Hollywood is not above gouging filmgoers every chance it gets (see the current 3-D scam for proof) and it’s obvious Warner Brothers Studios is out to squeeze every last dime from the fans of the Harry Potter franchise by splitting the last of J.K. Rowling’s novels into two features. Still, I held out some hope that these movies would be solidly made and entertaining, as the film series has steadily improved and Rowling’s material is undeniably compelling. Unfortunately, greed has gotten in the way of David Yates’ artistic vision as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 is a cumbersome, plodding piece of work that runs in the face of the previous entries.
When last we left Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), he and his cohorts Ron and Hermione (Rupert Grint and Emma Watson) had fled Hogwarts School of Magic as it had been taken over by Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) and his minions. In search of the five remaining Horcruxes, each of which contains a piece of Voldemort’s soul and could render him vulnerable when destroyed, this frantic trio find themselves on the run because various assassins have been sent to kill them before they succeed.
While this might seem to be an overly simplistic summary of a 2-˝ hour film, nothing more than this happens. The movie does little but run in place, as the search that should drive the story becomes a millstone of repetitious events that in the end covers very little ground. Harry and his friends end up achieving less than half of their quest by the film’s end and instead of setting up a feeling of anticipation for the series’ final part, there’s a sense of dread that there’s far too much ground to cover, especially if its approached with the same deadening pace that’s applied here.
Perhaps the oddest thing about the film is that there’s not an overpowering sense of urgency or tension. The assassins on Harry’s trail are lightweights and lack menace. With the exception of an early sequence, easily the best in the film, we only get glimpses of Voldemort, while this is the only appearance of the turncoat wizard Snape (Alan Rickman). That being said, it’s quite a moment as we get a true sense of Voldemort’s evil with him feeding an instructor from Hogwart’s to his pet snake. There’s a palpable feeling of horror here that the film never recreates and it suffers for it.
To be sure, fans of the series will likely have few objections and as with the other entries in the series, this one is a delight to look at. However, in brushing aside the strategy they’ve built their success on – film the highlights of Rowling’s novels and scuttle the minutiae – the producers of Hallows, Part 1 have abused the good will of their fans, foisting upon them a movie that spins its wheels and fails to provide a compelling end that viewers and the series deserve.
Contact Chuck Koplinski at ckoplinski@usd116.org.
And yet this entire review neglets the fact that the movies are, in those who follow the series, an extension of the novel. You mention that the three manage to complete to your opinion less than half of their quest, however, the point that concluded this film is more than two thirds into the final book, completing well over what Potter fans expected the film to include. There is a reason why the novels were split in two, and as you mention it has the reason to 'squeeze every last dime', it also enables the novels plot to be covered in it's entirety, rather than scraping over it as was normal in the previous films. The compelling end you were searching for is most obviously not present until the very end of the novel, a novel most usually doesn't have it's pivotal moments in the middle.
You also mentioned the lack of horror to the film, which makes me wonder have you further forgotten the target audience of the novel and not the film? These books were originally written for children and adolescents. Short of slapping an R rating onto the piece to include more horror and hence cutting off the very target audience, there was little more to be done.
It is clear to me that again, film critics are unable to detach themselves from critique to see the film in it's bigger picture, and as such, will lessen the impact the film will have on those who have yet had the chance to enjoy one of the most important series of novels and movies of this and the previous decade.
Go into the film after reading the novel, and go into the film with the understanding that it is part one of two, and will not conclude. That was it's point.
The two-part movie idea was not based on greed (at least solely), but the addition of detail into the movie as well. However, the inspection of detail seems to have effected the amount of effort the director put into making it emotional. How can the trio react so nonchalantly after the wedding scene and numerous other encounters? Even after all they have seen, what seems like it could be the death of countless of their beloved friends, family, and (more importantly) allies, leaves nothing but a short emotional scene before the fact is wiped from their minds a small time later.
The review is truthful to a point. The only thing you've gotten wrong is the fact that there should be an exciting end to part one of two.
Despite what some fans think, a movie is supposed to entertain its audience. Promising that the next movie will be great while putting us to sleep in Part 1 is poor form.
You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? I truly despise people who feel that they can argue about things they are ignorant of. Read the entire series and watch the movie again. Then something you say might be of merit.