I don't believe this is made clear in the movie or maybe I just need to watch it again. It looks like they are fighting, Neville kills the snake, I don't notice anything rebound, Voldermort just starts to dissolve. I'll watch it again.
I don't think they really described the Resurrection Stone all that well. I mean they all ready see ghosts here and there. Olivander spoke as if the resurrection was permanent when he referenced the "control over life and death" or maybe that is just a conclusion I jumped to. I mean he spoke to his passed beloved ones who were clearly ghosts, but all they did was give him courage as far as I can tell. I guess that could be called resurrected... Thanks!
Oh, just admit it, you watch this movie over and over.I prefer the second installment. "On an elevator to Hell!"
I think the key point re the Resurrection Stone (and the book DH did explain it) was that while it enabled those who had passed on to return (not quite living, but more substantial than ghosts) at the request/command of the Resurrection Stone, initially, those who had sought the Stone (for example, the Second Brother in The Tale of The Three Brothers who wished to see his beloved who had died, or Dumbledore who wished to see his sister again), sought to return a loved one who had died because of their own need, or grief, or feeling of loss. Harry, on the other hand, used it to have the dead whom he loved accompany him in order to give him courage to enable his own self-sacrifice. In essence, he used it for a "greater good" than merely summoning the dead because he missed them.
I think the book allows for greater exposition of all of this - over the course of 700 plus pages, of course. However, on a recent flight, I caught the last 40 minutes or so of DH2 and it seemed to me that after Neville killed the snake, there was a brief wand duel between Harry and Voldemort; after the killing spell (Avada Kedavra) was cast by Voldemort and the Expelliarmus spell by Harry, the spells collided whereupon the latter's wand arced up, and falling, allowed Harry to catch it easily.
Now, as I have read the book a few times (cough), I remember it quite well; however, I was dozing on the flight and certainly didn't not pay close attention to the movie, and the inevitable short-cuts that were taken (which is one of the reasons I so often dislike movie adaptations of books I have loved). I agree that Neville's role towards the end of the movie was not as well fleshed out as it had been in the book.
Last edited:
