HP DH Part Two All Encompassing Analysis Part Dos

SURPRISE, two new blogs within 12 hours of each other! 

So, starting from the top of the film:

The recap of Voldemort taking Dumbledore's wand and the interrogation of Griphook go as we expect them to.  The film's first mistake is Ollivander's response when Harry asks if he's familiar with the Deathly Hallows.  Ollivander basically recaps what we learned from Xenophilius a few chapters previously.  According to Rowling, however, Ollivander is confused by the question.  "His profession [wandlore] is his obsession," and, although he's familiar with the history of the Elder Wand, he has no idea about the other hallows.  This is significant because it confirms the difference between horcruxes and hallows and Harry's belief that Voldemort has chosen horcruxes over hallows as his protection from death.  Harry had suspected this previously and fancied that he would combat Voldemort's horcruxes by being Master, Conqueror, Vanquisher of Death with the aid of the hallows.  As our perception of hallows and horcruxes develop with Harry's we know he will need to choose between the two.  The fact that Harry chooses to speak to Griphook first about stealing a horcrux over speaking to Ollivander about the Elder Wand/ask about the Deathly Hallows demonstrates his choice to destroy horcruxes over his desire to master the hallows.  This action also demonstrates the trust Harry places in Dumbledore because Dumbledore never mentioned the hallows as a veritable way to overcome the Dark Lord.  We miss ALL of this when Ollivander lets Harry know about the three hallows in the movie.  

The Gringotts heist goes very much as it does in the book, with the small exceptions of the removal of Travers at Bellatrix's side, the probity-probes, and the Flagrante Charm on the treasure in the Lestranges' vault.  On the whole, this scene was exciting and true to the book.

Harry's revelation that the final horcrux is at Hogwarts and is related to Rowena Ravenclaw is done well considering it's a stream of Voldemort's consciousness in the book and that the movie audience is unaware of Tom Riddle's attachment to each of the founders of Hogwarts/his desire to make something related to each of them into a horcrux.  I guess we're just supposed to gloss over the fact that Voldemort somehow checks on three hallows instantaneously?  It's a detail that is necessary to account for a book, but a loophole that goes unnoticed in a movie.  Voldemort's enraged freakout and mass slaughter of goblins is shown elegantly as he walks, bloody and barefooted, through a room of dead goblins and followers.  I thought showing the deceased Griphook and the sword disappearing from his hand (presumably to go inhabit the Sorting Hat) to be a nice touch.

I rather liked how, in the book, Aberforth used his goat patronus to throw the Death Eaters off the scent of Harry's stag.  Then again, the movies have never previously mentioned Aberforth or his affinity for goat charming as the books did, so it may not have flowed nicely with the scene.  This brings up another point, albeit a small one, that I take issue with.  Movie Aberforth rightly asserts that Albus never told Harry about his family and brother.  Book Albus, though, mentions Aberforth at least once.  It's not a flattering light since it's when Albus is encouraging Hagrid to ignore hate mail the way Aberforth did after the goat charming incident, mentioning in passing that it may have been because Aberforth couldn't read.  My point is that Movie Aberforth shouldn't make that accusation when Book Albus does indeed mention him.  Sort of.