Here are just a few parts: the
most exciting part of the novel is often the shaping of the characters. From this perspective, the best part of the seventh book is the fullness of the two characters-Albus Dumbledore and Sever Les Snape. The reason why the movie did not ignore Snape’s character image is not so much because it is so touching, it is more important to say that it is an important part of the development of the main plot; in contrast, the side plot of Dumbledore’s story seems insignificant. It was ignored. So Aberforth's words about his brother and sister in the bar seemed quite nonsensical, and he didn't know what he was talking about! Such a deletion directly leads to one of the most important plots in the seventh part-Harry’s emotional ups and downs towards Dumbledore and the completeness of Dumbledore’s image in the entire seven parts (or Dumbledore’s life The salvation between the sacred artifacts and family affection) disappeared. People can't experience the unity and integrity of the contradiction between the strong and fragile human nature of Dumbledore through the movie. This reduction is very regrettable.
Speaking of the "ultimate showdown", it is obvious that Rowling's description of the ultimate showdown in the book is difficult to satisfy any Hollywood director. The duel in the book is extremely short, and there are only two spells in total. Judging from the description in the book, it was almost completed in an instant. The picture may be gorgeous enough, but the time is too short after all. So David Yates decisively stretched such a momentary picture into a series of melee fights with Harry resisting countless Voldemort's spells. Not to mention the ridiculous that the deepest magical duel has to be solved by hand-to-hand combat, but the plot of Harry resisting Voldemort’s spell also lacks logic, only from the plot in the movie (although this plot is not in the book), Voldemort A single spell smashed all the protective spells of the Hogwarts teachers (and this is what countless Death Eaters could not do), and Harry obviously could not block Voldemort's spell directly (from the book, only Deng Blido has this ability); if you consider the ownership of the old wand, as long as Harry is willing, Voldemort should fail the first spell (so Voldemort in the book has only the chance to recite one spell at the end). Therefore, looking at this movie from normal logic, we can only draw a ridiculous conclusion: The reason Harry made Voldemort fall without the first spell is because he wanted to keep Voldemort and fight him for a while...
The reason why I analyzed the logical problems in the last paragraph in detail is to point out the shortcomings of Hollywood movies: the movie is more concerned about the big boss being knocked down after a series of gorgeous pictures, rather than why the big boss died. Although the gorgeous pictures in most movies can explain this very well, for a work like "Harry Potter" whose relationship is too complicated and the reason is so profound, the gorgeous pictures can't explain anything. And the movie just wrongly chose the location of the climax in the ultimate showdown. In the book, the real climax is Harry’s complex emotions when he walks into the Forbidden Forest. Dumbledore’s words at King’s Cross and Harry and Riddle Words spoken in circles in the auditorium. These dialogues clearly pointed out that Voldemort’s death was not due to (as in the movie) Harry’s magical power was enough to rival him. He was destroyed by the Horcrux during the fight (the reason for this failure is too vulgar. And inferior), but (in Dumbledore’s words again) what Voldemort did because of greed, ignorance, and cruelty, in other words, the deepest magic of love and sacrifice (not those that can be The displayed magic) defeated Voldemort. This is a very touching part of the book, but it is clear that dialogue, psychological activities, and magic that cannot be expressed with special effects are extremely unpopular to Hollywood directors, which has caused the confusion and lack of the above.
Speaking of mental activity, another place that is very touching has also been deleted. It was Harry who walked through the auditorium wearing an invisibility cloak, knowing that he must die, but had to go through the people he loved. His contradictory psychology is the strongest and most touching part of human nature. There is a description in the book: "Perhaps, in a small corner of his heart, he hoped that someone would feel him, see him, and stop him, but the invisibility cloak was as perfect as ever, and he walked to the door easily." . No one is not afraid of death. This inevitability of human nature just reflects Harry's strength and courage. It is his love that supports him, allowing him to "force himself forward with great perseverance." Unfortunately, this paragraph has also been deleted for the reasons already described above.
Hollywood is keen on love stories and personal heroism, but ultimately ignores human nature, which is strongly reflected in this film. The most direct is obviously the scene of Harry and Ginny kissing. In the book, Harry clearly knew that anyone close to him would be in great danger, and at the critical moment of the final battle, such a scene would not appear, and Harry would not allow it because I bring danger to the one I love. In the same way, Harry seems to have always known that he is a Horcrux in the movie, and it seems that the director thinks that this will make Harry's heroic image taller. However, as Dumbledore said well, Harry couldn't know in advance, "Otherwise, how could he have the power to do what it had to do?" And Harry himself "confirmed that Dumbledore wanted him to live". This is the inevitability of human nature. People who know that they are going to die cannot have the courage to search for Horcruxes everywhere.
Due to various omissions and simplifications, many stupid images have to appear in the film to depict things that are difficult to understand (at least for those who have never read the book) due to lack of explanation. For example, Dumbledore said to Snape at least three times that Harry must die, and this, if there were all foreshadowing, anyone could see at a glance when Dumbledore explained the soul of Harry. However, the movie must be said straightforwardly three times, for fear that the audience will not be able to understand the development of the following plot. In addition, Harry had to ask about the shape of his mother's patron saint and Snape's patron saint at Kings Cross Station. This was obviously silly. How could he not know the appearance of his mother's patron saint? Obviously, I was afraid that the audience would not understand the most moving scene in Dumbledore's office. Besides, Harry finally poked the old wand. This is obviously a silly plot. If the old wand could be poked, then Dumbledore would have been poked long ago, or (this plot is only in the book) clearly stated in Harry When he didn't want the old wand, the portrait of Dumbledore could tell him directly that he pouted the old wand. The film obviously directly chooses the easiest way for the audience to express it, and abandons the incomprehensible old magic wand processing method of "undefeated death" leading to "magic disappearance". Moreover, Harry did not repair his wand at all in the end, so according to the logic of the movie, there are only two explanations: one is that he has been using Draco's wand, which is obviously extremely uncomfortable; the other is that he thinks he is a wizard I was so tired, I decided to go back and continue to be beaten by Dali...
Finally, there are some small details to complain about. First of all, the fighting scene is obviously too monotonous, that is, the attacking side casts red (yes, even the color is fixed) spells, and the defending side uses transparent spells to block, which is obviously a bit low-level. Why didn't the director learn from the description in the book? The fight between Dumbledore and Voldemort in the fifth part and the final fight between McGonagall and Snape are very good reference materials, and the shots must be much more exciting than the current one. There is also why Voldemort's voice to everyone is so hoarse, I think it is more effective if it is loud and loud. The last point is that Voldemort's laughter after entering Hogwarts is too Q, and it sounds...yes, it's very discordant.
Finally, I want to say that the above-mentioned shortcomings obviously cannot be evaded by just using the words "limited time", because since there is so much time to describe hand-to-hand combat, then it cannot be said that there is no time to describe the cause and effect. Moreover, the fictitious plots such as the bombing of the bridge are obviously designed for the scene and the so-called humor, and it is not necessary to delete it; and the various protection spells of Hogwarts are obviously cast for the scene, which is very procrastinating.
It is true that considering the time of the movie, it is impossible to describe all the details one by one, and the appropriate deletion is understandable. For example, in Hogsmeade, Harry and the others flashed into the bar, and the abridgement of the deal between Aberforth and the Death Eaters was done beautifully. The movie obviously doesn't need Rory's wordy "goat posing as a stag" (although it seems very meaningful in the book). But this does not mean that it can be deleted at will!
In short, I feel that this movie is far from good enough.
View more about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 reviews
