As I mentioned in my review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1, some movies are the pure definition of critic proof. After 1,178 minutes of wizards, elves, goblins, giants, trolls and horcruxes (which ironically make more sense in this film without any explanation versus in the last film which took time to explain them at ridiculously confusing length), it has finally occurred to me that I simply just don’t care. Of course, I would never say that these films are made for me; they have an audience, and I simply just don’t belong in it. Over $2 billion domestically can’t be wrong, right? As was the case before, the story remains the same for this official Muggle with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2.
Everyone has their “thing” when it comes to films. I’ve mentioned before that one of mine happens to be the Scream series. However, I also highly enjoy Star Wars, Star Trek, and Lord of the Rings (if you want to get into comparable franchises). I will never say that any of the Harry Potter films are bad films, because they are far from it. Slickly made, highly polished, newly converted to the third dimension for the big finale, they are grand entertainment for sure. But after the single triumph of Prisoner of Azkaban, the film adaptations of J.K. Rowling's young-adult novels had yet been able to win me over. Every new film I walk in, cross my fingers, and hope for the best. Personally, it just doesn’t click with me. And that’s fine of course. Just don’t try burning me at the stake over it.
I would never compare these films to the abhorrent Twilight saga either. Those are terrible, awful, ludicrous films that spit in the face of myth, legend, and good cinema in general. My main nitpick comes with when someone tries to explain that my lack of enjoyment is based on the fact that I haven’t read the books. Sorry, this is a film; it is a totally separate medium. You do not have to, nor ever have had to, partake of one to enjoy the other. One is a book, the other a film. They are not the same thing and having never fully enjoyed the series, I am not about to start from scratch and read through the 4,100 pages of what I’ve already seen transpire up on the big screen. That would take way longer than 1,178 minutes I’ve already put into them. Not that there’s anything wrong with doing so.
Article comments
1 - Jill Kennedy
Stunning. A negative review. I suppose there had to one of them. I realize I am not the best judge of these movies - I almost love them unconditionally because I love the books and have read them with my daughter. So there is that emotional connection which is hard to break. I'll be bawling with a few hundred others tonight when the first image appears.
Here is a hilarious review (a positive one) from a Finnish film reviewer attempting to write in English. It's almost like something Borat would write. Very funny.
2 - John Lake
Mr. Cinenerd, sir,
There is something fundamentally wrong with your review. I can't put my finger on it. I don't much like reviews anyway. And if I did, it would be the review of a more "serious" movie.
And your use of font could use work. I like more grandiose font.
In conclusion, I don't ordinarily like conclusions.
Now, what else was there...??...
3 - John Lake
Truth is the Kimmo Mustonenen review as Ms. Kennedy speaks of didn't knock my socks off either.
If a review doesn't include the notion that Ron, portrayed by Rupert Grint, "Came of age..", forget it.
4 - Nat Parker
I think your review was adequate. I personally didn't like the part one... the part two was better, but not as good as I thought it would be. As a Potterhead, I was expecting too much.