Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I (2010)
As a standalone film it's average, but perhaps as half of a whole it's brilliant
Photo: Warner Bros.
Perhaps Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 is half of one good film, but as a standalone feature it is decidedly tedious. It's a two-and-a-half-hour camping trip with each scene fading to black as if to make time for commercials selling us the designer threads Harry, Ron and Hermione are sporting as they rough it in the woods of the wizarding world.
The cast includes Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Ralph Fiennes, Bill Nighy, John Hurt, Rhys Ifans, Helena Bonham Carter, Robbie Coltrane, Imelda Staunton, Jason Isaacs, Miranda Richardson, Warwick Davis, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Brendan Gleeson, Ciaran Hinds, Timothy Spall, David Thewlis, Julie Walters, Tom Felton, Bonnie Wright, Jamie Campbell-Bower, Richard Griffiths, Matthew Lewis, Evanna Lynch, Fiona Shaw, Helen McCrory, David O'Hara, Natalia Tena, Michael Gambon, Clémence Poésy, Frances De La Tour, Rade Serbedzija, Toby Jones, Nick Moran, Katie Leung and Domhnall Gleeson. For more information on this film including pictures, trailers and a detailed synopsis choose from the following menu.
Review
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1" is a Warner Bros. release, directed by David Yates and is rated PG-13 for some sequences of intense action violence, frightening images and brief sensuality. The running time is 2 hours 27 minutes.
Picking up almost immediately after the first film ends, we find Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) being shuttled around by friends and allies in an attempt to keep him hidden from the evil Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) and his nasty clan of Death Eaters. Voldemort's influence has found its way into the wizarding world's highest ranks and his final battle with Harry Potter is inevitable.
Meanwhile, Harry and his two best friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) set out to find the final five Horcruxes (pieces of Voldemort's soul) and destroy them in an attempt to weaken him so he can be destroyed. This is the journey we follow for the majority of the film and for the most part it involves watching the infamous trio camping in the woods, hiding from "Snatchers" and plotting their next move, which is more likely to come to them by happy accident rather than any manner of logical decision making or thought process. Though there are moments were you're asked to believe otherwise.
What's odd is I can remember reading everything seen in this film and not being bored for a second, but watching it on the big screen became an exercise in patience. Yates seemed determined to fatigue the audience to the point we're just as bored as the characters we are watching. Then, when a moment of action does come about it seems to happen within a blink of an eye and before you know it we're once again sitting around the campfire hoping something exciting will happen again soon.
Admittedly, when Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I is good, it's really good. The Malfoy's house elf, Dobby, had a significant role in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and he's back again in this film with special effects that would have you believe he's a living and breathing creature. His scenes are excellent and I'd say even more affecting than they were in the book.
The core trio of actors has also come to a point where they are these characters. Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson are Harry Potter, Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger respectively and they seem to have reached a level of believability in themselves. Grint in particular stands out as having an excellent understanding of his character's need for comedic timing and self-pity. He's a good example of an everyman's hero and he brings balance to the story and much needed laughs as the world of Harry Potter looks like the aftermath of the Apocalypse.
Stuart Craig has spent the last ten years working as the production designer on the Harry Potter films and he's put together a design that looks just as much like The Road or The Book of Eli as it does a Harry Potter film. The menace is certainly there and this is far from the kid's flick the first few were. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I is rightly rated PG-13 and parents that take their young ones to see it shouldn't be surprised if it causes them nightmares.
Muggles (non wizarding folk) are tortured and Voldemort's pet snake, Nagini, proves to be quite hungry and quite the master of disguise. And in his fleeting appearances, Voldemort shows just how nasty he can, and will, be.
In all honesty, it feels wrong to even review or grade this film on its own, because it clearly isn't a standalone feature. As half of one large, five-hour event Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I may very well be excellent, but as one film with eight months between it and its conclusion it just doesn't work. It's upsetting to say the least when you get to the end only to realize you'll have to wait eight more months to finish the story. The end of Part I is hardly a satisfactory close to what their trying to sell as a singular story. It truly feels as if reels were forgotten as the credits begin to roll.
I have no doubt in my mind Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II will be excellent once it hits theaters in July 2011, thanks primarily to the fact the tedium of Part I is out of the way. I actually hope the next time I see Part I is two-and-a-half-hours before I see Part II. This story was clearly meant to be told as a whole, and not as two halves. My grade on this one half reflects that and I hope my opinion changes once I see the completed project.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 35 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
I will argue for the split to the end!
While yes, it was an inconclusive film, the split was absolutely essential. Not only for plot details within the part 1, but more importantly for what's ahead in part 2. There is no way this book can be condensed into 2 1/2 (even 3!) hours of storyline.
