At last! Though Alfonso Cuarón’s The Prisoner of Azkaban came close, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I is the first entry of the franchise to really capture the essence of J.K. Rowling’s masterworks. Immediately, we can look to the decision to tell the story as two separate films. It’s ironic that this is so important to Deathly Hallows‘ success, since it was clearly done with financial implications in mind, but the choice winds up paying serious dividends. Instead of feeling the need to cram as much from Rowling’s work as possible into a few hours director David Yates is able to take his time and really flesh out The Deathly Hallows‘s dark atmosphere. I’ve heard complaints that this installment is wanting for magic, but that’s a false accusation (or shows a fundamental lack of understanding for what The Deathly Hallows is all about). By this point in the books, there’s a real end-of-days vibe—Dumbledore is dead, the Death Eaters have taken control of much of the lands, and Harry is solidly in the enemies’ cross-hairs—and parts of the narrative bear a distinct resemblance to The Lord of the Rings. Things are bleak. And for the first time onscreen, we see the trials and tribulations of Harry, Ron, Hermione & the rest of the crew exactly how I pictured them while curled up in bed reading.
Unlike, say, The Sorceror’s Stone or The Order of the Phoenix, The Deathly Hallows mostly eschews cuteness and charm. Part of this can be traced to where our protagonists are in life—they’re children still finding their way at the beginning, and by now are battle-tested late teens—but the credit really belongs to Yates, who’s directed the previous three entries. Long, wordless sequences elegantly portray the despair and pain that permeates throughout the party and the land. A stunning animated yarn about the three brothers that form the crux of the deathly hallows legend is absolutely mesmerizing, and might garner my vote for scene of the year. It’s sublime. The music, which was well-composed but often overly dramatic in earlier films, is used much more subtly and ominously here. The cloud of dread never lifts for a moment. The multiple deaths and injuries should emotionally resonate with those who cherish the books. The color schemes boast lots of blacks and silvers like the night and moon, and Daniel Radcliffe (Harry), Rupert Grint (Ron), and Emma Watson (Hermione), as they should, look grizzled and tuckered out, appropriately worn down from their constant on-the-run ways. There’s even a richness to the compositions that suggests a trust for the audience that we’d yet to be shown. When this ended, two thoughts zipped through my mind. One: part II can’t come quickly enough. And two: the earlier entries, especially Goblet of Fire—which signifies the franchise’s turning point from adventurous-but-charming to seriously intense—could have seriously benefited from being split in twain. The flow in Deathly Hallows: Part I is just perfect. And it’s also perfect, as a die-hard HP fan, to finally have a filmic adaptation that does Rowling’s imagination justice.
78/100
#1 by FT on December 15, 2010 - 8:34 pm
Quote
Agreed. Nice Review.
#2 by Typeaux on January 4, 2011 - 1:16 pm
Quote
After seeing this adaptation, I too was glad to see it being done in two installments. Other than a few non-essential details, nothing on importance from the book’s first half is missing from this film. For the most part, Yates’ vision of the scenes is uncannily as I envisioned it from Rowling’s writing (save for the scene in the fast-food restaurant when they are attacked by roving Death Eaters — I imagined this as more of an old wood tavern atmosphere than a plastic-and-formica fish n’ chips dive). The only downside I found in the film was that certain scenes dragged unneccesarily, particularly the scenes where Harry is lost in emotional reflection. But the action scenes were well done — the best of any so far in the franchise — and the story moved along at a good pace. I give it 8 out of 10.
#3 by vladdy on July 17, 2011 - 6:57 pm
Quote
Completely bizarre. My husband and I have just seen Part. 2, which we’ve decided that at least, is not as bad as Pt. 1. Yates has destroyed the franchise. What we loved was the magic and charm — the alternate universe, where yes, evil may lurk, but so does love and laughter. Rowling always gets this — her books are big on emotion and morality.
The last book ties up the themes of penance, sacrifice, and repentance, but keeps the characters developing, and the plot moving — even when the plot is 3 characters hiding out in a dytopia.
Yates treats the whole thing like a Star Wars/Transformers/LoTR combination — a very “male” movie, big on absolutely nothing but special effects, CGI, groaning boredom, or explosions and chases.
Pt 1 was too empty of action — the book was still full of events, even though many were taking place in thoughts and visions. And Pt 2 still had bravery, humor, love and loss.
Yates gives us one extreme or the other — deserts or battlefields — which is all that the Pt 1 trek and the Pt 2 war are. The characters don’t grow, we see little back story or time-and-place travel, and then only in glimpses of mere minutes — then it’s back to the slog of nothingness or the slog of physical fighting with wands that no longer do magical things, but only explode with smoke and fire and cause people to drop as if they had just been shot.
Woh. He destroyed all the whimsy and subtlely and crushed us with a very ordinary, commercialized, obvious type of Hollywood special effects film that could have been about 3 soldiers during WWII, so little did it have to do wih magic and morality. Instead, it was all down to who could outlast the others and be the smartest and strongest, in order to win the wizardlng world. We’ve seen that story a million times. Big deal.
Rowling’s books, and the first 4 movies, will be seen as classics long from now. These last 4 movies, Yates’s work, will be seen as copycat, special effects “thrillers” that just happened to be set in a world that…once upon a time…contained magic.