Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2: Film Review

User avatar
MovieWes
Professor
Posts: 2019
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:33 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Contact:

Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2: Film Review

Post by MovieWes »

Toy Story 3 wasn't just a franchise film. It was also a Pixar film, and Pixar has always been successful with the Academy.

Furthermore, it took the Academy expanding the field to 10 nominees for Pixar, the most celebrated animation studio in the industry, to break into the Best Picture race.
"Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution." -- Alec Guinness (Lawrence of Arabia)
anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 6377
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2: Film Review

Post by anonymous1980 »

1. Oscarguy, it's telling - the four 2009 films you mention (Up, Avatar, District 9, Star Trek) the one that was most clearly part of a franchise was the one most ignored.
Toy Story 3 could be considered a franchise picture. And to be fair, Star Trek was in the running and was considered a possible contender.
User avatar
MovieWes
Professor
Posts: 2019
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:33 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Contact:

Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2: Film Review

Post by MovieWes »

I'm with everyone else in my thinking that Harry Potter will not be nominated for Best Picture simply because the idea of the Academy suddenly recognizing a franchise that they have showed very little interest in for the past 10 years is preposterous. I'd say that right now, it's not even a sure thing that it will even win a single Oscar in the technical and creative fields, much less receive a Best Picture nomination. It doesn't really have a chance at any major nominations like acting, writing, or directing. What was the last movie to get a nomination without any other major noms? The Two Towers? And that really benefitted because the Academy had already showed a tremendous amount of enthusiasm towards The Fellowship of the Ring, which had received 13 nominations (including Best Picture, Director, Supporting Actor, and Adapted Screenplay) and 4 wins the year before.

And let us not forget that not only is this the 8th film in the franchise, it's the second half of a two-part film, of which the first only got 2 nominations.
"Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution." -- Alec Guinness (Lawrence of Arabia)
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2: Film Review

Post by Okri »

Oh, dear me, lets make no mistake, I'm not unbiased. I have a vested interest in HP being snubbed. AMPAS was a gateway drug for me - it was my first guide into the world of adult movies (movies for grown ups, not the other kind). When I was 12/13, I scoured the best picture winners list and chose one, pretty much at random, to rent and watch (Schindler's List, fwiw). I rented it and had to watch it early in the morning (~4 am) so my parents wouldn't catch me watching an R-rated movie. It blew me away. I kept looking for films in that vein. I made my friends watch The English Patient at a slumber party, for crissakes (it was actually quite popular). So while I'd like to think I'm moved forward in my seven ages of cinephilia (I now know it's okay to dislike AMPAS feted films, critically acclaimed masterpieces etc while have grown to understand that genre pieces/cult hits aren't instantly disposable) I do think of the Oscars, for all it's foibles and absurdity, with fondness. So if they went backwards and honored Harry Potter, a film that pretty much sums up a decade in culture that was disappointing to say the least, I'm certain I'd be quite done with the oscars.

But, some rebuttal points before I drop the argument as it's already boring me.

1. Oscarguy, it's telling - the four 2009 films you mention (Up, Avatar, District 9, Star Trek) the one that was most clearly part of a franchise was the one most ignored.

2. anonymous, my argument was not about quality vis-a-vis fifth film vs final film. I actually meant The Dark Knight as the fifth film in that franchise (and I was wrong, it's the sixth). You know as well as I that I'm not going to watch the film unless dragged kicking and screaming to it. My point was a franchise is a franchise, and as a rule, AMPAS ignores franchises (which we can define as moneymaking machines that exist beyond the film - Cars with it's massive toy sales, HP with the theme park)

3. I'd be interested in reading those who were bludgeoned into submission (I mean won over) by the eighth segment, though.

4. You thought it was robbed in the past. Hell, I'll even agree with you - I would've nominated David Thewlis over Alda/Church/Foxx anyday and quite liked Azkaban. But the films have received, on average, 1.4 nods each. None of them were major nominations. Oscarguy mentions that the change now with the fluctuating field. I'll mention that in the fields that didn't change (acting/writing/etc) every antecedent saw major nominations - generally for screenplay. So, in the fields that didn't change, we see it's unlikely for HP to get much traction. Now, given that Actors, writers and directors make up the three biggest portions of the academy.....

5. Oscarguy, I don't think the Godfather analogy is appropriate. I don't even think the LOTR analogy is appropriate, but that's in the same ballpark at least.

6. If I'm wrong, I'll eat all the crow you can send my way.
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2: Film Review

Post by The Original BJ »

I'm going to add in three more quick comments, and then I'm going to refrain from any more until I see the movie. People have vociferously disagreed with my thoughts when I've seen a film and they haven't, and it can be frustrating, and I want to be conscious of not treating anonymous in the same way.

1. The Academy expanded the nomination field to 10...but then they changed the rules again. And obviously this only hurts Harry Potter in the same way it hurt Super 8 -- if SOMETHING has to fill up those ten spots...well, MAYBE movies like that could get in. But, there isn't a quota anymore, and I don't see the Academy sticking its neck out for Potter to give it enough #1 votes, especially because...

2. The Academy altered its rules (to get more blockbusters in Best Picture), but, unless I'm mistaken, it didn't change its membership. The same group of people that didn't even consider voting for Harry Potter the last seven times aren't suddenly going to change their tune because it's the last film in a franchise about which they don't care very much anyway. I'm actually reminded a bit of Mister Tee's argument that Nolan/Inception wouldn't receive a Director nomination when everyone else (myself included) thought he'd make it. Nolan didn't get that nomination as a reward for past snubs, or because of some edict that blockbusters were to be recognized. Nope, he was omitted for Inception for the same reason he was omitted for Dark Knight: because it wasn't the Academy's cup of tea. (To use a non-blockbuster example, many made the prediction that Dreamgirls would pull in significant Oscar wins because voters felt bad about the Best Picture snub. But after its trophy haul amounted to the bare minimum, it became clear that the same lack of enthusiasm that showed up on nomination day reappeared on Oscar night.) It's because of situations like these that I just don't see the Academy "FINALLY" recognizing this film as a way to honor a series they never have before. They've never nominated Harry Potter because it's not their thing, and I'd be shocked if they got sentimental for it now.

3. Isn't it worth noting that last year's Harry Potter entry didn't receive one whit of Best Picture consideration in a field that had to go as wide as ten?
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2: Film Review

Post by OscarGuy »

I think it's telling that Okri and Sabin both attack the prospects from a perspective that: "But yeah, I'll say that if it does get nominated, I will officially lose all interest in AMPAS. (Okri)" "I was going to do w/r/t something I couldn't be more apathetic about. (Sabin)"

I would hardly call your voices balanced in this matter. Nor would I consider my own as I am a fan of the franchise (though I have heaped my fair share of scorn on them when they deserved it, Harry Potter and the Snogging anyone?).

I would like to hear Tee's thoughts on this. Every citation I see. Silence of the Lambs. Beauty and the Beast. Dark Knight. All of these came from 5-nominee fields. We do not have an adequate view of the new system to know if something like Harry Potter will succeed at the Academy or not. And to add a more notorious example. The Godfather, Part III was nominated for Best Picture and several other awards despite being poorly received by critics. It was nominated because the Academy felt an obligation. Obligations go two directions with the Academy. And with the examples of the last two years of the Academy's 10-wide field, I would say that films like Inception, District 9, Up and Toy Story 3 probably wouldn't have been nominated for Best Picture had the field not been expanded. So, any rules established in the past w/r/t critical success vs. box office success vs. Academy Best Picture nominations need to be taken with a salt lick.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 6377
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2: Film Review

Post by anonymous1980 »

