If you want a bit more, read the last book. It answers some of your questions, makes the Battle of Hogwarts more epic, and gives Voldemort a chance at redemption. I was loving the film up until Harry and Voldemort’s final duel and the non-epilogue scenes after that. The changes they made to that part left me speechless. Imagine the changes made to Faramir multiplied by a reluctant Aragorn and added to the subtraction of the Scouring of the Shire; then you have a small measure of how badly they messed that part up.

I can answer one of your “Huh?” moments.  With regard to Bellatrix’s wand, the book established that the wizarding world knew that Bellatrix had lost her wand in the encounter with Harry and the others at Malfoy Manor.  Therefore, anyone who could produce the wand was impersonating her.  The quick wrap-up is a problem with the book as well.

@ Pierce Oka:
 
Huh. Thanks for that perspective. FWIW, I saw it with my nephew who’s a big fan of the books, and he was very happy with it despite the changes.
 
@ Evan:
 
But if Harry and friends know that the wizarding world knows that the wand has been captured, why not just say “Of course I don’t have it, I lost it fighting Harry Potter, everyone knows that”? Alternatively, since the film doesn’t establish that the loss of Bellatrix’s wand is common knowledge, why not just not establish (or at least not remind us) at the beginning of the film that they have the wand, so casual viewers will blithely assume that they don’t produce the wand because they don’t have it, instead of leaving us wondering why they have it and don’t produce it?

@SDG: If Rowling had the characters say the didn’t have the wand instead of what they did, it would have removed some of the ends justify the means problems that bothered me in the book.  Also, I am surprised the film did not establish the wand loss was common knowledge; it would only have taken a line or two.

Great review, Steven, and thank you for not totally spoiling the movie for those of us not crazy enough to go last night. As someone who has read the books and seen all the movies (and was a little underwhelmed by Part 1), it’s good to know that this installment is as epic as it should be.

@ Evan: Who knows, maybe it’s there and I missed it.

Dear Friends, here is what Cardinal Ratzinger before he became Pope wrote about the Harry Potter books : http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2005/jul/05071301

Gabriele Amorth, exorcist of the Archdiocese of Rome, believes that, “Behind Harry Potter hides the signature of the king of the darkness, the devil”. The books make a false distinction between black and white magic, while, in reality, the distinction “does not exist, because magic is always a turn to the devil”. Amorth believes that the books can be a bad influence on children by getting them interested in the occult.

I agree!

@ Christian Peschken:
 
Here is some perspective on LifeSiteNews’s irresponsible, misleading and downright false reporting on this subject, as well as some caveats about Fr. Amorth’s views on this subject. On the subject of the occult and magic in fiction, please see the essay mentioned in my review.

Thanks for your review, I went to see the movie yesterday night and I am extremely pleased with it. I was a bit disappointed, though, that they didn’t include Dumbledore’s backstory, as it sheds a whole new light on his character’s motivations and regrets. I’m also disappointed that Ron and Hermione didn’t have more screen time together, as you noted, Ron and Hermione’s atraction to each other seemed to come from out of nowhere in the movies, whereas in the books, it had always been there (and Ron’s character is a lot cooler in the books as well, Hermione certainly didn’t “settle down” for him in them!).

Anyway, I really enjoyed Alan Rickman’s portrayal of Snape, he was always a scene-stealer, and I was very satisfied at the portrayal of his back story, it was very moving and almost made me shear a few tears for him. I’m also impressed at Helena Bonham-Carter’s acting, her portrayal of Bellatrix LeStrange was just perfect, definitely a character I love to hate. :)

Overall, as a great fan of the books I’m satisfied with this last movie and look forward to see it again at least a couple times in the theater.

Off topic, I read your essay on ‘Harry Potter and Magic’, and i liked it. It’s going to help me a lot writing my book. Thanks!

@ ChoRyu: Liking my writing is never off topic. Never ever.

that the books can be a bad influence on children by getting them interested in the occult.
- as does any “fairy tale”. Prespective please.

Excellent review, which I concur with. I wonder how much of the unaswered questions may be found in the book (which I’ve unfortunately not read) or even on the cutting floor. Perhaps the extended cut will fill some gaps. As for Part I, it helped to watch it again just before seeing the finale.

SDG, I really enjoyed your review of Where the Wild Things Are. Your Avatar review really nailed it, too.

Seriously, I’m glad to read this. It gives me hope that the last movie has heart, which, for me, the movies have never really had before.

Thanks for the review! I saw the movie last night and I agree with a lot of what you said. It seemed to rush things a little bit through the last scenes, but that didn’t hurt it all that much. It was a great movie to tie things up with.
Also, I disagree with Christian Peschken about the books. They are a great story, and I believe that if it distorts anything about the faith it is not really intended. The reference to the Resurrection Stone is pretty good, and I can see the trouble with finding a good mane for it, but lashing out at all the books because of a little use of magic is not right. If it harms the Faith of anyone, they have not been properly instructed in the Faith. That is all there is to it. A book and a movie should be for the enjoyment of the reader and the stimulation of the imagination.

@ Pachyderminator: Keep it coming, friend. No, really, tell me more.

A major point that was lost at the end of Part 1 is Harry is faced with the choice between seeking out the Deathly Hallows -or- the Horcruxes.  He only has time to do one or the other.  The lure of the Hallows is that they make one more like a god (the original lure of sin), but Harry realizes that no matter how powerful he becomes it will not be enough as long as the Horcruxes are still out there.  He chooses the self-less quest over the selfish quest.

One of the major complaints of Potter-heads is that the screen writers have often given most of Ron’s best lines from the books to Hermione, making him seem dumber.  In the books, though, you really see that Ron and Hermione are like miniatures of Ron’s happily married parents.  I also felt the films short-shrifted Ginny.

Being a huge fan of both the books and the films, I went to the midnight showing last night.  I have to say that it is my absolute favorite of the lot and did justice to the book in a way I don’t think any of the other films have.  I say this mostly because Snape has always been my favorite character and his story was told beautifully.  For me, it was nothing short of a perfect ending after ten years of experiencing this world Jo Rowling has created.

As to Dumbledore and the Elder Wand, I seem to recall his having kept it as being something of a character flaw.  Dumbledore kept Harry’s invisibility cloak as well because he really wanted for himself but did, in the end, pass it on to Harry.  They don’t mention it in the film, but Dumbledore and Grindelwald, if I remember correctly, were actually interested in collecting all the Hallows so they could control Muggles.  Ultimately, Dumbledore’s weakness was that he wanted power.  Harry’s strength is that he doesn’t.  That’s why he drops the Resurrection Stone in the middle of the forest and snaps the Elder Wand, but keeps the Invisibility Cloak (much like the humble third brother from the story who “greeted Death as an old friend and went with him gladly and, equals, they departed this life”).

I must admit that you are my favorite film reviewer.  I have a desire to start my own movie review website. I actually have written several reviews and posted them on my blog.  There not as in-depth as yours but some are ok. I might be able to do better. I have a degree in theology and communciations and work at a catholic tv station. Do you have any advice for someone who wants to start to review films on a regular basis? Do you get to watch a lot of free films? Is there room for another Catholic film reviewer of should I just stick to my day job? Regardless thanks for what you do, you do a good service to your church.

Let me join Pachyderminator and say I thought your 5 part essay on “Of Gods and Men” was excellent as well as your “Inception” review.

And @SDG: “Who knows, maybe it’s there and I missed it.”  That’s highly improbable.

Hermione and Ron definitely “work” in the books, and it is obvious there that Hermione is not “settling” for Ron.  In fact, in the last book, it is Ron’s unprompted personal concern for something that has been a major concern of Hermione’s throughout the series that inspires Hermione to publicly demonstrate her love for him.  In the books anyway, the relationships between Harry and Ginny, and Ron and Hermione, somehow come across as “meant to be” but not contrived.  All of this to say that whatever happens in the movies should not be automatically considered Rowling’s intent.  Rowling wrote the books; her intent and responsibility is there.  Give the credit for or the blame about the movies to the producers.

You have to read the book to understand.  These movies were made for the book readers of Harry Potter.  You can’t just go see the movie and understand.  It was made for those of us who stood in long lines to get each book.

There’s more than just Ron being smarter in the book or Ginny being more fiery (a lot more fiery…I cheered when she and Harry got together, but it didn’t quite make it on-screen)
The Weasleys become a surrogate family for Harry and Hermione in a way that makes them both desire to join the family. If H&H got together, casting Ron aside, they would both lose out.
Thematically, the bustling, spendthrift, 7-child Weasley family makes a “real family” contrast to the exaggerated emphasis on breeding and racial purity found in the Malfoys (and the whole Voldemort movement). It’s not for nothing that the one who finally combats V’s favorite vamp, Bellatrix, is Mrs. Weasleys.
It’s also a contrast to the indulgent one-child Dursleys. The most problematic aspect of the theme, though, is the way that Hermione’s family is totally shunted aside, which of course culminates in the atrocity that the daughter commits against her parents’ memory. It sort of ruins what is otherwise a paean to the joys (and sorrows) of marriage and in particular a large family.

@ Barbara C and JH: Fascinating points both.
 
@ Evan: Thanks on all counts.
 
@ Mark Wilson: Thanks so much. I can only tell you what I did: I started a website, wrote reviews and built an audience. Eventually I was invited to write for the Register and things went from there. I had a break right from the start in that even before I created Decent Films I was invited to appear on Catholic radio because of my background in media arts and religious studies, and that radio show appearance actually led to the website.
 
Is there room for more Catholic film critics? Absolutely. I can’t see but a handful of films anyway, so the more of us there are, the more films we can cover. Thanks again and best of luck.
 
@ Noelle: Believe me, these movies are aimed at absolutely everyone. Of course they want fans of the books to be happy but they also want to appeal to the widest possible audience.
 
@ John M: I certainly agree with you on the atrocity of Hermione’s parental obliviation spell. Nice observations beyond that.

It may be simply because I’m a fan of the books, but I think this one could have used another 15-20 minutes. There are a variety of details left out which, though not strictly necessary, are nonetheless very *meaningful.*  Apart from that, some of the scenes seem at least somewhat rushed, and quite truthfully, I certainly think some of the scenes would have been very difficult to understand if I hadn’t read the books - so a few more minutes to help clarify things would have made a lot of difference for the casual viewer.

Overall, though, I think a great movie.  The middle half of it is some of the most enjoyable cinema I’ve seen in a long time.  They especially hit all of the emotional cues quite spectacularly as they geared up for the climax.  The only thing that really disappointed me was the end.  For all of it that came out of Snape’s backstory, after the battle there was a definite lack of catharsis.  There’s 8 films’ - and ultimately 7 + years worth - of struggle, joy, sorrow, fear and triumph that is all culminating here.  All we end up getting is a minute or two discussing the Elder Wand.  Where is the celebration?  Where is the relief?  Where is the joy between friends, and perhaps above all the perspective of this achievement?  In the end, we really only get it by allusion through means of the epilogue. 

I can’t blame the film so much, as this was the one *tremendous* flaw in Rowling’s 7th book.  I had just hoped that they’d fix this flaw in the films.  For once, we can actually be critical of the adaptation sticking to closely to the book.

Still, a very fun and enjoyable time.

You really convinced me of that (the Hermione piece). But the good thing about it is that I can watch the 2nd movie knowing that what Hermione did really contributed nothing to the plot—it kept her parents Out of the Way, but it’s basically a failure on Rowling’s part to find another way to do that.

Snape’s deadly act is more problematic, though, because it is at the center of things. When my wife and I read the final book (aloud, which took a long time), we set it down after that scene in disbelief. We felt as betrayed by Rowling as Harry had by Dumbledore, especially because there was a perfectly evident way (bandied about in the blogosphere after the 6th movie) that she could have written it so that the same apparent action could have at least tried to avoid the euthanasia overtones that she instead hammered in (we haven’t seen the movie yet, so I wonder whether the “it’s no sin to kill an old suffering man” point of view is retained).

I saw the movie this afternoon and agree with you, Steven, that it’s the best of the bunch.  The movies were always weak compared to the books, but this was still the best of the series.  It was also the book in which the Christian symbolism came out of the closet much more effectively than Dumbledore.  I’m glad the film kept the pivotal moment at King’s Cross and seemed to make it pretty obvious through the repetition of the term that it means something.  Also, on behalf of everyone who grew up with Star Wars and Indy, I applaud your references. 

Thanks as well to Barbara C., JH, and John M. for refreshing my memory on some of the important occurrences that happened in the story from a Christian moral perspective.  To a certain degree, I think the books could be used as a jumping off point to teach kids about elements of a good Christian life.  I know there are many concerns about the witchcraft and wizardry in the books.  However, I grew up reading a lot of comic books that contained magic as well as movies like Star Wars that had a spiritual element that didn’t exactly jibe with Christianity.  My family kept me grounded in the faith though, so I think that’s the most important element in keeping kids away from actually pursuing magic.

Actually, if I recall correctly the “Euthanasia” thing is much more ambiguous in the books.  There have been people who have argued (on the basis of the book) that what happened is not morally problematic.  With the movie, this is not really possible, but the book uses sufficiently vague terms that we aren’t really sure *exactly* what happened.

Hello,

I haven’t seen the new movie yet.  Really looking forward to it.  Great review also!  Just wanted to make a few comments on the characters and their flaws from the books.

