While yes splitting the final Harry Potter book into two movies may have been a risky propaganda from a narrative standpoint but financially and unsurprising move, given its history. If you have one movie that’s all slow, methodical character development and the second movie that’s all fast-paced action, then each movie could be monotonous because they’ve lost the other half of their story. Both of the Deathly Hallows parts i'm pleased to say avoid that problem.
Deathly Hallows – Part 1 was a slow, deliberately-paced and character-driven narrative that saw Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermoine (Emma Watson) struggle with their friendship, their lack of direction, and the ongoing war between Voldemort’s forces and the rest of the wizarding world. By contrast, Part 2 is a lean and focused final sprint as the trio hunts down the final horcruxes, major characters complete their arcs, and we come to the deadly showdown between Harry and Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes).
From the directorial style of franchise veteran David Yates to the melodic score by composer Alexandre Desplat, Deathly Hallows: Part 2 wisely remembers that while it is a movie, it is also the final link in an epic chain. As such, the film doesn’t make the mistake of being too overstated or assaulting you with mind-numbing arbitrary action, ear-shattering sounds or overly-dramatic music.
When the battle at Hogwarts rages, Yates favors more picturesque photography – shots of bodies lying to and fro, familiar structures being destroyed, or characters we know engaged in battle, the focus squarely on their desperate, defiant, or despairing expressions. The music, while still containing familiar traces of epic Potter melodies of times past, also allows for a lot of quieter, more contemplative tunes, which enhance the resonance of all that is happening onscreen. The filmmakers thankfully remember that we’ve journeyed so far with these characters – through the books into the movies as well as throughout the movies up to now – and so they trust that we, the audience, will understand the poignancy and meaning of the events that are unfolding.
Yates does a fair job of keeping Harry and his emotions at the nexus of things, so that even if we don’t feel the impact of certain moments or developments, we can see and understand that he feels it.
The movie almost seems more affectionate towards Neville than it does for Harry and I believe that’s with good reason. Harry is the hero. He was always the hero. He was always brave, competent, and strong and the real shading he gets here is to courageously and tragically face the thing Voldemort fears the most. By contrast, Neville is the unlikely hero and even unlikelier leader, and he’s so lovable not only because of Lewis’ performance, but because there’s always the implication that Harry was destined for greatness but that Neville had to work for it.
Part 2 also marks the return of the full cast who all deliver emphatic performances, especially Helena Bonham Carter as the sadistic Bellatrix LeStrange, Maggie Smith as the warm yet deadly Minerva McGonagall and Julie Walters as the grief-stricken mother Molly Weasley. However, no one quite "stole the show" as much as Alan Rickman's final portrayal of Severus Snape; we finally see beyond the unscrupulous and cunning face of Snape as Rickman opens his character to the world as a brave yet broken and damaged man, permanently at conflict regarding his loathing of Harry and his never-ending love of Harry's late mother.
