Harry Potter et les reliques de la mort - 2ème partie

Une excellente conclusion à la série qui a réussi à rattraper le goût décevant de la première partie des Reliques de la Mort. Bravo à Yates, qui s'est bien amélioré depuis L'Ordre du Phénix, mais malheureusement il n'a toujours pas appris à filmer la mort de quelqu'un de manière efficace, donc tous les personnages qui meurent le font hors écran et la tristesse n'est pas présente. Cependant, son flashback sur les souvenirs de Snape est magnifique. Heureusement, le scénariste Kloves n'a pas eu trop l'occasion de créer de longs dialogues. Il s'agit principalement d'action, qui est bien réalisée. Quelques passages silencieux ne gâchent pas l'impression générale. Il aurait juste fallu un final plus épique et plus d'émotions sans discours bon marché. Sinon, c'est super! (11/07/2011)

Oh My Granger! What turns the book Relics into a magical finale amplifies the film adaptation to its highest bearable level, turns Neville into a well-deserved stud, gives the best scene of the saga to the Prince's story, and makes David Yates one of the best directors I know. At the moment when this wizarding world closes to all viewers, there remains a hardly controllable desire to see and read it all again. Simply put, it is a heavily euphoric experience after the end of the film, a clear one hundred percent spectacle and probably the best movie installment of the entire Hogwarts series. Some experiences are immortal even at the time they take place. Thank you for letting me be a part of it. (21/07/2011)

Harry Potter is a monotonous and long-winded franchise that reached its premature peak in the third part, Cuaron’s The Prisoner Of Azkaban, which isn’t at all surprising. The first four books can be considered standalone stories, each with its own specific plot arc (the search for the philosophers’ stone, the legend of the chamber of secrets, the danger of a fugitive prisoner, the tournament of schools of wizardry), while the remaining three are a overly long storytelling mess about the “final confrontation of good versus evil”. Add to this the fact that the third part was the only one in charge of a director whose ambitions could be said were higher than only bringing to the screen an unoriginal adaptation of a book, and the shortcomings of the entire saga are clear. Evidently, this will be enough for some of the hardcore fans, nothing against that, but it’s funny to observe how some of them give priority to (and also reject) a different episode. This could be taken as proof of the diversity of the episodes, but to me it’s actually proof of the inconsistency of the saga as a whole – basically, it only depends on which film each fan prefers. But now briefly about Deathly Hallows: Part 2 itself (because it doesn’t warrant a long comment). I can take bland performances in summer blockbusters, I can take a concise and episodic script, but that the mood among the people of Hoghwarts after the longed for defeat of the Lord of Evil (which everyone had been waiting for X years) would be as if their team had ended third out of four in a big tournament, and that major characters would die out of frame as if by the way, without a hint of emotion... THAT’S QUITE SOMETHING! Yeah, and the epilogue is just as stupid as Rowling wrote it, so the film doesn’t deserve any bitching for that :-D (20/07/2011)

Better than the previous film, but if the result of a long wait for something is just this pace-weary and conversationally ridiculous ending, I'm not accepting it. The last Harry Potter is dark mainly because in 3D there is sometimes nothing to see. I am not a reader of the saga, so cheap nostalgia does not apply to me, and I calmly enjoy non-originality, non-ingenuity and a nice-looking, but routine design. The Harry Potter saga remains for me, even after the "grand finale", an overpriced audiovisual illustration of a book series that, after Cuarón's departure, has lost any lasting overlap in my heart space. (11/07/2011)

About until half way through (somewhere after conjuring up the barrier) I have no objections. However, thereafter, instead of gradually climaxing the eighteen hours spanning ten years, it chops it up into a series of a few dozen moments. Each of them is great, often atmospheric too, and frequently gripping and ingenious, but put all together they don’t give the impression of a unified story heading toward one goal. It chops it up more and more until it turns into something that, despite being impressive and entertaining, is an epically cold popcorn picture. The only emotions are provoked only by (again the genius of) Desplat. And that is a bit too little. (17/07/2011)