With Dumbledore, I don’t think Rowling is making a pro euthanasia argument.  In the book, I felt the Dumbledore and Snape’s plan and motivations come off as murky and questionable.  I think that was the author’s actual intention.  One of the main themes in the last book was the de-mythologizing of both characters.  Dumbledore is a wise, clever and mostly selfless man.  But those traits aren’t enough to always yield good decisions.  In fact, as he himself notes at one point, his cleverness sometimes leads to bigger, more clever mistakes.

As for his wisdom, book 7 shows that it came from a lifetime of experience and overcoming his own flaws.  The picture that emerges of young Dumbledore is of a flawed, arrogant, talented man.  A man that might even have become a villain, if the circumstances had been different.  Instead, circumstances taught him humility, which was a step on a long road toward wisdom and goodness.

As for the three leads, their apparent flaws in the movies aren’t an accident or mischaracterization.  The really have pretty much the same flaws in the books.  In one of your reviews, you note that Ron comes off as a whiner and Hermione a scold.  That’s because they are.  He has qualities, but Ron really does tend to whine, give up easy, and doubt his self worth.  Easy to see how he got that way, overshadowed by one famous friend and one super smart friend.  His challenge in the books is to overcome and grow out of that and become more hardworking and confident, which he slowly does.

In Hermione’s case, much of her self-worth is tied up in being smarter than everyone around her.  She also carries grudges and can be overbearing.  She slowly overcomes these flaws, too.  The main problem in the movie I really think is that Emma Watson grew up to be way prettier than Hermione is described in the book, where she’s described as plain and mousey.  I think that’s what makes the relationship with Ron seem so disjoint.

Finally, Harry.  Harry cuts corners and often lets the ends justify the means.  And his experiences seem to encourage it.  I don’t think he grows out of his flaws as much as his friends do.  He gains qualities in other areas (braver, more decisive, more selfless), instead.  I think he ends the series with bigger flaws, but perhaps bigger qualites than his friends.

Wrote a bit more than I intended.  :-)  Anyway, I like to think the author (and director?) weren’t trying to say these characters are perfect heroes, but imperfect people trying to be and do good in this tough situation.  I cheer when they do right and cringe when they do wrong, but sure liked ‘em.

Why does Harry break the Elder Wand at the end of the film? You might as well ask, why does Frodo destroy the Ring? Why does Prospero break his staff?

The Elder Wand represents absolute power, and Harry knows that power corrupts. As with Prospero’s staff, the wand has served its purpose, and now it’s time for Harry to abjure this rough magic.

In the book, Harry utters a Disarming Charm, using Draco’s wand, just as Voldemort utters a Killing Curse using the Elder Wand. As the Wand flies from Voldemort’s hand, the curse rebounds upon him and kills him. No other combination of wands and charms could have accomplished this, if I recall correctly. (The film doesn’t bother to make this point clear.) Harry, having achieved the greatest thing he could have achieved with the Elder Wand, decides he has no further need of it.

In the legend of the three brothers, the Elder Wand is taken from its original owner by a treacherous wizard who kills him for it. I recall that the book spends a great deal of time discussing Dumbledore’s misspent youth, but I don’t remember for certain whether the book identifies Dumbledore as this treacherous wizard, or places him later in the wand’s succession of owners. Anyhow, it’s possible that Harry (a) doesn’t want a wand that’s been associated with numerous killings; or (b) believes he can honor Dumbledore’s memory more by destroying the wand than by keeping and using it.

@ Martin Stillion:
 

“Why does Harry break the Elder Wand at the end of the film? You might as well ask, why does Frodo destroy the Ring? Why does Prospero break his staff?”

 
Peter Jackson and company told us early and often why the Ring had to be destroyed. David Yates and Steven Kloves offered us no insight into why the Elder Wand should be destroyed, at least in this movie. I’m not saying I can’t imagine any plausible reasons, and I appreciate your answers. I’m just pointing out, in my capacity as a film critic, that in the movie it’s an act without a motivation.

Incidentally, everyone, this has been a great combox so far. It’s terrific to be writing for such thoughtful readers. Thanks to all.

We were all (kids and parents) deeply disappointed by the scene we were placing a lot of dramatic hope in: Harry’s walk into the woods to face Voldemort.  He ALL cried during this scene in the book—well, my hubby just sort of misted up a bit: he was on a train heading downtown.  But all of Harry’s longing for his dad, his mom, Sirius—finally he was going to meet them all (in death) and they were sort of encouraging him to keep walking toward his killer!  It was so moving!  Yet, in the film, he basically ignores his dad!  So weird!  One of the things I loved about this story is the clear need of a boy for his DAD!!! 

