies, so they deemed it unnecessary.

Fred does not die on screen. Harry sees the Weasleys surrounding Fred's body, but Fred's actual death scene does not occur. I'm not sure how I feel about this being not shown. On one hand, I like it being kept as true to the book as possible, but there was so much other stuff already going on, that if I hadn't read the book, it wouldn't have bothered me at all.

Neville indicates she has a thing for Luna and that he was going to tell her. We see later that the two of them are together. Jo Rowling indicated at the Carnegie Hall show a few months after the release of the book that Neville married Hannah Abbott. Noticed it too. Didn't really bother me, since it's really not in the books either way, and is really just in post-interviews, plus the minor role Hannah Abbott has and I'm able to dislike her, but I love Luna. If I wrote the series, they would've ended up together.

Hermione and Ron tell Harry they are going to get a Basilisk fang before they run off. They kiss in the Chamber of Secrets. Ron never says anything about warning the House Elves. I know House Elves were a much bigger backstory in the actual books then the movies, but it shows how thoughtful Ron can be. I actually really liked the whole Chamber of Secrets scene, I thought that was really well done, and I'm glad they had a moment together with just the two of them.

Crabbe is replaced by Blaise Zabini in the Fiendfyre scene, I think because the actor who played Crabbe had some drug difficulties at the time. Goyle is the one that casts the Fiendfyre in the movie and dies. I really wish the actor hadn't gotten in trouble, but it is what it is. And I always liked Goyle better then Crabbe, for no real reason, but I still wish it had been Crabbe.

The Centaurs do not fight in the Battle of Hogwarts. They are not seen at all. I was actually more upset that they didn't include Gwap in the battle.

Snape is killed in the boathouse, not the Shrieking Shack. His memories are in tears that he sheds as he dies. It was still very moving. This was actually probably the most emotional scene for my group, and I think it was very well done. I think it was around this point when we all started tearing up for the rest of the movie.

Snape's memories are greatly abbrigded, although it is obvious that Snape loved Lilly. I didn't notice any major points missing, I thought it was well done.

After Harry's death, Tom's curses continue to affect the grounds and people at Hogwarts. In the book, it mentions that Harry's sacrifice gives everyone at Hogwarts the same protection that Lilly's death gave Harry. Nothing like this is mentioned in the movie.I really didn't notice anything off about the scene. But it really was all about Harry at that point, as it should be.

Harry reveals himself as alive as soon as Neville stands up to Voldemort. The scene is changed dramatically. Nagini is not killed right then, as Neville does not know at this time that Nagini must die. Neville does have the Sword of Gryfindor, but the Sorting Hat is not set ablaze nor is it placed on Neville's head. As soon as Neville takes a swipe at Tom (not Nagini) with the sword, Harry falls out of Hagrid's arms and runs off, showing himself to be alive. I actually really wish they had kept this as it is in the books, and I think if they'd done it the same way, it would be my favorite movie of the series, instead of my second or third favorite.

Harry and Tom DUAL throughout the castle. Harry, Ron, and Hermione all try unsuccessfully to kill Nagini. As they fight, Harry warns Tom that Harry is the true master of the Elder Wand due to is defeat of Draco, but this happens right before a scene where Harry flings himself and Tom from a balcony. The two of them fly around and struggle before crashing to the ground. They continue to dual and their wands lock. Harry NEVER offers Tom forgiveness nor mentions that Tom should try showing remorse. Only after Neville FINALLY kills Nagini does Tom's wand flip out of him hand, however, Tom's wand does not hit Tom with the killing curse. Instead, Harry catches the wand and Tom crumbles into dust and soot. This occurs outside the castle, and there are no witnesses. Note that while there were cheers and crying and clapping in other parts, nobody said anything when Tom died. I think everyone was overcome by the shock of how much it got screwed up!Same as the whole Neville/Nagini thing, I think they took too many liberties with trying to make it more "theatrical" where with key moments like that, they should've stuck to the book.

After Tom's death, Harry breaks the Elder Wand in two and throws it off a bridge. Harry does not use it to repair his own wand, or does he have it buried with Dumbledore. I wish they'd at least shown him fixing his wand, since they definatly showed it breaking in Part One.

While visually stunning, and very emotional (up until Snape's memories, at least), the movie lacked a lot that gave the book it's character. It's like the writer and director read the book, but just didn't get it. I think they did a great job with the movie up until the last 15 minutes or so, and then they messed around with the story too much.

Other things I noticed;

Griphook seems much more evil, he "steals" the sword from them, even though they agreed he could have it, but he forces them to give him the sword by grabbing the cup, and also leaves them for dead in the vault.

