Harry Potter et les Reliques de la Mort : partie 1

In my mind, the Deathly Hallows Part 1 captured the feeling of exactly what the Harry Potter movies should have been all along: gritty, emotional, and cinematic. I haven't been a huge fan of any of the HP movies to date, but I was pleased with the Deathly Hallows because it took a big step up in maturity from the "children's fantasy" genre and focused on themes very central to the seventh book: hopelessness and desperation.

After the death of Hogwarts headmaster Albus Dumbledore, the magical world falls into disarray as Voldemort gains power over the Ministry of Magic and hunts tirelessly after his mortal enemy and our continuing protagonist, Harry Potter. While keeping a low cover, Harry, Ron, and Hermoine decide to track down and destroy Voldemort's soul contained in hidden "horcruxes" but have difficulties deciding what to do and where to start.

The Deathly Hallows very successfully portrays the despair-filled journey of the wizarding trio. With dark undertones running through the cinematography, Part 1 of the Harry Potter finale is the film that deals more with the emotional stagnation of the characters and spends less time with action scenes and major plot points. Since Rowling's seventh book is separated into two movies, Part 1 boasts a much slower pace than earlier HP films and is not so focused on cramming as many subplots and side-stories from the book as possible into the movie's runtime, which tends to clutter up the storyline and make the whole thing feel rushed.

But where the slow pacing makes this film stand out in the series, it also may be its downfall. The Deathly Hallows continually feeds us a feeling of desolation as Harry, Ron and Hermoine fail to discover a way to destroy the horcruxes; they seem to be making no progress towards defeating the Dark Lord, but as an effect the movie seems to be making no progress towards an ending. Storyline lags intensely towards the middle of the film and is dragged out until the conclusion (which ends abruptly). You'll be left in your seats feeling like this is going nowhere- but that's the point: Harry, Ron, and Hermoine are getting nowhere. So I liked this movie because the pace was slow, but I also didn't like this movie because the pace was slow. See what I'm getting at? Aside from that, I can't complain much. Performances were fine, effects were impressive, and best of all, nothing dastardly was done to J.K. Rowling's story.

The Deathly Hallows: Part 1 is a nice improvement and a fine addition to the Harry Potter series and should serve as a solid emotional base for Part 2 to take off with next year. If you've enjoyed the HP movies so far, this should be a satisfying experience at least. If not, let the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 redeem your faith in the series. 7/10

P.S. Keep on the lookout for the scene about the deathly hallows story. It has some of the most beautiful and artistic animation I have ever seen in a movie.

The last book in the Harry Potter saga has been split into two parts. At first, maybe people would think it is to squeeze some more financial mileage out of the series. On the other hand, having watched this installment, there is simply too much complex storytelling involved in this book to cram it into only one two and half hour movie.

This Part 1 is already a very full two and half hours. The drama begins even before the opening credits roll. The special effects have reached a new high point with the trick of using polyjuice potion to create multiple Harry's. The frenetic escape of Harry in Hagrid's motor sidecar is an achievement in action editing. The trio's penetration of the Ministry of Magic to get the locket horcrux is very exciting and tension-filled.

Momentum dips a bit in the midsection as our trio scour the English wilderness for a way to destroy the horcrux. This prolonged section, which some may find boring, dealt more with the personal relationships loyalty of the three friends as challenges are thrown their way. The segment is marked by the hard-to-watch bloodlust of Bellatrix Lestrange and the nobility of Dobby. Watch out too for a most unexpected dance scene which will surely make you smile, if not actually chuckle!

In the third section, we learn what the "deathly hallows" are referred to in the title as our trio learns it from Xenophilius Lovegood. But the main highlight here is a most amazing animated short featurette called "The Tale of Three Brothers" as narrated by Hermione. This Part 1 ends very well with a sky-splitting final cliffhanger sequence.

Its been repeatedly mentioned how the main actors Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson have all grown up in front of our eyes as this movie series unfolded. Rupert and Emma are both taller than Daniel already! Acting-wise, everyone had likewise improved very much. They all even show some skin here. Yes, even Hermione! The support from the esteemed gallery of British actors and actresses serve the film very well indeed. We saw everyone from all the previous films it seems, except for Maggie Smith.

The direction of David Yates is excellent as he did in the last two films. Yates and screenwriter Steve Kloves got just the proper mix of action, drama and humor needed to make the saga work on screen. This may just be a set-up installment, however, it stands very strong on its own merits. As the last scene faded to black, the audience will definitely develop the resolve to watch out for the concluding part to be released next summer, and witness the epic Battle of Hogwarts.