And AMEN to the couples things.  Not believable, both.

Steven - I believe Page 3 of this article addresses your issue with the “resurrection stone.”  It was better handled in the book: http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Holy-Harry-Frederica-Mathewes-Green-07-15-2011?offset=0&max=1

If nothing else, the films before this one do persistently portray Harry as a reluctant hero, so you could read his destruction of the wand as a step back into reluctance, now that his work is done. There are plenty of hints about that, even in this film.

I don’t like the wand breaking either; one because it was played almost as a gag, and two because it wasn’t really explained. In the book, Harry uses it to repair his broken, original wand, and then puts it back in Dumbledore’s tomb. His plan is to die undefeated, and thus end the wand’s power, which he freely renounces. He drops the Res Stone for similar reasons, though in the book it was originally an accident, and he decides not to seek it out again. The whole point, sadly not conveyed as well in the film, is that Harry has become the true master of death because he freely accepts it rather than fleeing it like Voldemort or trying to control it with the Hallows.

@Brian
I understand your point that Dumbledore doesn’t come off well in the last book, so that his euthanasia endorsement could be viewed as part of his character flaws…but Harry goes so far to endorse Dumbledore’s actions in his final confrontation with Voldemort. With SDG’s indulgence, I’ll post the passages from the book…

I haven’t seen the film yet but now I think I will. Thank you, Pierce Oka, for explaining what happens to the Elder Wand in the book—now I don’t have to. The name “resurrection stone” is, I think, supposed to be ambiguous. The stone can’t actually resurrect anyone; it brings back a sort of ghost. The point of the books—one of the main themes of which are that we should not fear or seek to circumvent death—is that trying to bring back the dead is wrong. When other characters want to “resurrect” someone, they DO want the person or people to come back alive from the dead. But when Harry uses the stone, he is about to die and join the dead. He doesn’t use it to defy death, he uses it to sort of see the dead he is about to join, who keep him company on his awful journey.  In the book it is beautifully moving, as are all the times Rowling writes about Harry’s longing for the family he has lost. J.K. Rowling doesn’t say whether these last ones are “real” dead people or projections of them, but she implies that in this case they are real and they love Harry and are with him. It shows that death is not the end, and that just because we cannot see the dead does not mean that they are gone forever. There is no current popular literature I know of, for adults or children, that touches nearly any of Rowling’s themes: fear of death, the afterlife, longing for family, the selfishness that can lead to families having only one or two (or no) children, the idea that parents should not leave their children for any reason, the idea that people you do not like—in fact, people you hate—can actually be better people than those you love and admire, broad racial issues that are not related to Africa (or, I suppose in England, India and Pakistan) and many more.

Here is where the Snape’s action passes from “tactical killing” to euthanasia:
Pg. 683 (Snape’s memory that Harry is watching)
“If you don’t mind dying,” said Snape roughly, “why not let Draco do it?”
“That boy’s soul is not yet so damaged,” said Dumbledore. “I would not have it ripped apart on my account>”
“And my soul, Dumbledore? Mine?” (Snape)
“You alone know whether it will harm your soul to help an old man avoid pain and humiliation,” said Dumbledore, “I ask this one great favor of you, Severus, because death is coming for me as surely as… I confess I should prefer a quick, painless exit to the protracted and messy affair it will be if, for instance, Greyback is involved…Or dear Bellatrix, who likes to play with her food before she eats it.”

And here is where Harry endorses Dumbledore’s actions
pg. 740 (Harry’s final banter with Voldemort):
“Yes, Dumbledore’s dead,” said Harry calmly, “but you didn’t have him killed. He chose his own manner of dying, chose it months before he died, arranged the whole thing with the man you thought was your servant.”
_________________________________________________
Harry doesn’t endorse Dumbledore’s desire for a swift and painless death, but he does endorse choosing one’s time and manner of dying in a situation of mortal illness…Snape’s horror at Dumbledore’s “favor” is the only hedge, but he does it, and we’re to believe Snape a hero in the end.

