With Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1—or as I like to think of it, in Fellini terms, Harry Potter 6 1/2—the series finally crosses the line into the realm of the horror film. This should come as no surprise, since it’s been heading that way all along. And while Deathly Hallows: Part 1 most assuredly can’t stand on its own, it fulfills the promise of Brit TV director David Yates as the perfect Harry Potter director—and quite possibly as a filmmaker to reckon with in general. However, this is not a film for the uninitiated; it would be a bad starting point for a newcomer. But then I find it difficult to imagine that there would be many people who, after avoiding the first six movies, suddenly have the urge to take up the series now.
This entry starts where Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince leaves off, and it definitely assumes the viewer is familiar with that film. In all honesty, I suspect that it’s only because I had re-watched Half-Blood Prince on Tuesday that I remembered what a “horcrux” is—and as a result, knew just why Harry and his compatriots were so keen on tracking horcruxes down. I suppose it doesn’t really matter all that much—think of them as a MacGuffin—but I was glad to know all the same. Of course, I’m only a casual fan. That’s to say, I’ve liked all the films, loved two of them (now three, or two-and-a-half anyway), but my knowledge of the intricacies of the world they inhabit is by no means encyclopedic. True Potterheads are tut-tutting even as we speak that I wouldn’t know what a horcrux is without a refresher course.
Is this the darkest of all the Harry Potter movies? I’d say it is. I also think that ought to have been expected, since Half-Blood Prince climaxed with the death of one of the series’ most beloved characters. That set the stage for the ultimate battle that’s always been at the center of the overall story, and it’s not surprising that the mortality rate is going up—in part because the stakes have gone up. I suppose the cynical might want to factor in the desire to create a certain closure for the characters by the author, but even that is as much a need for satisfying the reader/viewer as anything else.
Complaints that the last book has been cut into two parts strike me as especially ill-founded now that I’ve seen this latest installment. Unless there’s precious little left to the story—which I don’t see as likely—I can’t see how this could effectively have been telescoped into a more compact narrative. Even as it stands, fairly major events and at least two main character deaths take place offscreen and are referred to almost in passing. And it isn’t as if the film feels padded. I suppose some of the dialogue scenes with the three main characters might have been trimmed, but not to the degree that it would have altered things. This does seem to be a case where the length of the story required two films rather than one.
As filmmaking, this is probably the most accomplished of the series, with the possible exception of Alfonso Cuarón’s Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)—and I’d have to actually compare the two directly to make that call. Plus, like Yates’ Half-Blood Prince, this may qualify as a better Harry Potter film than Azkaban: There’s both a sense of more filmmaking freedom here—the inclusion of an animated sequence is very striking and well judged—and seemingly a greater interest in truly exploring the characters of Harry, Ron and Hermione. It’s fortunate that Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and, especially, Emma Watson have developed considerably as actors over the years.
Is this a perfect film? No. The very fact that it’s essentially half a story precludes it working as a single film. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. I’ve never heard anyone complain of the fact that Fritz Lang’s Dr. Mabuse (1922) is in two parts, and, of course, the two Kill Bill films are a more contemporary example. It does, however, make it impossible to judge the film fairly. For example, I can react to the characters’ response to what happens, but not really to the event itself. (I can say no more without saying too much.) However, the film is on firmer—and certainly more horrifically interesting—ground with this installment’s actual final sequence. Now, if only Part 2 lives up to it. Rated PG-13 for some sequences of intense action violence, frightening images and brief sensuality.
I found the film to be enjoyable as well.
Really, the entire look of the film is radically different than the others. The animation sequence was especially good too. And I found myself comparing Deathly Hallows to Lord of The Rings as opposed to the preceding Harry Potter movies. At the very least, it cannot be mistaken for a ‘kid’s’ movie.
While I understand your argument that this is essentially an unfinished story, I’m not sure if that makes sense in the context of a series of films that build upon each other. Would the death of one character matter if you hadn’t witnessed their relationship from the prior movies?