Okri wrote: The comparison was to point out the ridiculousness of using box office as reason this might get nominated.
I'm not saying that box-office dictates that it might get nominated. You're completely ignoring the fact that the Academy increased the number of Best Picture nominees to 10 because these types of films usually don't get nominated even when it's given critical approval (which The Deathly Hallows Part 2 did) and (in AMPAS' mind, at least) the Oscar ratings suffer for it. (the omission of The Dark Knight even after it seems like it's gonna get in due to its promising showing at the guild awards was the final straw for the Academy). I'm not saying that I agree with this sentiment but it's there.
6. The Final film...
The difference between being the fifth vs final film? Not a heck of a lot.
Watch the final film and get back to me.
They haven't embraced the series in a real way, so why would they embrace them when it's their last chance to do so: "Oh man, I didn't love it before, but this is my last chance to get it a best picture nomination?"
I've come across a lot of reviews from non-Potter fans who was won over by the last one. And I've heard reports that Warner Bros. will push it hard. It's got overwhelming critical approval (97% Fresh, yes, Sabin, it's not scientific but it's not TOTALLY meaningless - it has an average of 8.5 which is high). True, the Harry Potter hasn't been embraced fully by the Academy (only a handful of tech noms) but that's only because the others are usually put in the position of being overshadowed by other bigger movies and somewhat similar franchises come awards time that have showier visuals and hog all the tech wins. (Personally, I think The Prisoner of Azkaban was robbed for a Visual Effects win and I thought Imelda Staunton deserved a Best Supporting Actress nomination for The Order of the Phoenix)

Again, the Academy designed the expanded nomination field to accomodate popular movies that general audiences have seen and loved because they WANT them to watch the show. They will want at least one popular blockbuster movie in there. So far, The Deathly Hallows Part 2 fits that bill. It's critically well-received and popular with audiences. I looked at the schedule for the rest of the year. There are very few potential blockbusters which could overshadow it in terms of being a genre piece both critically well-received AND popular. Maybe Tintin could do it but that still remains to be seen. I've heard reports that Warner Bros. will be mounting a campaign for it.

Again, I'm not saying that it will happen. I'm saying that it could happen.
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2: Film Review

Post by Okri »

When all of us were predicting The Dark Knight, Mister Tee was reticent (as was Italiano, but I actually remember Tee's reasoning, so lets revisit it).

1. It's the FIFTH film of a FRANCHISE


When all the internet was crowing about TDK, Tee pointed this fact out. And it was true, though the internet chose to ignore it. Why? Well, we perceived it as the second film of a new franchise, which helped. We're used to loving franchises (the comic con set adores X-Men, for example). It's not that it was popular that did it in. It's that it felt CHEAPLY popular (a la franchises). We've seen them turn their noses up at voting Transformers and oscar for visual effects. Even LOTR didn't feel like a franchise that continues on in perpetuity as a cash cow (and I think The Hobbit will be largely ignored in that vein). Popular oscar movies that eventually turned into franchises tend to get ignored as well (The Silence of the Lambs with all it's sequels).

2. What about the raves?

You know, Tee's words are astute here, so instead of paraphrasing them, here you go: As for the tiresome "Will the film be nominated for best picture?...I tend toward no. I think BJ is right, that critics are grading this film from a summer-movie perspective, so their raves are not to be taken quite the same as if they were for No Country for Old Man. This isn't a new fight. In 1991, there were people arguing that, were Beauty and the Beast not animated, it'd run away with best picture. My position was always, no, had it been live-action, it'd have been left at the altar the same way ET was; it wouldn't have been taken that seriously. Let me say I'm not an anti-comic book snob; I read them quite voraciously -- until I turned 14, and decided there were more significant things to read. People under, say, 30, don't seem to have dropped them at that age, and they're the ones who've 1) made the movie industry into largely a subsidiary of Marvel and DC; and 2) promoted the idea that these films are fit to be set alongside the best adult dramas. It may be, as Sabin suggests, that this view will ultimately makes its way into Academy ranks, but I think that day is still a ways off -- most Oscar voters are closer to my age and perspective than the comic fans. I think the film will likely get multiple nods, befitting its blockbuster status (considering most previously Batman films got at least some notice). But I think, barring a catastrophically bad year, the best picture nomination is a reach.