If the next film is two-and-a-half-hours long it could have easily been cut to a three-and-a-half-hour movie without even trying. That is clearly evident by this film that could have been only 60 minutes long.
I'll agree that it could be cut significantly, but I would give the total film 4 hours, not 3 1/2, and both those numbers are simply too long for a studio movie like this.
It's a shame, I'm agreeing that these films really belong together…
Well, we're also speculating based on not seeing Part II yet, which could be bloated as well, although there is a lot left to happen so I doubt Part II will have nearly as much to cut.
Though I thoroughly enjoyed Deathly Hallows, feeling that the film moved along at a nice pace – building my excitement as it hurtled toward Part II, I must agree with your assessment Brad. Deathly Hallows could have easily fit into one film.
The Half-Blood Prince was the longest book and it was turned into a 2 1/2 hour film. While the Harry Potter fan in me is happy with the 2-part finale, it may be overkill for some viewers; especially when one considers that a sizeable portion of the book (the middle) is filled with lots of down time.
Regardless, I really enjoyed this film. I give it a solid B+
Over kill? Come on. The viewers would easily cough up money for 7 more films. They're pretty good and people love the story. Hell, I would definitely watch 7 more films if they had the right material.
I enjoyed the movie a lot, (definitely not a C…), but I agree the complete project will hopefully be superior thanks to the feeling of closure and the big payoff. Btw, I seriously hope Serra and Craig get some recognition, the movie looked stunning.
"In all honesty, it feels wrong to even review or grade this film on its own, because it clearly isn't a standalone feature."
This is how I felt about Kill Bill Vol. 1
Vol. 1 works extremely well on its own
I didn't have that problem with Kill Bill, those two films were quite different in tone and narrative. Part II of Deathly Hallows, won't have the same dramatic or tonal shift. It will just be a continuation. Plus I think the two Kill Bills stand apart quite well.
completely agree.
In my opinion, they were different in narrative because the first film didn't really have one. Which was my problem with it as a standalone work.
I completely disagree with the comment about the split being a cash grab. By splitting the movie, it achieves what it sets out to be which is basically a Harry, Ron and Hermione story with their friendship at the forefront while they face the horrors around them and try to deal with a way of defeating Voldemort.
One complete Deathly Hallows movie wouldn't have allowed the movie to focus in such detail on the three of them. It would have basically been one long action movie with few of the quieter dramatic moments that made DH Part 1 so compelling.
Not to mention you seemed to have expected one action set piece after the other. The movie is basically a drama with sporadic bursts of action all of which aim to complement the story and characters not hijack it.
The problem with everything you just said is that it doesn't need to take two and a half hours to accomplish it. It doesn't need more that 30 minutes to accomplish it in fact.
And yes, the split is a cash grab no matter how you try and justify it. Less greed would have allowed for one Deathly Hallows film the length of Return of the King (201 minutes) with a potential extended edition released on DVD/Blu-ray to satiate your need for more.
That is so true. The movie is way too long and doesn't really have a story on it's own but is clearly a half of a whole. And again there's the same dilemma of feeling hurried. If you're not familiar with the story and the characters through the books you don't have any emotional investment in them. So it really doesn't matter to you what happens to them aside from the trio. Sure you recognize the moments when you're supposed to feel sad but do you really?
It's strange how the movie could feel hurried and boring all at the same time. For me it just felt like a series of moments from the book and not a fluent story that works on its own. I'm not dissappointed though, it was almost exactly like I expected it to be.
a movie of 5 hour is surely boring .i have read book 5 times and still reading.After reading every page i still found story exciting.creating two part 'll increase suspense .
If the movie is harry potter, who cares about the time??? but the movie has to be interesting ofcourse,like the book..Unfortunately i dont feel that part I wasn't how it was supposed to be.
Okay, I'm sorry–the reason everyone is hating on this movie is the RUN TIME? Are you kidding me? Sorry no one could stand putting a whopping 21 extra minutes past the 2 hour point. Yeah, I get it, they were quiet in the woods for a long time. Throw out the fact that this was the most mature, understated installment yet. Throw out the fact that the book devoted the SAME lengthiness to the trio in the wilderness sequence. Length is apparently synonimous with boredom nowadays. Wow.
Drew, you do realize you are dramatically oversimplifying the discussion right? My review basically implies I would rather have five hours of a whole movie than two-and-a-half-hours of half of one. And yes, in this case I grew tired of a movie that was too long and delivered nothing in the end, outside of the promise something will actually happen in Part II eight months from now.
As my review states time and time again, perhaps as a whole it will be brilliant, but as a single movie it didn't work for me.
I completely agree with Brad. He isn't saying the 2.5 hours is too long, he is saying he'd have liked to have seen it in the one film with the second (although even then it'll probably feel bloated) and that the parts don't work as well as say Kill Bill Vol 1 and 2. TOTALLY true, surely you Harry Potter watchers can see this too?