@John M

Fair enough.  Haven’t read book seven since it first came out, and forgot that part.  Thanks.  :-)

Just saw the movie yesterday.  Very good, overall.  Probably my favorite of the movies from my 2nd favorite of the books (book 6 was better by a mile).  Interestingly, I walked out with the impression that maybe Dumbledore had another reason to encourage Snape to kill him (he also seemed more ok with the idea of Draco doing it in the movie, if I heard him right).  He knew then that Voldemort would not directly become the true owner of the Elder Wand if he came to possess it later, and wouldn’t be able to take advantage of its full power.  In any case, the confusion of true ownership of the Elder Wand caused by Voldemort not being the one to disarm or kill Dumbledore played into the defender’s hands.  I don’t remember if that was a change from the book or not.

It was also good to see that they handled the partial redemption of Snape pretty well.  I started book 7 absolutely convinced that Rowling had painted herself into a corner.  That there she was either not going to redeem Snape and basically show that Dumbledore had been foolish all along (along with everyone who trusted him), or that she was going to redeem Snape in some completely unsatisfactory way that was going to fail the disbelief test.  That she pulled it off as well as she did was the best part of book 7 and maybe the best part of the 8th movie.

@John M. Of course, given that Harry was raised by the Dursleys, and there is no Prof. Aquinas at Hogwarts, we can’t expect him to have too much knowledge of the finer points of moral philosophy (one reason why I didn’t have trouble with his rules breaking; being lawful good would be out of character for someone raised by the Dursleys.)

@Brian and Pierce

Thanks for the charitable replies. They could use some humanities classes at Hogwarts, I agree. It’s not really that I look down on Harry the character. But this is one of Rowling’s only two follow-ups to Dumbledore’s own assessment of his request (the other is Snape’s evident loathing for doing it). The author, who has introduced the themes of accepting death and that murder tears one’s soul and is toying with the question of the “greater good”, doesn’t give enough evidence to us that Snape’s act of killing is anything but a tragic necessity.

I agree that, aside from this point, Snape’s redemption is artfully done. But there was a way that Rowling could have written it so that Snape’s apparent act of murder would have been more like taking someone off life support (which is not always euthanasia). Here’s an old but extremely thorough discussion on this about this from after the 6th book but before the 7th book came out:
http://felicitys-mind.livejournal.com/2616.html

I am surprised that in a Catholic newspaper this movie is being reviewed. The pope has warned the dangers of the Harry Potter movies and books.  This is satanic. Why in a Catholic newspaper?  I can understand in a secular newspaper this is the case but here? It is very dangerous to open oneself to the occult and the devil.  Wake up!

@ Maria: Did you read any of the above before commenting?

@ Maria: We are not called as Catholics to hide in a cave and completly view and watch Catholic movies, books and music. We are supposed to engage the culture and in order to do so we must be able to actually expose ourselves to the culture. With the Catholic lens in our eye we keep what is good and throw away what is bad. In the early church Christians eventually baptized pagan temples. Steven is doing a service to the church by engaing the culture and taking the ideas that Christians and non-Christians are exposing themselves to and diricting thier gaze to Christ. It is good to be passionite for Christ but do so with an informed mind so that you can attract others to his beauty and not turn them away with unreasoned emotionalism. Keep loving Christ Maria. Keep being a culture warrior Steven.

This movie is anti-Christian but that is not the point here.  The point is that Christians who pay money to see or rent this movie contribute profit to one of the most anti-Christian institutions in the history of the world, “Hollywood”.  Hollywood is anti-God, this is no big secret, and all who pay money to watch their corruption of God’s Kingdom are lukewarm Christians at best.
Now are you all ready for this!  Warner brothers, the company that made this Harry Potter movie.  This same Warner brothers also happens to be involved in the porn industry big time. http://torrentfreak.com/warner-bros-signs-deal-with-porn-firm/
So all you lukewarm Catholics including the Catholic Register, keeping buying their products and aid them in spreading pure evil!
May God have mercy on you all!

Gary Downey:

You’re wrong about this film. And your OPINION of what makes people “lukewarm” Catholics is nothing more than that.

Gail Finke

It’s not my opinion about Warner Brothers promoting Porn that is a fact!
And it’s not my opinion that people who pay to see this movie put money in Warner Bros Bank Account!  These are facts not opinions!

As far as Lukewarm, yes that is my opinion.