That enthusiastic critical response? Coming in the middle of a drought of a summer (so critics will rave at anything), with different motives (how many critics are evaluating it as the capstone to a franchise, as opposed to an actual goddamn movie). But seriously - replace comic book with HP and the point still stands. Now, even if you disagree with the second part (that yes, some of these films are fit to be set alongside the best adult dramas, source material be damned) you have to recognize that the the kidult/pre-adult/adultescence generation that is being catered to with these books/movies (you know, along with actual children) doesn't exist in AMPAS (is Judd Apatow even a member?)

3. They haven't demonstrated much love in the first place
Sabin posted the nod haul, and it isn't impressive.

4. Pirates vs Potter

They both suck. Though in fairness to the franchises, I'm referring to the first Pirates and the first, second and fourth HP. The comparison was to point out the ridiculousness of using box office as reason this might get nominated.

5. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are by and large useless

Okay, Tee didn't make this point, but seriously? Those numbers arent scientific aggregates or anything.

6. The Final film...
The difference between being the fifth vs final film? Not a heck of a lot. They haven't embraced the series in a real way, so why would they embrace them when it's their last chance to do so: "Oh man, I didn't love it before, but this is my last chance to get it a best picture nomination?" No, they'll think "that was awesome, but it's only Harry Potter." Why do you think the thinking will shift? Indeed, it's the FRANCHISE that acts as the hindrance.

7. Those 300 people
Will be voting elsewhere first. The new rules make it easier for films with passionate support to get through. It doesn't throw open the gates and say "Welcome all!!!!!"

No, I haven't seen Harry Potter. I won't be going to a multiplex for a couple weeks at least. But yeah, I'll say that if it does get nominated, I will officially lose all interest in AMPAS.
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2: Film Review

Post by OscarGuy »

All right. Let's be reasonable. I think anonymous has many valid points. While the Academy might not have turned to this type of film in the days of five nominees, we are no longer in that period. In this period, films like Up and Toy Story 3 earn Best Picture nominations. Not because Pixar is more deserving than say Disney's Pirates film (I mean who seriously considers comparing Potter and Pirates? The series aren't even remotely the same and we all know there will be more Pirates films. There won't be more Potter films. And since when are the Pirates films and Potter films even on the same level as critical reception would dictate?), but because they made great movies. The rule of positive acceptance on Rotten Tomatoes is more a guide to how positively reviewed a film is not, that it's going to be a Best Picture nominee. The next highest rated Potter film Prisoner of Azkaban with 91%. Below that is Goblet of Fire with 87%. To put that in perspective, the highest rating Pirates has gotten was 78% for the first film and the rest have all been 54% or below. And in comparison, the LOWEST film in the Potter franchise got 78%.

But, if we're going to talk about critics numbers, I'd say that Metacritic, because it's more narrow and averages ratings and not just like/don't like, is a better barometer. Chamber of Secrets (a point I disagree with) gets the lowest score there with a 63 while the last film gets the highest with an 87. Once again, because it was brought up, the first Pirates film has only a 63 rating. The rest were 53 or lower. So, let's stop this idiotic Pirates/Potter comparison because it is unjust.

Now, if we compare the Potter films to the Lord of the Rings films, we might have a better indication. The films made the following Metacritic scores (in order): 92, 88, 94. Clearly Lord of the Rings' success may be a better barometer to the Potter films. If, and only if, we are looking at this as an apples-to-apples comparison. However, I must return to the idea that we're no longer in Kansas anymore, Totos....this is no longer the era of 5 Best Picture nominees. Potter only needs 5% of the vote to earn a nomination now. To put that in perspective...if 6,000 of the Academy members votes, that's a mere 300 votes to earn a nomination. 300 is not inconceivable at this point as there will be many who feel it deserves some sort of recognition for not only maintaining a consistent level of quality, but for its box office prowess and for delivering a solid performance with critics in the final film. I haven't seen it yet, so I cannot decide based on quality, but the possibility exists even if it is a less strong possibility than Jackson's Hobbit films making the list.

Back to Metacritic for a minute. There are always films that score high that won't be considered, but right now, the highest score a film has on Metacritic that would be considered a potential Oscar nominee is The Tree of Life with a score of 85. Meek's Cutoff has an 85. Midnight in Paris has an 81. So, It would not be out of the realm of possibility.