I think its difficult to discuss this film until Deathly Hallows: part 2 comes out. I feel our feelings on Part 1 are insignificant until it is complete.
Agreed
Any Harry Potter fan that doesn't believe the split was initially created to make money is kidding themselves… but as a devoted Potterfile, I have to say I was not disappointed. This film was a great adaptation of the first half of the novel. It leaves things out, as all great book-to-film adapations do, but I left the theatre without feeling cheated (something I could not say after Half-Blood Prince). While I was pleased, I can also see that judged purely as a film, this one was long and drawn out, without the closure that most movie-goers desire. The Potterfile in me is pleased as punch that this movie included so many of the little moments that I longed for, and I was not disturbed at all by the length… but for anyone that is anything less than obsessed with the series, I can see that this film could be described as a "a two-and-a-half-hour camping trip"… Clearly Yates was focused on making a film for the devoted… not the casual fan.
Fan of the books and the films here and I just have to say (without seeing the film but knowing where the split takes place,) It IS just a cash grab.
But one question? Wouldn't they be spending WAY more money on budget and advertising doing it in two parts? You have the marketing for part 1 and then you have to advertise the second one plus add on the insane hollywood budget!?
Couldn't they have made more money sending a 5 1/2 hour film to the screens that is utterly fantastic and complete or would people be turned off by the running time. We know the potter fans would watch it but would anyone else? And if not anyone else than we live in a terrible movie judging time.
Also Brad, When do you think the DVD and Blu-ray will come out for this? Would they wait after part 2 just to release both of them together combined or release them both separately at two different intervals with a full package down the line to cash in?
Once I see it I'll judge it then (I know I'm going to love it either way) but for now I call SHENANIGANS AND MADNESS!!!
I must disagree. I loved my experience of seeing Part I. Prisoner of Azkaban is still my favorite and will always be my favorite, but DH Part I is perhaps the best-paced film of the entire series: deliberate and languid, and perhaps the first Harry Potter film that wasn't stuffing things in at one point or another. The cinematography was beautiful, the set design absolutely impeccable, and the blocking and framing perfect. And, even though I'm not as fond of Books 6 and 7 because of J.K. Rowling's inability to write a convincing war atmosphere, I think this film did a lot more to reconcile that than Film 6 did. Other than that glaring aspect, Books 6 and 7 were just as ingenious in story as the rest, and that also shows.
Even so, I'm impatient to see the Dumbledore back story in Part II. That shit's going to be harrowing.
I'll put a vote down saying I loved the film. I didn't feel like there was a whole lot that was unnecessary, and even some stuff that I had forgotten the significance of, like Scrimgour (no clue if that's spelled right) coming with the will, which felt at the time like it wasn't needed, does come into play later in the film. Now could they have done things a bit different creatively and shortened it a bit, as they did with films 3-6? Sure. But I still think it would have been very difficult to get everything in in under four hours. And the reality of today's Hollywood is that even three hour films are obsolete. The only major releases I can think of that have come close to that mark since Pirates 3 (and even that was ten minutes short of it) are Watchmen and Avatar, and those are still both closer to 2.5 hours. That's just the reality of Hollywood now; studios, theatre chains, they all want movies to be shorter, because shorter movies can show more times per day, don't risk alienating the audience with their length (which a complaint about Pirates 3 and Watchmen), and in the end, they make more money. Now would a four hour Deathly Hallows still make a billion dollars? We'll never know. The Return of the King did at 3:20, but that was seven years ago. So yes, the split was purely about money, but I don't think it hurt the film terribly. Would a single four hour version have been better? Probably, but not drastically better. I've said since the beginning that while from a critical standpoint you kind of have to judge these are two separate films, they really are one 4.5 hour or whatever film, and that's how I'll watch it/them when I have the chance to.
Regarding the film itself, I actually thought it moved along quite nicely. I thought the beginning was actually the slowest bit as everything up to when they arrive at the Burrow is almost a page-for-page lift from the book as I recall. After that I thought it picked up quite a bit. I loved the little intimate moments they threw in just because they could, like Harry and Hermione dancing to Nick Cave on the radio, and the scene in Godrick's Hollow. That sequence was probably my favorite in the film. I also thought it looked absolutely gorgeous, and thought the trio really sunk their teeth into the material acting-wise, particularly Grint and Watson. It helps that they have stronger material to work from here than in any of the previous films. All in all, I loved it, and I would happily have walked right back in for another two hours of Part 2.