Ever since the release of the first Harry Potter movie in 2001, I've wondered how a TV miniseries of the books would have fared. The movies so far have had difficulties showing enough of the books' events within a reasonable time slot to keep the story flowing. They've all had to omit significant plot points, which has not only disappointed the more literal-minded fans but risked the integrity of the story. This was most painfully evident in the fifth movie, "Order of the Phoenix," which awkwardly attempted to fit the longest Potter book into just 2 hours and 15 minutes of film. The result was a movie that felt choppy and barely coherent, almost dreamlike. The two best films up to now--the third and the sixth--worked in part because they took the most risks, often departing substantially from the narrative of the books, to the consternation of many fans. I was not one of the fans complaining, because I figured that as long as it wasn't a miniseries, the best approach was to interpret the story rather than present the events exactly as they appeared in the books.

Dividing the seventh book into two movies has given a taste of what a miniseries might have been like. "Deathly Hallows: Part 1" is a more faithful adaptation than any of the previous films. This surprised me a little, because the portion of Book Seven it covers is actually longer than the entirety of some of the earlier books. (As I was rereading it a few months ago, I correctly guessed where they'd end Part 1--it's at an important turning point in the story that occurs close to the two-thirds mark.) Most of the film's sequences are exactly as I had envisioned them, and sometimes better than I had envisioned them. I especially liked its approach to the Riddle-Hermione scene, to the matter of protective enchantments around their camp (which is handled with a nice dose of spookiness), and to a spell that distorts a character's face. Apart from the oversimplification of a few plot details here and there, any flaws in the story come straight from the book. The two-and-half-hour movie drags at some points, but then so did the book, particularly in the forest scenes. The plot concerns Voldemort's takeover of the wizarding world and pursuit of Harry, who goes into hiding with Ron and Hermione but repeatedly endangers them and himself in his daunting efforts to find and destroy a set of objects that keep Voldemort immortal, aided only by a few enigmatic clues Dumbledore has left him.

It is not a very accessible film for non-fans. People who haven't read or seen any of the previous installments will probably be lost. It never once pauses to explain the Harry Potter universe or anything about the background to these tumultuous events, not even a prologue like the one that began the third of Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" films. The good news is that it doesn't condescend to the audience. The bad news is that if you don't know or can't remember things like what a horcrux is or what happens when you point a wand at someone and say "Obliviate," you might have trouble following the story.

As a fan, however, I loved it. It's just well-filmed, and I had notably fewer complaints about acting and special effects than I had for the previous movies. The CGI is relatively unobtrusive, and there aren't too many fake-looking moments. (The house-elves look especially good this time.) Ralph Fiennes finally appears to have settled into the role of Voldemort, after having delivered somewhat phoned-in performances previously. The kids, who get to dominate more scenes than in any of the other films, when their presence was counterbalanced by a plethora of seasoned British performers who are mostly absent here, have really grown into their roles. They were well-cast from the start and always had a certain raw talent, but early in the series they possessed some of the amateur qualities common to young actors. They have become increasingly proficient as the series has progressed (which I suspect was what the studio intended when it eschewed the tradition of casting older actors in child roles). Here they display the kind of camaraderie that can only be developed gradually, after having acted together in several films, and it makes the scenes that deal with their relationship feel natural and unforced.

I actually look forward to seeing the movie again at some point, just so I can sit back and take in more of the details. I think I didn't appreciate it enough the first time, distracted as I was by my knowledge of what happens in the book and the lack of any significant divergence in the film's depiction. There is not a lot in this film that will surprise fans; the enjoyment comes from seeing how vividly it is all brought to life.

As Harry and Ron and Hermoine and everyone else has grown up, so have the audiences with the Potter franchise. So it should make some sense that by the time the seventh book has come around that it's coming down to the wire: the big showdown between Harry and the Man-We-Don't-Speak- His-Name, oh, whatever, Voldemort. It's usually that the mid-point movie (i.e. Empire Strikes Back) is the darkest one, but there was a quasi-dark ending to Half-Blood Prince, so it makes more sense that the filmmakers take Rowling's Deathly Hallows and turn it into what it should be: a ripping good apocalypse yarn.

I kid a little, but it is a movie with a lot of black contours and desolation, as the trio might be walking through the British version of The Road minus some of the gray-scale photography. That, and the main 'plot' being that Harry has to find the horcruxes, which are items that could be used by Voldemort for very evil purposes. But then the next problem comes as how to destroy them? It's this section of the film, after a very entertaining section where the three go in disguise as full-grown-ups (a funny and intense scene in the Ministry of Magic), that it gets into a rhythm that is not what one would expect in a big- budget holiday blockbuster. A lot of it is sitting around contemplating, waiting, trying to figure things out, and if the audience gets impatient it's not due to the filmmaker's making it bungled but because the characters are having trouble figuring it out too, and we feel for them.

Talking with my wife about the books in relation to the movies, I'm told that book seven is meant to be a character piece for a large part of it when they're in the woods (indeed it's something like a hundred pages of these woods scenes with the three, or sometimes two, of them frustrated in figuring out the symbols and suspense of running from the gestapo- like figures of the Dark Lord). But is Rowling as good at characters as she is at clever plots and intricate details of magic? Yes and no. Yes in that she makes good characters that we want to be around (for the most part, sometimes Ron gets on ones nerves), and no in that they are at best two dimensional figures, even with Harry, and there's only so much character to explore. But there are instances where one can excuse the tedium of some of these woods scenes. A moment where Harry and Hermoine have a levity pause and dance to music could be seen as extraneousness, but when it has the music of Nick Cave signing sad blues, why carp?

David Yates' direction has found after a few of these movies- Order of the Phoenix still the best of his efforts but not far ahead of this one- and he has a classical style as far as big-budget high-action-adventure movies go in Hollywood. He can let an actor's rhythm speak for itself, and he has a really wonderful scene for a whole mess of top-tier British talent (i.e. Ralph Fiennes, Alan Rickman, Helena Bonham Carter et all) in the opening scene at Voldermort's castle. When it's exciting such as a fast-paced chase in the sky, it's exciting, and when it needs to slow down there's still attention to be paid to what's going down. Only a few points that a non-book reader such as myself such as a wedding scene for a minor character from movies past and a few points of reference for a couple of items or characters get lost on me.

This is the kind of production that has great attributes and only a couple of damning liabilities, though the former outweighs the latter. There's a sequence where the story of the Deathly Hallows- how the three men who made deals with death for items and things- is told with a unique animation style that has silhouettes and figures that look like a Tim Burton special. It's one of the most breathtaking passages in any Potter movie, sophisticated to the point of impressing any serious fan of fable-storytelling. But the downsides... well, again, some of the pacing in those woods scenes are less than great. But more than that is a kind of curious aspect to the climax, which without spoiling much involves a character who we've only seen in one other Potter movie (I leave this non-spoiler for those who haven't read the books - those that do know what I mean already), and it's a tragic fate for the character. It's a fine moment of drama, but it lacks the punch that was likely there in the book as it's a character who is barely in the film itself and will need some memory-digging for the character's significance before.

But as far as movies where artistic integrity takes place over dumb-loud action and is able to weave visual fx with the practical side of sets and costumes and things with the CGI is very commendable. It's no wonder that Guillermo del-Toro came close to directing this movie, as it appeals to a sensibility that reads the fantastical and supernatural as part of the world, even if one can't see it quite at first. Oh, and the other downside I almost neglected... it's the first part of a two-part finale. It's like getting a half slice of a BIG epic movie, so it's still big, but half-big. But as far as half-slice epics go, it's one of the best in the franchise.

If you've read all the Harry Potter books, then you should know that, as the series went on, they essentially became an allegory for totalitarianism. Certainly one can see that in "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1". Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson reprise their roles as Harry, Ron, and Hermione, respectively. The three are now having to live almost in secret due to the almost fascistic takeover of the wizarding world by Lord Voldemort's (Ralph Fiennes) minions. In fact, while the three are undercover in the office building, the factory looks like something out of Nazi Germany or Stalin's USSR: the employees robotically help to publish material which pushes a fear of the "other" (in this case Muggles, or non-wizards). Harry, Ron and Hermione are like the French Resistance, one might say.

Anyway, it's a good thing that they broke the final book into two movies. So far, they're doing a really good job not only bringing the magic to the screen, but also warning of the dangers that totalitarian entities - represented here by the Death Eaters - pose. I recommend it.

Tom Felton, Jason Isaacs, Helena Bonham Carter, Alan Rickman, Robbie Coltrane, Warwick Davis, Brendan Gleeson, John Hurt, David Thewlis, Timothy Spall, Imelda Staunton, and Julie Walters reprise their roles from the previous movies, with new additions Bill Nighy and Rhys Ifans.