But to compare to 2010 and 2009: The only blockbuster to score 80 or above in 2010 was Toy Story 3. In 2009, it was Up, Avatar, Star Trek & District 9. Of those 1/4 films, only Star Trek did not receive a Best Picture nomination. The rules are different this year, but I think Star Trek could be the only valid argument against Potter getting a nomination (Star Trek had an 83 on metacritic if that means anything).

So, before we start comparing races, I think we need to stop using outlandish comparisons to define our points. I do think Potter has a chance at a nomination. I will not be surprised if it doesn't get one, nor will I be upset (at least not right now. I haven't seen the final film). Everyone will rightly point out the Dark Knight failed to earn a nomination and I will remind them that we don't have a limit of five nominees this year and The Dark Knight was NOT the final film of its series despite being highly reviewed. (and as a frame of reference, Inception had a metacritic score of 74. Dark Knight had a score of 82. Batman Begins was 70)

And, as a side bar, since I think the best "longevity/franchise" argument would be the Bond series, the numbers for them are Casino Royale 81 and Quantum of Solace was 58.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 6377
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2: Film Review

Post by anonymous1980 »

6) The Academy also has a tradition of not nominating blockbusters, whether or not they are enthusiastically received.
They designed the 10-wide field so that well-received blockbusters COULD get in. And they did for two years in a row. Whether or not this will be the case with the new rule is something that remains to be seen.
I would not call this movie enthusiastically received at all. It's received good to strong reviews, and a fair amount of vaguely apathetic acknowledgment.
Well, the reviews are certainly overall more enthusiastic than, say, Inception which had a rather sizeable group vocal detractors. And apart from Armond White and a few other people, The Deathly Hallows Part 2 has very few really vocal detractors as far as I know.

I never really said that it will definitely get in. I'm just saying that the possibility is there. You're saying "no way in hell". I'm saying "maybe, maybe not". I never predicted ANY of the other Potter films to get in even though I liked/loved them. But this one, this COULD maybe do it. I frankly don't know why you have such a huge problem about it if you really didn't care. The Academy could and has nominated worse movies than any of the Harry Potter films including the Columbus ones. (The Blind Side, The Reader, etc.)
I am now going to salvage my weekend and read a book in a bar or something.
Hope you have fun. In the meantime, I'll probably be watching it for the 2nd time this weekend maybe in my Hogwarts robes (just kidding, I'm too cheap to buy those).

When I call you a Muggle, I mean that with affection. I know you're not a Potter fan (I don't think you're much of a fan of anything, really).
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2: Film Review

Post by Sabin »

anonymous1980 wrote
96% Fresh rating on RottenTomatoes(1); the fact that it's the last of the series(2); the franchise made a lot of money, this is the last one so there will be some people who feel a nomination is due and warranted (I've personally seen it and I think it's due and warranted(3). I can honestly say that as an objective cinephile not as a Potter fanatic(4). The only other Potter film I would've nominated for Best Picture was Azkaban. Even I didn't think any of the others would be Best Picture-nominated)(5). The Academy probably set up the system to get in at least one well-received blockbuster in there and this one has the most ENTHUSIASTIC critical reception among them so far and the rest of the summer doesn't look like it's gonna beat it in terms of acclaim.(6) If Tintin and Hugo disappoint either critically or commercially and Warner Bros. push really hard for it, I would say it's well within the realm of possibility.(7) Even a huge Muggle like you, Sabin, have to at least concede to that.(8)
All right...
1) Meaningless.
2) Meaningless.
3) Nobody feels that.
4) In your last comment, you call me a Muggle. You're saying this as a Potter fanatic.
5) Well, good for you.
6) The Academy also has a tradition of not nominating blockbusters, whether or not they are enthusiastically received. I would not call this movie enthusiastically received at all. It's received good to strong reviews, and a fair amount of vaguely apathetic acknowledgment.
7) ...or, a grown-up movie.
8) I will not concede a single point, and I really wouldn't go around calling people Muggles. Get out of the pool. All the water is now gone.
Okri wrote...