Carrying over from Part One, but they never show Pettigrew being killed. It really should've been in Part One, but it should've at least been mentioned in Part Two.

Remus and Tonk's son is never mentioned until Harry talks to Remus in the forest. If I hadn't read the books, I'd really be wondering where a kid came from.

They didn't show Neville's grandmother at all. Minor, but I would've liked to have seen her.

Lavender Brown dies. It's left up in the air in the book, but in the movie Greyback is eating her. Definatly gave me the creeps.

The Malfoys walking away before the last duel. I actually think it's better that way, since it shows that they know it's just not worth it anymore.

Also, it was just so akward when Voldemort hugged Draco, and also when Voldemort laughed. The whole theater cracked up when we heard him laugh, and then it's like one second later everyone realized that it was a very serious scene, and we probably shouldn't be laughing.

By far my favorite scene, (and the only part I really liked of the final battle,) was Mrs. Weasley's and Bellatrix's duel. I also really liked the duel between McGonagall and Snape. Those were two characters you see in basically every movie, (I think Mrs. Weasley is only missing from Goblet of Fire, and I don't think McGonogall is in Part One,) but you never really saw them fight before this one.

Overall it was a great movie, but I liked Part One better, though this one would've probably been my favorite had they not changed the last battle. I think that's going to bother me for awhile.

 

[Desiree]

It was phenomenal. I am emotionally drained now. I will need to watch it again to wrap my thoughts around some things! But all in all, it was amazing.

As bad as I was crying when they showed the dead.. you all are right, I would have been a basket case had I actually seen Fred, Lupin or Tonks die in the scenes.

 

[Kurby]

i guess i'll never really understand why they need to change things in the movie.

i totally understand (don't always like) why the need to omit stuff for the sake of time or that it isn't really a storyline made for a movie but when the change stuff it for the sake of changing it - i just don't get it.

some of the things you guys are saying makes me crazy. why NOT have harry fix his wand?

why have harry jump/fall out of hagrids arms to show he was alive?

why have harry tell ron he's giving himself up (maybe because you can't hear his internal conversation which would make sense)

just do it as written and we'd be happy -

 

[marie1203]

Sad that is over. The books will always be better and I found myself not enjoying the movie as much because all I kept thinking is what it was in the book. I agree with most of the comments posted of the scenes that were taken out or alter.

 

[barbaraann]

I saw the movie at noon today in Chicago, and I enjoyed it for the most part. However, it was not as emotional for me as I thought it would be. I thorougly enjoyed the last book having read it a total of three times. I guess reading the book greatly changes the enjoyment of the movie for many.

I never get upset when things are left out, but I do get upset when they totally change things, and they did that a lot in this movie.

I enjoyed reading all of the Harry Potter books, and seeing the Harry Potter movies. The books were so much better than the movies. I couldn't put the books down when I was reading them. The movies, the last 4 for sure, just left me wishing they hadn't changed stuff.

 

[3prettyprincesses]

Completely agreed! I was flabbergasted by this exclusion, because to me, that speech is the heart of the series. The whole series touches on the idea that there's a fine line between good and evil, and it's love that makes the difference. It's definitely touched on in the other movies, and it's clearly evident throughout this film. For example, it wasn't a coincidence that Snape ends up being good (which is revealed in a way that highlights that he is capable of love) and that Draco's mom doesn't turn Harry in (because she loves her son), and there are so many other examples. I personally would have liked to see such the culmination of such a major theme.

I couldn't agree more! We just returned from seeing it tonight and this is a HUGE omission, why couldn't they have tied it all together? The whole Voldemort dueling Harry scene was so very different than the book.

Snape is one of my favorite characters, absolutely fantastic. I thought they did a really good job showing his adoration of Lily. When he held her in his arms at the house after she died, I sobbed. Wonderfully done!

I also was disappointed that Harry told Ron and Hermione that he was going to turn himself in. The chapter in the book where he makes this decision and decides that he must make it alone is my favorite HP chapter ever. It's just so courageous and so sad. (Btw, I found it rather odd in the movie that Ron didn't even hug Harry or say anything after hearing this news.) However, I was impressed with the Resurrection Stone scene. That's the part that had me crying.

Me too. When Harry realizes what he has to do ALONE, that decision is so full of emotion and resolve. He wears the cloak to sneak out and almost stops when he sees Ginny. Yet in the movie it's Ron and Hermione saying goodbye to him. And yes, it was odd that Ron just sort of stood there while Hermione cried and hugged Harry goodbye.

The resurrection stone scene was done perfectly. I loved it and wouldn't change it a bit. Everytime his mother looked at him, I cried.

