Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, part 1

[cinemabon]

Directed by David Yates


This film should have a subtitle, the darker side of Harry Potter; for with the re-emergence of Voldemort, the Harry Potter series has definitely added more violence and other dark elements to its palate. Even in the opening shot, we see a woman slowly tortured to death. Yates spares no punches and goes for the close up. This is no kiddie’s movie. This is serious stuff. Harry Potter has grown up and is an adult.

Yates and script writer Steve Kloves follow the J. K. Rowling novel very closely. Nothing is left out. Most of the plot twists and scenes from the series final novel are included. Each shot of Eduardo Serra’s cinematography is filled with detail from what can only be an art director’s dream – from the wizardry world headquarters to the Malfoy mansion – the Potter world is a fascinating one. This was Rowling’s longest book of the series and it’s all up there on the screen, every page, every scene, and every conflict. This is Yates third turn at directing a “Potter” film and his next installment should be a slam dunk if it is remotely close to this level. Yates has delivered a quality film for the fans of Harry Potter, and I hope they appreciate it.

Voldemort has raised his ugly head and more or less taken over things. Dumbledore and his influence at the Ministry of Magic are over. Potter is an outlaw and hunted. The days of finding refuge at Hogwarts are over. In the wizardry world, it’s every witch or warlock for him or herself. Yet, Harry is not alone. He will always have Ron and Hermione at his side to help him through the rough times. When the trio are cut off from all of their resources, they set out on a mission to find the items that Dumbledore began as his quest – the horcruxes, the tiny bits of Voldemort’s soul spread all over the place.

Rowling was not afraid to kill off characters in the final book. Several important people of the past are lost in the opening battle. Throughout the film, many pay a high price for their loyalty. Yates has crafted a fine commercial outing filled with action, suspense, and some surprises along with a sense of finality. For fans, this film is exactly what they’ve been waiting for. However, for the public at large, you might find that if you are not familiar with some of the premises, you’ll be scratching your head and saying, “Huh?” Highly recommended for fans of series.

[oscar jubis]

Thanks for the review. I enjoyed this movie. Some of the sequences are absolutely brilliant, including the animated one. I cannot think of a more distinguished cast, mostly veteran thespians from the UK. And the young actors playing Harry, Ron and Hermione are seasoned performers by now. I went against my usual tendencies by watching it during opening weekend. I went with my son Dylan who was enjoying it for the third time in as many days. If you forgive a cliche...he thinks money grows on trees!

[cinemabon]

Between September and last week, I spent $350 for new XBOX games for Michael. Tell me about it!

[Chris Knipp]

Many famous actors indeed (Bill Nihy all too briefly!), but were they necessary, or just the result of a big budget? An English friend of mine, who saw it on the BFI iMax theater's giant screen on the South Bank in London, thought there were only two really good scenes and that the huge screen only magnified the boredom. However, while I, like he, find these things almost unintelligible to someone who has not read any of the books, and we are not very impressed by the acting of Radcliffe and Watson (Gint seems the best actor of the three and the most vivid face), I find most of the visuals this time through quite beautiful, the landscape scenes particularly ravishing, and I bear the Harry Potter films no ill will. They just don't mean much to me. And the millions who (for me somewhat inexplicably) love them don't need me.

[cinemabon]

How self-effacing... and so unlike you to sound trite. What has brought this lion into my lamb's world? I wonder...

I found most of the Rowling book unbearably boring, especially the chapters when Harry and Herminone ran around from campsite to campsite and bore (beared?) their feelings to each other. I suppose this was to clarify that they had no love toward one another.

I try not to rate a film as a "fan" but as a critic. I am a fan of Bond films, but I find many Bond films unwatchable as a critic. The Harry Potter franchise has taken what started as the moving story of a young boy into what amounted as an epic classic struggle between good and evil... with no pay off. The end is terrible (no spoilers here but I hated the end of the seventh novel). When I bitterly complained to other members of my family who are fans, they informed me, in no uncertain terms... "you didn't understand it."

Yours, truly... standing in London fog.

[Chris Knipp]

Do I sound trite, or contrite? Or am I just being modest? I have to review films from books I haven't read, and I've reviewed hugely popular films like Inception, the Twilight trilogy, the Dragon Tattoo trilogy, Avatar. Reviewing a hugely popular, complicated film that's wildly popular is a daunting task when one doesn't understand the film. It's a valid criticism of the Harry Potter films that they make so little sense to someone who hasn't read the books. But that doesn't make for a very detailed or interesting review. It's always better to have read the books, or informed oneself about them, whether one's a fan or not. Of course a fan should not praise a film just because he's a fan of the books it's based on. But Harry Potter fans don't seem to do that. They argue over whether the film was a worthy adaptation of the book or not. It's not a slam dunk. But the box office is.

[cinemabon]

Ranks ninth as fastest films to reach 200 million... IMDB as source

[tabuno]

The latest Harry Potter movie for an outsider who stopped reading the final four books, the movie as a movie stand alone is among the two worst movies that I've seen this year. There was no associated, connective elements in the movie and the result was a disjointed, confusing, meandering number of scenes stitched together. The turn to the dark side has only diminished the original charm of the first several Harry Potter movies and transformed this fantasy, magical movie more towards THE LORD OF THE RINGS atmospherics and and such, this latest Harry Potter movie pales by comparison. Older teenage movies don't necessarily have to be as dark as this movie to be impressive or great, which may be more problematic for this movie as perhaps the source material may have mightily constrained the movie version. Even though the third installment of NARIA that came out recently this year wasn't among my best movie choices, it still possessed that plot development flow and incorporated a strong dose of character development, conflict, and growth that didn't seem to resonate in Harry Potter. As in fact, from a character age stand point, a better contrast would be this Harry Potter film and THE CHRONICLES OF NARIA: PRINCE CASPIAN (2008) which actually just barely made my top ten movie list for 2008.

However, maybe there needs to be a whole new media category - a novel-movie fusion category that retains the importance of the written language and combines the artistic experience with an audio-visual version of the same. From a traditionalist standpoint, the educational value of the amazing appreciation for reading along with threatrical participation cannot be undervalued. So for us lazy, non-readers, perhaps we really are missing the whole point of this movie-going experience phenomenon.

[cinemabon]

You certainly have a valid point. As a stand alone film, I would find it difficult, if not impossible to understand the familiarity between the characters. Part of the problem with a sequel to a general audience is knowing that everyone who sees the film has seen previous versions or has read the novels. You could make the same case for other films as well. The first novel or film lays the foundation of general understanding that is implied in the films/books to follow.

I might question why you chose to attend Harry Potter if you knew that was the case.

[Chris Knipp]

I had seen two or three previous Harry Potters. And I try to see everything, or at least a cross section, and try to be acquainted with what a large number of people are watching.

[tabuno]

You certainly have a valid point. As a stand alone film, I would find it difficult, if not impossible to understand the familiarity between the characters. Part of the problem with a sequel to a general audience is knowing that everyone who sees the film has seen previous versions or has read the novels. You could make the same case for other films as well. The first novel or film lays the foundation of general understanding that is implied in the films/books to follow.

I might question why you chose to attend Harry Potter if you knew that was the case.

I was repeatedly asked if I wanted to go by a close personal acquaintance. However, since I had seen all the previous Harry Potter movies and hadn't seen one in 3-D, I eventually caved in out of curiousity. Sometimes it's fascinating to go to a movie that one is unsure about. At least I obtain some strong opinions and beliefs to write about regardless of whether I like the movie or not.

[Chris Knipp]

Yes, definitely this is the case very often, I would think.