On the other hand, I do feel the beginning sequence was rushed and there was more ‘shaky’ cam than I am used to. Still, those are minor quibbles.
I had been waiting to see your review of this. Again, you kick the crap out of so many other reviewers. (Seriously, several of the other reviews I’ve read sounded like a bunch of grad students who can’t really find fault with a book so they pick on the author’s footnotes.)
“Complaints that the last book has been cut into two parts strike me as especially ill-founded now that I’ve seen this latest installment”
Agreed! I must admit that I was a bit worried initially that the split was just a ploy by Warner Bros. to score more revenue, and maybe it was, but if DH pt. 2 holds up as well as the first one, I’ve got no complaints about it.
“As filmmaking, this is probably the most accomplished of the series, with the possible exception of Alfonso Cuarón’s Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban ”
Agreed again! PoA had been my favorite of the films up until this point, but I think I might like Deathly Hallows better. I heard a reviewer on CNN complain that Deathly Hallows too closely followed the book but I actually think that’s part of what strengthens it because it keeps the movie tied to the story and doesn’t open up a space to go to cheesy Hollywood teen movies with plastic characters, rehashed plot, etc.
I had been waiting to see your review of this. Again, you kick the crap out of so many other reviewers.
Thank you, though I’m not really as violent as that kind of sounds.
I must admit that I was a bit worried initially that the split was just a ploy by Warner Bros. to score more revenue, and maybe it was, but if DH pt. 2 holds up as well as the first one, I’ve got no complaints about it.
Of course, that’s a wait-and-see thing, but I have trouble seeing how anything like major cuts could be made in Part 1 to bring it down to tractable length to encompass Part 2 — unless there’s precious little left of the story. The biggest problem I have with the split has nothing to do with the split and everything to do with it being in 3D. I am sooo over 3D — and that’s after having just seen Tangled this afternoon which has pretty good 3D. I’m just tired of feeling like I’m looking through a View-Master.
Agreed again! PoA had been my favorite of the films up until this point, but I think I might like Deathly Hallows better.
Right now, Azkaban, Half-Blood Prince and this are on pretty even footing for me. I’d need to see them all in close proximity to make a call. Once we have Part 2, I may actually go through all the films again. Granted, that’s a significant commitment in time. That’s also why I say “may.”
I have seen all the Harry Potter films mostly because I have a ‘little sister’ who chooses most of the movies we see together; otherwise I might have stopped after the first one or two. I have to say that this film has lingered with me much more than the others (actually none of the others have lingered at all!) and I think it’s because of the slower pace; those moments where the characters are allowed to truly interact with each other in an unhurried way. Usually the films are trying to pack so much story in the alloted time that there is no room for those ‘moments.’ I for one am glad they decided to turn the last book into two movies. It makes me think how richer the series could have been if they had done that with all the books (although it would have meant year-round filming so the child actors didn’t age out of their roles.) I even fantasized about a Harry Potter TV series which though admittedly weaker on the special effects could really allow the characters to blossom.
I agree that Harry Potter has been a horror series from the beginning. Here you have a boy who is whisked away from his awful home life into a magical world…only to discover that death exists even there and, if anything, is a great deal nastier. Et in Hogwarts ego. That fact is made all the more poignant by the existence of morally dubious remedies for death: the Philosopher’s Stone, the Horcruxes, the Hallows…
Actually, some of the horror is more pronounced in the novel: Nagini the snake isn’t magically disguised as Bathilda, she’s wearing her corpse and comes shooting out of her throat!
Anyways, the passage between Christmas in Godric’s Hollow and the breaking of the locket is my favorite in the entire series. There’s a combination of eeriness and reverence that Yates pulled off almost perfectly (and I do mean reverence in a specifically religious sense).
I have heard that many people were complaining about the film because they just did not understand all those small facts. And new persons are appearing who have never been mentioned in the movies before. That could seem confusing to many people but I do not think that anyone has watched the new Harry. I would advise the people to read the books before watching the last two movies. Otherwise it could seem a little confusing if you do not remeber Fleur, Dobby or if you have never heard of Bill Weasley.