I did like the movie and thought it was beautiful visually, but I just absolutely love this book, so I'm not sure it would be possible for anything to live up to how that book makes me feel. (And I know I shouldn't compare them, but I was surprised to see that many of the parts that made me personally love the book most were excluded from the movie.)

I loved the movie as well! But this book and Half Blood Prince are my favs so I'm kind of hard on the films. Still, I enjoyed every moment, the audience was so captivated and quiet that you could've heard a pin drop.

Also, I thought it was rather key that in the book, Voldemort used the cruciatus curse on Harry after he was dead. It was awesome that it had no effect on Harry too. But it was missing from the movie. Oh, another point I wish were kept in the movie was that Harry hides under the invisibility cloak after he dies and is back at Hogwarts. Neville has the sorting hat placed on his head and then withdraws the sword to hack off Nagini's head. All of that was changed. I really didn't care for Harry, Ron and Hermione running around chasing Nagini, that time could've been better spent elsewhere. And I loved the part in the book where Harry is still hidden under the cloak and is casting curses to protect others. Then he whips it off to face Voldemort which is the first time any one has seen him alive again.

Ugh, ok I'm starting to sound like a purist! I loved the movie, in fact, I'll probably see it again tomorrow.

 

[dicar123]

I wanted to love this movie, but I'm really just lukewarm about it.

When the heck did the horcruxes start speaking parseltongue to Harry? And why did we need to subtitle Voldemort talking to Nagini? That was really jarring to me. I think he just spoke regular English to the snake. Why do death eaters suddenly crumble into blowing paper when they die?

I get that they can't be consistent with the books, but geez, can you be consistent within the 7 prior movies?

There was very little dialogue, which makes sense as it is so action packed, but often the dialogue consisted of one liners written deliberately to provoke a laugh.

Voldemort's death was just stupid. The wand goes flying and he crumbles into pieces? Why? He was mortal, he did need to be killed.

I really thought they'd bring Teddy Lupin in during the 19 Years later scenes, but they didn't. So, why have Lupin mention him at all?

But I did really love the scene in the forest with all the resurrected loved ones. It made me cry. And Neville coming out from behind the portrait was great! I think they did do justice to his character this time around.

 

[DA BA]

And another thing. The movie didn't at all explain why Harry didn't die when Voldemort cursed him in the woods. In the book of course we find out that it was because Voldemort took in Harry's blood, and therefor a piece of his soul, when he got his body back, basically making himself a horcrux for Harry. The movie didn't explain why Harry didn't die at all, he just magically (no pun intended) wasn't dead. I don't know, it's just these little things that aggravated me.

 

[RachaelA]

And another thing. The movie didn't at all explain why Harry didn't die when Voldemort cursed him in the woods. In the book of course we find out that it was because Voldemort took in Harry's blood, and therefor a piece of his soul, when he got his body back, basically making himself a horcrux for Harry. The movie didn't explain why Harry didn't die at all, he just magically (no pun intended) wasn't dead. I don't know, it's just these little things that aggravated me.

I think this would have been really hard to explain in a movie.

DH didn't read the books and usually if he asks questions, I know they didn't do a good job of explaining something. I think he maybe asked one question the entire movie so I consider the transition from book to film a good one.

Obviously they can't keep everything from the book. A lot of what was missing/changed wasn't needed in the movie and wasn't missed unless you've read the books (which let's face it A LOT of people who watch the movies hasn't read).

I was disappointed in the final duel and how Neville killed Nagini, but the movie still flowed well and I tried to approach this one with a different view. I usually spend the whole movie saying to DH, "That's not how it was in the book.... that's wrong.... why did they do that?" Halfway through this movie, I decided to just stop and enjoy how they made it. Obviously J K Rowlings had no problems with it because she approved it.

 

[Tinkmom75]

I did not read the books. There was a lot of awesomeness about this movie, but:
I thought there should have been more chemistry between Harry and Ginny. It really seems like she would have been around in more scenes.

I love the statue scene, but thought the professor should have had more dramatic fight scenes.

Why were there all sorts of magical creatures helping Voldemort, but not Harry's side?

Guess I start reading now!

 

[RachaelA]

I did not read the books. There was a lot of awesomeness about this movie, but:
I thought there should have been more chemistry between Harry and Ginny. It really seems like she would have been around in more scenes.

I love the statue scene, but thought the professor should have had more dramatic fight scenes.

Why were there all sorts of magical creatures helping Voldemort, but not Harry's side?

Guess I start reading now!

Yeah in the books they were. That was cut I guess!

