MCN Blogs

By DP30

DP/30: Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows, Pt 2, director David Yates, producer David Heyman

Be Sociable, Share!

6 Responses to “DP/30: Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows, Pt 2, director David Yates, producer David Heyman”

  1. berg says:

    please tell me you asked Yates about State of Play and Girl in the Cafe

  2. MarkVH says:

    My wife (a die-hard Potter-head) and I watched Deathly Hallows Parts 1 and 2 back-to-back a couple of weeks back, and both of us came away from the experience liking Part 1 better (and not liking Part 2 nearly as much as we did in the theater). I totally get that it’s supposed to be a single film, and that the second movie is all payoff, but the first half just seems to have so many better character moments and a terrific sense of dread. People took it to task for its lack of action and long, boring sections in the woods, but to me that’s where a lot of the best stuff comes into play. The Harry-Ron-Hermione dynamic is really the soul of the series, and gets more attention in the first film, so to me it’s not only better than Part 2, but actually might be the best in the whole series.

  3. outtabooks says:

    I agree with you and your wife. I blame it on the editing on part 2 which seems rushed to give off a sense of urgency but also threw off the emotional aspect of the part. Part 2 is still a great film. The trio’s goodbye and Snape still make me teary-eyed. “I’ll come with you”, “Always”, “Until the very end” and “B!tch” are still the best lines 😀

  4. I agree that Harry Potter 7.1 is the best of the series, and that Harry Potter 7.2 disappointed merely by being among the better entries. But, upon second viewing, I realized that A) the bad 3D really hurt the theatrical viewing and B) much of what bothered me about the last film was about what wasn’t in the movie (ie – character beats from the book, more theatrically tragic deaths during the big battle, etc) rather than what was in the actual film. I still have quibbles with the first act (IE – Maggie Smith locking up ‘the bad kids’ in a dungeon where they all might be killed) and there were things in the book that SHOULD have been in the movie (explaining why Snape was appointed headmaster for example, that 10 second deleted scene that establishes that Remus and Tonks are new parents before the battle starts, etc). But I think I would have enjoyed the movie quite a bit more had I not read the book. First of all, I wouldn’t have been mentally whining about stuff not being included and second I would have been generally surprised by any number of major developments that I very much knew to expect. Point being, the Deathly Hallows films do work as a Casino Royale/Quantum Of Solace two-part play (longer, character-driven set up, followed by uncommonly short and action-packed wrap-up). Deathly Hallows part II wasn’t the all-time classic I was hoping for, but it’s a damn-good series finale.

  5. jesse says:

    I prefer Deathly Hallows Part One, too, and it covers the material I found pretty tedious in the book version. 7.1 in general made me feel like the whole series could’ve benefitted from a little more looseness in terms of adjusting the chronology of the books to play better in movies. Obviously each book should not have been two movies, but if they had treated them more like books that could be shifted around into each other, with the same freedom they had with stretching one book into two movies, I think I would’ve liked the series even more, rather than enjoying it but not really LOVING any entries beyond Azkaban and Deathly Hallows 1.

    Of course that wasn’t an option early on when the books weren’t all finished, but still — a great illustration, to me, of how you can enliven a good book by not following it to the letter and creating your own character moments.

  6. My Name is says:

    Hallows Part 1 and Azkaban are vastly overrated IMO.

    Phoenix, Half Blood and Hallows Part 2 are the best films in the series. So what they changed and left out scenes and characters, those three are really good films. I’m not saying I don’t like Hallows 1 and Azkaban because I do, but especially with Hallows 1, they tried to stuff everything from the book into the film and it suffered from it. I think the pacing was an issue, some of the editing and even dialogue from the script was either poorly written or poorly delivered. I also think some of the humor could have been toned down and the “maturity” increased, because we had the most humor in Goblet and Prince (in the latter it worked in the context of the calm-before-the-storm atmosphere and overall theme of light vs dark). Overall Part 1 did have missed opportunities and it did not click as much as it should have for me.

    Hallows 2 on the other hand is a great cinematic feast to the eyes. Beautifully filmed, acted, emotional, wonderfully scored etc… Best film in the series.

    So yes, Hallows 2, Prince and Phoenix are the best films in the series for me.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon