harry potter and the deathly hallows part 2

When I say I wanted more from Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows: Part 2, it's meant both as praise and criticism. More, because some of the film's visual wizardry is so sensational I could have watched it until my eyes dried up. And more, sadly, because some of the other parts just aren't that good.

Putting the stopper in the Harry Potter series was never going to be easy. A story that's been ten years in the telling on page and screen, this final instalment was under considerably more pressure than its predecessors to provide spectacle and resolution, both of which it does, at times magnificently.
Where it falters, however, is in some of the highly charged emotional scenes, where the speeches and performances don't always sit on the right side of mawkish. This, of all eight films in the series, places much of its dense emotional weight squarely on Daniel Radcliffe's shoulders, which, unfortunately, don't quite seem to be able to bear the load.

In the first six films, he starred opposite a best of British Potter cast, boasting the likes of Gambon, Fiennes, Rickman, and Oldman. This worked as something of a magic mirror for the younger actors, reflecting well on all. In parts one and two of Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, however, with Radcliffe increasingly left alone to carry heavy-duty scenes and speeches, the reflection we're left with isn't quite as flattering.

That said, the spectacle here is staggeringly well done, if a little frustrating for coming in fits and starts around the lead's emotional trek into death and back again.

When the long-anticipated battle of Hogwarts erupts, there comes bravura moment after bravura moment from the visual effects and design teams. It's just a shame we have our attention so frequently diverted away, instead of getting stuck in to the action for so much of it.

Though no one sequence stands out in the same way as did Part 1's animated three brothers tale (an artfully atmospheric lantern silhouette segment telling the story of the titular Deathly Hallows), Part 2 does have many, many impressive kinetic set pieces.

There's a fantastic CGI dragon (the best you'll see this year, and probably for a good while after) careening weightily over the London skyline, hefty statues stamping into life, enchantments and curses being sent whomping and fizzing around the sets, and a magical, jellyfish-like protective shield rippling and flexing around the castle grounds.

The action is to be applauded as everything you could ask it to be: sleek, fast and exciting, especially in scenes showing the flight of a couple locked in combat zooming around the castle, or a trio on broomsticks pursued by Fiendfyre. In small moments such as this, the film is simply stunning. There's no other word for it.  It's no doubt due to the strength of these moments that makes it something of a frustration when our attention is snatched away from whizz-bang fighting, and made to follow Harry off in search of a magical doodad or heartbreaking revelation about a former adversary.
Integral to the Horcrux story, director David Yates had no choice but to chop up his action with these quiet, Harry-led interludes. It's just a shame for the film that the lead's performance isn't quite as accomplished as its visual feats.

I'll say now that the 3D wasn't overplayed either. The talented David Yates, as we suspected he might, resisted any urge to have wands jutting out in the audience's faces every five minutes. You might question the logic of converting a film with such a sombre palette into 3D, but a colour-saturated childhood flashback sequence and some mightily impressive cursed fire came across a treat.
Some will, no doubt, enjoy the extra dimension (just as Warner Bros will, no doubt, enjoy the extra moolah it generates), but I wouldn't have thought you'd be missing out should you prompt to go for a glasses-free 2D screening. If you can find one, that is.