Hey Brad – i never disagreed so much with you assesment of the movies! i mean i love your site and all that ! but seriously we saw two different movies! or perhaps because you've not read the books the perspective was different – i would stick my neck out and say this was the best screen adaptation of the potter series so far! its so rich with detail and the actors dont look bored rather they look like they jumped off the pages of Ms Rowling's Genius of a work!
I loved the movie and i would rate it at the top of the potter pile! curious how your re-watch might change the opinion of this movie.
my review here
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?created&¬e_id=10150090906145560#!/notes/viral-vora/harry-potter-and-the-deathly-hallows-part-1/10150090906145560
Brad sated he'd read the book in the review: "What's odd is I can remember reading everything seen in this film and not being bored for a second…"
I have no problem with the length of a film, as long as the story justifies it. In this case, with judicious and creative tightening, especially during the camping scenes, I would've been happy to sit through a 3:45 extravaganza. But without a proper climax to the storytelling, this feels like half a film.
That said, I could also argue that without the room to breathe, this film would have felt as rushed and choppy as some of the previous movies. I'd say the fact that everything is progressing satisfactorily has a great deal to do with the deliberate pacing and full recounting. It's just that there's no proper climax to the film so it feels decidedly unfinished.
I actually found the Lost In The Wilderness part of the book a patience-testing, tedious slog in need of serious editing. And since the film makers chose to stick closely to the novel, the movie suffers the same problem, perhaps fairing marginally better. I'm not saying that the film hasn't earned it (or the books for that matter); it does; But if the scenes drag the story to the point where it significantly slows the momentum of the plot, that's a clear indication that something needs editing.
I really disagree that this film should've been the first hour of one Deathly Hallows movie. The main problems I've had with previous films are that they rush through things, explaining plot with overly expository dialogue instead of letting things flow at their natural pace.
This film has none of those problems, and instead takes a lot of time out for these characters to grow organically rather than forcing them from one place to the next. The rigid structure of 1 year at Hogwarts is gone, and I found that extremely liberating.
All the scenes that people complain about are the ones with the three leads out in the woods, but those scenes are some of my favorite in the movie because they provide for a shitload of character development, and allows for us to really feel an honest and true connection between them before the final battle to come.
Not only that, but there are so many beautiful shots in this movie. The direction and cinematography are flat out amazing. I'd also say this is Kloves' best Potter script yet. Great dialogue, great pacing, and great performances from the actors always helps a great script.
I freaking loved this movie, more than I've loved any movie in a long time.
I have to disagree with you on this one, Brad. I loved this film and now it passed The Half-Blood Prince to become my favorite Potter film (for now). The acting is by far the best of the franchise, and I was pleased to see Dobby again (although I wish he was in some of the previous films). The SFX for this film were top notch, and I personally enjoyed how it ended with a sense of darkness and fear, unlike with the other films like HBP, GOF, and OOTP where bad things happened, but in the end, everyone seems happy. With a cliffhanger like that, I can't wait to see Part 2.
The Potter films in order from favorite to least favorite:
1. DH:P1
2. HBP
3. POA
4. OOTP
5. COS
6. SS
7. GOF (those haircuts still give me nightmares)
Just my opinion, though.
What it's awesome and also sucks is that this numbers are only in the USA. I'm pretty sure only in England they made about the same number or even more. After all the home of HP is England. I for sure want to see the damn movie again. By far is one of the best of the series, so loya to the book. The effects were awesome.
I so agree with this review. It was slow and could have been cut to work into one movie. I was seeing positive comments only and wondering if I saw a different movie. The honest reviews seems to be actually starting to come in on this one.
I was so bored during this movie, that it was a fight to stay awake. I felt like I was watching Planet Earth, just with awful shots.
The acting was stale. The plot was boring. It was 2 hours and 30 minutes of basically watching some mopey teenagers trudge around the woods and then set a camp, rinse and repeat.
All and all, awful movie. Save your money and don't see it. I can't understand all the positive comments for this movie. To be honest, the ones making positive comments to it are either insane or were watching the wrong Harry Potter movie.
Let me get this right out in the front, I hate ALL the previous films, I am a fan of the books. I grade the films not a scale of favorites, but on the scale of which caused me the least amount of pain. The films are all watered-down, croppy, incoherent collection of CGI laden scenes. Second, I refer to Yates as the guy who 'dropped the ball'. His films have the right feel to them, but he continually leaves out key elements or lines that would have truly MADE the scene and/or improved the storyline, so he can add HIS own nonsense. But this time, Yates and Kloves handled the material well and the added scenes that enhanced the story instead wasting valuable screen time at the expense of key plot elements. I'm not giving him a good report card, he's still my poster child of missed opportunities, but The Deathly Hallows is BY FAR the best of this poor film series as offered to date. As far as your critical comments go, we who enjoyed the film are neither insane nor watched the wrong film, we see and think clearly, we simply have a different opinion.