“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Part 2“ or how the fairy tale turned into the thriller?
Ya was at a premiere of this movie in our city because since the childhood I am a fan Joanne Rowling. Though, I think, many of you can be ranked in their ranks. And all of us at first looked forward to a release of the latest book, guessing, the author of the main character or not, and then the movie will kill to learn as far as foreign cinema will please us. Did not please...
I remember the impressions when I, at last, opened the seventh small volume of my favourite series. In the course of reading I was struck by various things. I longed and rejoiced together with heroes. And how many tears were shed during this time (I think, not at one me). Many characters appeared before us in other light (especially Severus Snape - he became for me a hero). This book, perhaps, for the first time set me thinking on what Joanne wrote for the admirers growing together with it. And the seventh part - a growing symbol.
When later I learned that the movie will be divided into two parts, I was glad. The book contained so many important points which could not be missed. There was a wish to see everything: both a lovely wedding, and the sad story of a domovik changing idea of Sirius Black`s brother, and Harry`s reconciliation with it, and, of course, sad memoirs so unloved all professor Snape who was the touching character, not forgiven himself for a youth error. And a tearful scene with dead Fred...
And what I see on the screen? Instead of a lovely wedding - some buffoonery interrupted by attack of Devourers (however, here they should tell thanks because to suffer it it would be intolerable further). Domovik just executes the order of the owner and nothing talc about Regulus and it is unknown. But it in the first part, and the speech now nevertheless not about it. Snape cries, tells the long phrase instead of short and more thoughtful. And in memoirs for some reason no it are and Lily communication for 5 years at school, the reasons of their quarrel. Instead strange rejuvenated Alan Rikman (though it is all the same visible that to him it is far for 40) squeezes a body of the dead beloved that in principle is misrepresentation.
It is difficult to look, it is few emotions. And only three years ago I cried all book. And Fred... If did not know, would never guess that killed him. Tell why then in general to show this scene if its sense is clear only to read? And then Harry, “having correctly died“, jumps off from Hagrid`s hands, rushes with the Dark Lord on all Hogwarts and, at last, flies on it from some tower. From where they took it? People who sat near me had a question: “What was smoked by screenwriters and directors before shootings?“ Sometimes really there is a wish to ask them about it. And why Harry who was so loving the stick did not repair it, and only broke Buzinnuyu?
Now about advantages that the impression that the movie in general any was not made. The main characters are ideal, their personal features of character, a scene in bank, some cheerful moments which were urged to soften tension are well expressed. Children in the conclusion of the movie are charming.
But why instead of a sad story of a final victory over the Dark Lord in style of a fantasy, with disclosure of all laws of magic, we received an action with constantly running main characters, long creeping snake and prolonged duel between Harry and Volan - - Mort? Nevertheless it was more prosy: the stick did not obey and the Lord died. Why to wind a plot and to make it similar to the thriller when from the thriller there is nothing?
Conclusion: “the book - anything, special effects - all“, - the motto of cinema of our time. Of course, Americans succeeded in special effects, but they lose soul. And what it is more important?