Even with all the embarrassing and clowny moments that pockmark the Harry Potter films, I stuck it out and watched the series to the end. While I think the direction is oft times flawed, the characters are one-dimensional and the special effects are totally inconsistent, the Harry Potter films do retain a certain mysterious (and reckless) charm. The series is a lot like the Lord of the Rings films, the Pirates of the Caribbean films and even the original Star Wars films, where, upon close scrutiny, the movies are ultimately just strawmen with expressive faces painted on them. Each series' true purpose is to provide an esoteric - but ultimately hollow - whirlwind of thrills for the audience, subsequently setting up endless licensing for books, video games, spin-off films, TV shows, clothes, backpacks and all the rest of it. Harry Potter has done exactly this for years, but it has also allowed directors and actors to toy around with the children's blockbuster formula to a small degree.
Just look at Prisoner of Azkaban as an example. The film was helmed by Alfonso Cuaron, who had proved his unique skills with the smart and sexually adventurous Mexican arthouse film, Y Tu Mama Tambien three years prior. Not exactly a safe Hollywood choice, hiring an auteur. But they did, and, in my opinion, Prisoner of Azkaban turned out far better than the rest in the series. Cuaron's pacing of the convoluted plot and usage of a handheld, lingering camera made the movie stand out, especially when he captured a more genuine relationship between Hermione, Harry and Ron. And Gary Oldman is in it, which is automatically a good thing.
Unfortunately, even Prisoner of Azkaban is mired by hammy acting, overwrought production and a fly-by checklist of subplots to tie up. All of the films have that double cheeseburger spectacle, where it's way too much, way too fast, except for The Deathly Hallows, Part I, which was a solidified, deeply personal adventure film. The focus was placed squarely on Harry, Ron and Hermione's evasion from Lord Voldemort and his agents, the incessant threat of danger nearly tearing the trio apart. It's this intimate focus that pushes The Deathly Hollows, Part I into interesting territory. It's not quite a children's film based on a beloved novel anymore, but it's also not a strictly-for-adults hardcore drama.
I had high hopes that The Deathly Hallows, Part II would continue in the same style as the first. I wasn't exactly crushed by a hard reality when I watched it, but at the same time I did feel pretty disappointed. Ultimately, the film veers back to its double cheeseburger strategy, heaping character after character and plot line after plot line down your throat. It's almost like The Deathly Hallows, Part II dares you to remember certain characters that had such miniscule parts to play in the first few films, then laughs at you when you see that they don't do much other than look scared (or alternately, determined) and shoot magic from their wand once or twice. After Voldemort's epic attack on Hogwart's, Harry walks through the hall of wounded and dead, looking at mangled characters we're supposed to give a shit about, but there's nothing there.
It's the same with the characters and the development that occurs throughout the film. Where, in Part I, there's cohesive character arcs abound and it's almost a standalone film within a series, Part II smashes all the players, main and secondary, back into the flat, gross little pancakes that we've become accustomed to. The search for the horcruxes is quickly diced through, Harry and company are just along for the ride until they reach Hogwart's.
Harry himself had grown up a bit in Part I, Daniel Radcliffe made a genuine effort to express a boy wizard becoming a man wizard, but Part II sees him back in the role of blank, frustrated crucible. It's the same with the fine actors that have dotted the landscape for the entire series - Alan Rickman's Snape, Helena Bonham Carter's Bellatrix LeStrange, David Thewlis's Remus, Jim Broadbent's Slughorn, Maggie Smith's Professer McGonagall - all had, at the least, interesting turns in their roles, but Part II sees them swept under the rug or out into oblivion as fast as they first appear in the movie.
Roughly 15 minutes after finishing Part II, I had forgotten or not cared about most of what I had just seen. I felt similarly when I watched Goblet of Fire, Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince. The most I can say about Part II is that it is a conclusion. It's not necessarily bad in comparison to some of the other films but it doesn't do anything special or memorable to act as sufficient punctuation on a bloated, uneven film series.