I honestly see a lot of good and redemptive qualities in the Harry Potter series, both the movies and books. I greatly enjoyed both of them. I think it very fanciful that anyone reading the books would be driven towards the occult. Anyone well instructed in the faith, should have ZERO temptation towards the occult from a well-written childrens tale. We need not succumb to superstition or create lynch mobs by whipping up the masses into a frenzy over Harry Potter. There are much more serious things Catholics need attend to, like the actual new age and occultism at work. The Harry Potter franchise upholds a high moral ground. The characters given to moral ambiguity, like Voldemort, whom exchange morality for power are the ones who succumb to a downfall. The power of love is the overriding and eventual triumph in these stories and no notion could be further from Christian truth. While nowhere near the beauty, substance and masterpiece of the faithful and brilliant tolkien (heck, how many writers these days even come close?) these are good moral and inspiring stories for this age and I think them worthy for any catholic to enjoy with the understanding of how to put magic and occultism reasonably into context. If you’re going to give or read them to your children or let them watch the film, have that discussion with them and praise what is good about the franchise.

@Gary
The money goes towards paying all the people that worked on Harry Potter (a series so replete with Christian themes that it’s a wonder Aslan and Queen Lucy of Narnia never showed up in it), not to whatever pr0n WB may be involved in. Furthermore, if I granted your second point: if we trace all money we spend, I’m sure at one point or another it has wound up paying for something sinful. Guess I shouldn’t have tipped my waiter, he might use it to buy a Twilight book or something.

The church warns the faithful against sorcery and witchcraft, therefore, the question is why are we entertaining ourselves with Harry Potter?  If the Pope warns against it and the Head Exorcist, Father Gabriel Amorth in Rome warn against it, and Jesus says to His Apostles, “Whoever hears you, hears ME,” then why are we not heeding those warnings?  Why are we RECOMMENDING people see these movies and read these books?  Do you not know that there are spiritual influences that can enter your life and make you blind to the danger of this?  This is what I see when I read all those posts of people who support Harry Potter. Knowing Church teaching, you should be warning against it.  If you are not, then you are going by your own opinion.  Opinions must be formed with church teaching so as to not mislead the Catholic faithful.  It seems you are reviewing films based upon your own opinion and upon pop culture, not the place for a CATHOLIC venue.

I’m so disappointed in the Catholic Register.
I expected more since EWTN took over.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/harry-potter-expert-criticizes-vatican-newspapers-glowing-review-of-deathly

Hi Steven,
I just wanted to say “thank you” for such a faithful, well-reasoned review of the Potter movies. I recently stumbled across the Lifesite News article on Harry Potter (the one that pretty much says the series is evil at its core and no Catholic should have anything to do with it) and have been trying to throw some Catholic common sense into the comment section over there (my comments are under “John3thirty”). After reading many of the comments I became a bit disheartened about how absolutely ridiculous some Catholics can be - that is, until I stopped over here and read YOUR article and the majority of the comments below it. How refreshing to know that there are many Catholics out there who can still reason well and recognize goodness, truth, and beauty in something that doesn’t have an impramatur. :)
Please keep up the great work!
In Christ,
Greg

“The church warns the faithful against sorcery and witchcraft, therefore, the question is why are we entertaining ourselves with Harry Potter?”
-
The “magic” practiced by the characters in Harry Potter does not fit the definition of sorcery or witchcraft as they are condemned by the Church, anymore than, say, the powers of Glinda the Good Witch, or the Excellent Prismatic Spray. The power wielded is referred to as “magic” because it is a convenient word to use to signify something that would otherwise need a lengthy and unwieldy moniker, like “genetically inherited ability to manipulate matter via uttering certain syllables and moving certain objects in a specific manner”. It’s like the Force in Star Wars, but with a Western rather than Eastern flavour. Or like the X-men, but with a fantastical rather than scientific bent. As to why we entertain ourselves with it, it would seem that the great Christian writers of our time (Tolkien, Lewis, Chesterton), all realized that the best way to tell a Christian story was through the mode of fantasy, and Harry Potter is simply continuing that trend.

Why does it seem that Harry Potter is the only pop culture phenomenon relevant enough spark debate amongst those who consider themselves devout Catholics?  Why is it the only book to always come with the warning label ‘Pope Condemns’.  Is that the only book of modern lit the pope actually decided to pick up? I guess he didn’t have time to read The Golden Compass, Da Vinci or Twilight or you would see that objection brought out in the on-going debates amongst those books.  But there are no real debates for those books.

Catholics seem agreed upon that Da Vinci and Golden Compass are bad.  People don’t get to up in arms about Twilight.  Maybe because it is more popular with the tween crowd and not across the board like Harry Potter. But devout Catholics (and Christians) go to war with each other over Harry Potter.

Have other books spawned such outcry and discussion amongst believers?  When Wizard of Oz came out, did Christians highly object to the Good Witches?

Did we ever see ‘Bishops urge Catholics not to watch ‘Bewitched’.

