Guilty Pleasures #18 - Harry Potter Month: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2

In my Death Note review I posed the question "what makes a good adaptation?" I never really answered the question, the answer is different for every person. My personal opinion is that it must capture the tone and feel of the source material and contain just enough of the plot to satisfy any future stories, whilst telling a complete story in its own right (it should never be a requirement to read a book or watch a series to understand a movie). It cannot be an exact copy of the source material. With a book, you can be content reading it for hours, maybe even days, that’s not the case with a movie, where 3 hours is pretty much the limit and even then it has to be a special movie that can last that long.

The Last Airbender is a terrible adaptation above all because it fails to capture the tone and feel of the source material. It’s a terrible movie for its cr*ppy pacing, constant exposition, lack of character, nonsensical plot elements etc. Death Note fails to me to capture the feel of its source because it fails to capture Light in the manor it was hoping to thanks to its ending plot-twists. I realise some of these are subjective but we’re here to talk about the Deathly Hallows part 2.

The later Harry Potter stories have in some ways struggled with my criteria because filming started prior to the book series being finished (filming for the Philosopher’s Stone began in 2000, the final book didn’t come out until 2007) plot points that become relevant later are often left out. Prime example is Bill Weasley whose appearance in part 1 was rather out of nowhere.

Made with whatever was left of the $250million after the first part was done (they were filmed concurrently) this film broke box office records, breaking $1bn at the box office, the highest of any Harry Potter movie and why wouldn’t it? The series has always been a strong performer at the box office and naturally people would flock to see the final instalment in this very long-running franchise. But does that mean it’s any good? Well, let’s dive in. 

For this review, I will be drawing comparisons to the book but I stand by my opinion that a movie should stand or fall on its own merits as well.

Harry Potter Month - Mini Review: Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

We’re counting down to the end, those of you waiting for a long review of a Harry Potter movie need wait only a little longer, but first we need to look at a lie I might’ve told. Last time I said that the Order of the Phoenix was my least favourite of the Harry Potter movies, that might’ve been true when I was younger but looking at it now, I see this as a contender, for reasons I’ll explain momentarily.

By far this is the movie with the biggest budget, $250m was given, it made $934.4m at the box office, a marginal improvement over the last one. Critically successful, it holds 84% on rotten tomatoes and 78 average on metacritic but let’s dive into my own opinions

Harry Potter Month - Mini Review: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

So, we’ve made it to the fourth film, the first one to get a 12 (the UK equivalent of a PG-13 rating) in the UK. Why the change now? Partly it’s because of much darker content that more-or-less begins with this movie. Partly, and I’m only theorising here, is the introduction of a law in the UK that changed the 12 rating in cinemas to 12A, allowing children under the age of 12 to see such movies, providing they’re accompanied by an adult.

But that’s politics, we also have our third new director, Mike Newell after the director of the third movie Alfonso Cuarón denied stepping up for another movie. The movie was given a $150m budget and its performance was an improvement over the third, $896.9m earned in the box office. Critics enjoyed the movie, 88% rotten tomatoes rating and 81 on metacritic, for all that matters, it’s time to give my view.