1. Pirates of the Carribean cracked a billion dollars worldwide. No one's predicting this, the fourth film of that epic franchise, as a best picture nominee. And that had a major nomination to it's credit.

2. That you use the word "due" suggests to me that you're not viewing it from the perspective of an objective cinephile but as a fanatic. Replace Harry Potter with Christopher Nolan. Tell me I'm wrong.

3. That said, I look forward to hearing this talk all year only to see it fizzle out by nomination day. If it does happen, I can say my interest in the oscars will hit zero with no chance of recovery. So maybe it should.
1. Yup.
2. Yup.
3. Yup.

by anonymous1980...
Pirates of the Caribbean doesn't have a 97% Fresh tomato meter rating in RottenTomatoes. Some Best Picture nominees don't get numbers that high.(1)

And I did not say that it is due(2), some people may FEEL that it's due(3). BAFTA gave it a special award this year, I believe.(4)

And I think I find it funny people think Christopher Nolan is an Oscar-snubbee when he has 3 Oscar nominations to his credit.(5)

Have you, Okri or Sabin, SEEN the movie? I have.(6))
1) Stop talking about Rotten Tomatoes like it fucking matters! The Reader had 50-something percent. It gauges whether or not something is marginally positive-to-GREATEST MOVIE EVER the same. It's a meaningless website.
2) I think you did.
3) I really don't think they do.
4) ...I didn't know that. I'm pretty sure that doesn't matter either.
5) I actually agree with you here, but he's far more due than Harry Potter, I think you would agree. If only because he is doing something artful and singular, whereas Harry Potter is total committee-filmmaking.
6) True story: I had plans to watch Deathly Hallows Pt 1 and then go see Pt 2 on Saturday. Blowing it off. Just responding to these messages made me remember that while I don't think Harry Potter is a bad series, it's just fucking dull and full of characters I don't care about. That's a five-to-six hour investment I was going to do w/r/t something I couldn't be more apathetic about. I am now going to salvage my weekend and read a book in a bar or something.

I thank you all. And now, a pretty funny review by Armond White.

Franchise Overboard
Why Harry Potter has been the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises
By Armond White

Now that the Harry Potter series is over, maybe the truth can be realized: This has been the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises. Each episode following the boy wizard (Daniel Radcliffe) and his pals (Rupert Grint, Emma Watson) from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series' only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects—all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Billed as HP7, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 has Harry confront his origins and his very existence. Near death by a whammy from Lord Voldemort (a howling, noseless Ralph Fiennes), Harry and the audience are subjected to a series of family-heritage and backstory montages that don't clarify anything. It's simply a cavalcade of badly used British actors, the Mike Leigh stable (Jim Broadbent, Gary Oldman, David Thewlis, Imelda Staunton) being especially disgraced—all apparently just to pay the rent.

David Yates is credited as director of the final four features, but his work has been as poor as what Chris Columbus began and even Alfonso Cuarón's, whose steadicam made no difference (how can you make "dark" darker?). Yates is what's known as a shooter. He gets it in the camera, but he provides no style or feeling. He has competence but no talent; his inability to inflect this story with the slightest idiosyncrasy exposes the enterprise as sheer commercial hackwork—although of a high budgetary order. (Example: the confusing, snake-like P.O.V. during Alan Rickman's death scene.)

The precedent was already set by Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings debacle—unintelligible fantasy epics that people went to out of consumerist habit and left unable to recount or fondly recall. Jackson's fantasy overload laid the groundwork for mistaking F/X for content. Yates' relentlessly pedestrian visual choices allow the franchise to emphasize F/X—the "magic" is in other peoples' hands—so that crucial connecting dramatic scenes remain visually banal and feel hastily executed. The addition of 3D only makes Yates' poor compositions more noticeable—the imbalance juts out. It doesn't help that audiences are so accustomed to TV banality that they no longer watch or read movies visually; they simply follow dialogue and extol the CGI. They're as helpless as Yates at discovering Harry Potter's mythic roots. Part 7 finds Harry in his own Gethsemane, but Yates, Rowling or somebody lost that cultural, spiritual thread.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody—just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. (Sadly, Stephenie Meyer and Twilight's producers seem to be following this model.) The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it's certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.
"How's the despair?"
anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 6377
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2: Film Review