 

[sunnyday123]

We saw it last night. I thought it was awesome! I *hate* when movies don't follow books closely ( still mad at Robert Redford over The Horse Whisperer) but if they did, I'd still be in the theater watching this one!

DD wanted to wait and read the books after she saw all of the movies-I have no idea why. She loved the movie, and followed everything. There were a few things I had to remind her of from part one, but other than that she was good.

I have never watched a movie where the theater was so quiet and still! No one moved, coughed, there were not rustling or slurping noises, nothing! And, it was mostly adults.

 

[VBsHustla]

Also, I thought it was rather key that in the book, Voldemort used the cruciatus curse on Harry after he was dead. It was awesome that it had no effect on Harry too. But it was missing from the movie. Oh, another point I wish were kept in the movie was that Harry hides under the invisibility cloak after he dies and is back at Hogwarts. Neville has the sorting hat placed on his head and then withdraws the sword to hack off Nagini's head. All of that was changed. I really didn't care for Harry, Ron and Hermione running around chasing Nagini, that time could've been better spent elsewhere. And I loved the part in the book where Harry is still hidden under the cloak and is casting curses to protect others. Then he whips it off to face Voldemort which is the first time any one has seen him alive again.

Ugh, ok I'm starting to sound like a purist! I loved the movie, in fact, I'll probably see it again tomorrow.

Yes! The Neville scene annoyed me, because he had the sword for like an hour and was standing right next to the snake when he gave his speech. The scene in the book, while he still thought Harry was dead, made much more of an impact on me. In spite of all of this, I'm going to see it again today as well.

I have never watched a movie where the theater was so quiet and still! No one moved, coughed, there were not rustling or slurping noises, nothing! And, it was mostly adults.

So true! No one in my theater made any noise whatsoever (until the very end when my cousin and I expressed our horror at the epilogue scene! )

 

[3prettyprincesses]

And another thing. The movie didn't at all explain why Harry didn't die when Voldemort cursed him in the woods. In the book of course we find out that it was because Voldemort took in Harry's blood, and therefor a piece of his soul, when he got his body back, basically making himself a horcrux for Harry. The movie didn't explain why Harry didn't die at all, he just magically (no pun intended) wasn't dead. I don't know, it's just these little things that aggravated me.

I know, this was a very important thing to touch on but would've been difficult to do in a movie. The whole reason he died was to sacrifice himself to save his friends AND removed the final horcrux (himself) which in turn makes Voldemort finally mortal and able to be killed. Their blood link was critical. The movie didn't clearly convey all of that but I was still happy with the scene.

Obviously they can't keep everything from the book. A lot of what was missing/changed wasn't needed in the movie and wasn't missed unless you've read the books (which let's face it A LOT of people who watch the movies hasn't read).

So very true! I loved all of the books and knew going into the movies that it would be impossible to capture every fine detail. They did a remarkable job though I wish this last movie was about an hour longer!

I was disappointed in the final duel and how Neville killed Nagini, but the movie still flowed well and I tried to approach this one with a different view. I usually spend the whole movie saying to DH, "That's not how it was in the book.... that's wrong.... why did they do that?" Halfway through this movie, I decided to just stop and enjoy how they made it. Obviously J K Rowlings had no problems with it because she approved it.

Agreed. I really was hoping they'd keep that Neville scene intact from the book but it was still good.

We saw it last night. I thought it was awesome! I *hate* when movies don't follow books closely ( still mad at Robert Redford over The Horse Whisperer) but if they did, I'd still be in the theater watching this one!

I'm a bit of a purist too when it comes to books and movies! Serioulsy, I'd have watched another hour or two of it. Heck, the Lord of the Rings movies are like 3 1/2 hours long.

I have never watched a movie where the theater was so quiet and still! No one moved, coughed, there were not rustling or slurping noises, nothing! And, it was mostly adults.

I said the same exact thing! Wasn't it magnificent that it was soooo silent? It really added to the overall experience IMO.

Yes! The Neville scene annoyed me, because he had the sword for like an hour and was standing right next to the snake when he gave his speech. The scene in the book, while he still thought Harry was dead, made much more of an impact on me. In spite of all of this, I'm going to see it again today as well.

I know, Neville is sitting there on a pile of rubble in the Great Hall with the stinking sword right there next to him! Ugh.

I'm going again today too, but this time DD11 and I are seeing it in 3-D!

So true! No one in my theater made any noise whatsoever (until the very end when my cousin and I expressed our horror at the epilogue scene! )

I loved how quiet our theater was too. Everyone was riveted to the screen and I didn't hear any candy box jingling or popcorn bucket scrapings!