Did ‘Pope Condemns Star Wars’ ever make the headlines in the days before the internet?

Did ‘Star Wars is leading millions of kids into the new age movement’ make the newspapers?

Harry Potter is not the first book series to have an emphasis on a school for youth to learn about being a witch.  It is definitely the most popular though.

Surly Harry Potter is not the only popular book out there worth talking about?  Is it? What about ‘The Hunger Games?’

What will be the next great contested book among Catholics that will spawn years of name calling and finger pointing? 

‘You’re not a real Catholic if you read Harry Potter’

“You need to lighten up. It’s just fantasy’.

It’s really the widespread popularity that makes it the topic of debate methinks, and the fact that it began as a children’s series. No one’s ever given me a hard time about being Catholic and reading Dresden Files or Fullmetal Alchemist, or any of the other excellent fantasy works I’ve read.
=========
If no new controversial books show up, I’ll try and write something to solve the problem. It’ll feature a friendly dragon or two, which should get the Society for the Prevention of Averted Biblical Symbolism involved. Then I’ll throw in a conflict between an oppressive, regimented, but idolatrous church and an upstart natural theology religion. This way, some Catholics will see it as a metaphor for the early Church bringing down Roman paganism, and some neo-pagans will see it as a metaphor for the New Age movement supplanting Catholicism. They’ll be a lot of arguing as to my original intent, and it won’t help matters if I give all the characters Way Cool Mind Powers. It shall be titled “Will Dragonheart and the Golden Transcendence vs. the Chaoticists of the Ringworld Temple of Doom”.

“You need to lighten up. It’s just fantasy’.
“why are we entertaining ourselves with Harry Potter?”
******
These two contrary statements have a common center: fantasy is not a serious medium, but just a frivolity, a diversion from real life. On the contrary, fantasy is a perfect medium for exploring aspects of our faith. After all, only in Christianity do we have the “myth become fact” of the Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection. The supernatural-ness of these primary events is why the true fairytales and myths, the ones that most speak to our human nature, are birthed in a Christian imagination. From the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks, and the pen writes. It’s hard escaping the grip of a Christian imagination; those pesky themes of sacrifice and love and heroism creep in like mice at a cheese tasting party.

As Pierce Oka wrote, “the best way to tell a Christian story was through the mode of fantasy, and Harry Potter is simply continuing that trend.” I couldn’t agree more. Our human selves are not just computers with legs, to be fed facts and figures. We are not souls trapped in a body to exist on a steady diet of philosophy. But where the natural meets the super-natural, where there is heart-piercing beauty and goodness to break the power of evil, we find another incarnation of the Truth.

Pierce, if you end up writing that Golden Transcendence Chaoticists Temple of Doom” book, I’m buying a copy.

You aren’t by any chance the same Maria Johnson that taught the Anglo-Saxon and LotR courses I took, are you? :)

You have learned well, my young Padawan.

It’s remarkable that learning about old myths - Baldur and Loki, Demeter and Persephone, Atalanta and Hippomenes can inform the readers (and viewers) of new ones. I wonder how many of those who condemn Harry would also scorn Hesiod and Homer?

The strange thing is, with all this ends-justify-the-means problems in the books, the biggest being Dumbledore’s ordering his own murder and Snape’s committing it (after his own healthy objections that it was one thing he would not do for Dumbledore), Rowling herself seems to have identified the key moral problem and set it in Dumbledore’s own past, his youthful “for the greater good” nonsense that ended up inspiring a friend (in Rowlings mind, apparently a homosexual partner) to great evil. 

I’d have to go back and reread the books and rewatch the movies, but maybe an alternate moral interpretation could be made that Dumbledore ultimately never got over his ends-justify-the-means mentality and was ultimately an evil character.

I’m an Evangelical Christian who greatly enjoys Stephen D’s reviews. I thought until tonight that only Evangelicals embarrassed themselves over Harry Potter! Now, I see that Catholics do, too! :)
At Maria, Gary, Mary and others, the magic in Harry is totally UNREAL and unrelated to real occult practices: it’s fairy tale magic. HAVE YOU ACTUALLY READ ANY OF THOSE BOOKS? If you did, I am sure you’d realised how absurd this singling out of Harry Potter is.
It does have flaws (as must have all human achievements) like, as discussed above, appearing to promote euthanasia but compared to the majority of today’s books, its main themes are highly moral. The films, however good and entertaining, do not (cannot?) give full justice to these themes and notably Harry’s renunciation of the Hallows, which is a pity. so why are they singled out for such outrage?
What interesting comments!