Post by anonymous1980 »

Okri wrote:1. Pirates of the Carribean cracked a billion dollars worldwide. No one's predicting this, the fourth film of that epic franchise, as a best picture nominee. And that had a major nomination to it's credit.
Pirates of the Caribbean doesn't have a 97% Fresh tomato meter rating in RottenTomatoes. Some Best Picture nominees don't get numbers that high.

And I did not say that it is due, some people may FEEL that it's due. BAFTA gave it a special award this year, I believe.

And I think I find it funny people think Christopher Nolan is an Oscar-snubbee when he has 3 Oscar nominations to his credit.

Have you, Okri or Sabin, SEEN the movie? I have.
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2: Film Review

Post by Okri »

1. Pirates of the Carribean cracked a billion dollars worldwide. No one's predicting this, the fourth film of that epic franchise, as a best picture nominee. And that had a major nomination to it's credit.

2. That you use the word "due" suggests to me that you're not viewing it from the perspective of an objective cinephile but as a fanatic. Replace Harry Potter with Christopher Nolan. Tell me I'm wrong.

3. That said, I look forward to hearing this talk all year only to see it fizzle out by nomination day. If it does happen, I can say my interest in the oscars will hit zero with no chance of recovery. So maybe it should.
anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 6377
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2: Film Review

Post by anonymous1980 »

Sabin wrote:It's not gonna get a fucking Best Picture nomination. Jesus Christ! Where is this talk coming from?
96% Fresh rating on RottenTomatoes; the fact that it's the last of the series; the franchise made a lot of money, this is the last one so there will be some people who feel a nomination is due and warranted (I've personally seen it and I think it's due and warranted. I can honestly say that as an objective cinephile not as a Potter fanatic. The only other Potter film I would've nominated for Best Picture was Azkaban. Even I didn't think any of the others would be Best Picture-nominated) The Academy probably set up the system to get in at least one well-received blockbuster in there and this one has the most ENTHUSIASTIC critical reception among them so far and the rest of the summer doesn't look like it's gonna beat it in terms of acclaim. If Tintin and Hugo disappoint either critically or commercially and Warner Bros. push really hard for it, I would say it's well within the realm of possibility. Even a huge Muggle like you, Sabin, have to at least concede to that.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2: Film Review

Post by Sabin »

It's not gonna get a fucking Best Picture nomination. Jesus Christ! Where is this talk coming from? If there were guaranteed ten slots available this year, I would say it has an incredibly outside chance. But Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (or as it's known in Los Angeles, HP7:P2...ARGH! Shitty title!) being nominated for Best Picture is not going to happen. Need a peruse the list of nominations this mega-series has received?

The Sorcerer's Stone - 3
Best Original Score
Best Art Direction
Best Costume Design

The Chamber of Secrets - 0

The Prisoner of Azkaban - 2
Best Original Score
Best Visual Effects

The Goblet of Fire - 1
Best Art Direction

The Order of the Phoenix - 0

The Half-Blood Prince - 1
Best Cinematography

The Deathly Hallows, Pt 1 - 2
Best Art Direction
Best Visual Effects


...not great, huh? Now, let's just take the first three. Or actually, let's take the first three to grab nominations to make it fair! Let's take The Sorcerer's Stone, The Prisoner of Azkaban, and The Goblet of Fire. Let's take those bunch of nominations...

Now let's look at the Star Wars Prequels.

The Phantom Menace - 3
Best Sound
Best Sound Effects
Best Visual Effects

Attack of the Clones - 1
Best Visual Effects

Revenge of the Sith - 1
Best Makeup

...almost the same reception. For the most part. Nothing really crossing over beyond technical categories. Harry Potter hasn't once done better than King Kong.
"How's the despair?"
Post Reply

Return to “2011”