 

[luvsJack]

Our theater was mostly college age/ older high school and they really made it a lot of fun. Lots of cheering at the appropriate parts, laughing, and lots of sniffles.

I do think that what has to be realized is that the movies are a continuation of each movie, not the book. Things are left out of one movie because of time restraints or just not being able to transfer to film well, etc. They shouldn't just pop up with that story line in the next movie or it wouldn't make sense. Like Percy for instance, they haven't said anything about Percy in several movies, it would be a bit confusing if they suddenly went through the whole story line of his making up with his family. So, IMHO, to faily judge the movie you have to look at all the movies and if it held to the storylines and the continuation of them, not the book.

 

[czycropper]

The wand goes flying and he crumbles into pieces? Why? He was mortal, he did need to be killed.

I agree with parts of this but he wasn't really completely mortal, right?

I really thought they'd bring Teddy Lupin in during the 19 Years later scenes, but they didn't. So, why have Lupin mention him at all?.

Teddy was in the final scene at King's Cross - he was the kid that was in front of Albus Severus Potter and then he was sitting next to him on the train. I just wished that Harry had spoken to him just so that people that hadn't read the books would realize it.[/COLOR]

The only other scene that I wished they had put in was when Harry & Drace acknowledge each other at King's Cross right before the train leaves. But at least we see him and the back of Draco Jr.

We have decided to go see it in IMAX3D tomorrow since my DH didn't see it with us at midnight - I can't wait to hear his comments since he's more of a purist than I am. I believe that they can't put everything into the films especially in a series that some fans have not read the books and not have all the films be 4 hours long.

As I've said before I HP7 Part2 even with the things that were left out. I'm hoping that when the DVD is realized in a few months it will include all the deleted scenes. My DDs are already saying that if it comes out before Christmas that it will be on top their list little do they know that they are already getting the book set as well as some things that I bought at WWoHP and the Harry Potter Exhibition and had shipped so they didn't see me carrying them

 

[Colleen27]

I enjoyed it, but at the same time I'm glad it has been a good long while since I read the books so that I wasn't as apt to notice every difference. I was still left feeling like where the rest of the series was extremely faithful to the books (allowing, of course, for the omissions that are necessary to keep the running time of the movies manageable), this one took more liberties with the details of the plot.

I think the release of the last two in 3D had a negative effect on the overall consistency, because there were scenes in both where you thought as you were watching it "I'll bet this looks awesome in 3d" and often those were the scenes that were most different from the books. I felt like several of the battle scenes were choreographed with an eye of 3D potential even when it meant some compromises in plot and content.

I do plan to go see it once more to catch a quieter show. In a stroke of epic bad timing, this weekend is our town's annual music festival and a lot of folks who were at the midnight showing were also at the rather rowdy Buffet tribute band/beach party until right before showtime. I've never seen people sneak beer into a theatre before! It wasn't obnoxious or anything but the audience as a whole reacted rather more vocally than I'd consider appropriate to many of the more emotional/funny scenes and I do want to see it again with less distractions.

 

[TDC Nala]

Here's what I think about Neville and the snake (movie version).

In the film, Harry doesn't tell Neville it's important to kill the snake, he tells Ron and Hermione. I don't think when Neville gives his speech he isn't focused on killing the snake. I think he's after Voldemort with the sword at that point. At the point that he kills the snake it isn't because he knows the snake has to go, it's because the snake is attacking Ron and Hermione. He might have also seen them trying to kill it.

I think it's just the way the screenwriters had of getting Ron and Hermione back into the story at the point where Harry leaves the school to meet Voldemort in the forest.

 

[TeacupDemon]

I absolutely loved this movie! I think it's the best movie adaptation and "editing" of the books, and I can't wait to see it again.

Having said that, here's my nitpick: The actress playing Lily Potter as a child had brown eyes. I wouldn't be so bothered if it wasn't a key element of Snape's death scene in the book, and if there had not always been such a point that "Harry has his mother's green eyes". I still loved the movie, but that just took me out of Snape's memories a bit...

 

[beatlesblonde]

I agree-I bet we see an Oscar nod for him for this movie, he was amazing.

I hope so, when I was watching interviews with the cast from one of the premiers they said that Alan's performance was one of the best and he deserves recognition for it. I do hope that the various award groups don't leave him out.

It's so interesting to be reading everyone's comments. It's amazing how much these books/movies have been a part of so many people's lives. Those of us who are planning on seeing the movie multiple times I'll look forward to reading your thoughts after seeing it again. My BFF wants to see it in 3D (as do I and my DH) so I know I'm probably going to see it again at least two more times. I look forward to seeing what I might have missed the first time.