Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1

It should be wise for people to at least watch the first six films in order before watching this one, if they haven't read the books already.

With this film, we are slowly but surely bidding farewell to one of cinema's most successful and imaginative franchises. The franchise, like Harry Potter himself, has grown and matured as the years (and films) progress. Part I of the "Deathly Hallows" is ultimately a strong build- up to what will be a triumphant, bittersweet finale for everybody.

I won't waste time trying to talk about the performances, because they are all great and powerful in their own way. Never mind that many of the cast members are very talented veteran British actors (try getting John Hurt, Alan Rickman, Ralph Fiennes, Brendan Gleeson, David Thewlis, Michael Gambon, Helena Bonham Carter, Imelda Staunton, Jason Isaacs and Bill Nighy in the same film again) - the three young actors who we have come to love and care for following the first film a decade ago, basically carry the franchise on their shoulders, and this film is no exception. Radcliffe looks handsome, Grint looks gruff, and Watson looks gorgeous. They've grown into fine young people.

Screenwriter Steve Kloves doesn't forget to add the mood and gloom to the story as it slowly unfolds, but then again he adds some light humor to the film when it needs it. Bonus points for making this not only a visual spectacle, but also a character-driven ensemble; there's some complex characterization here. Also there's some action which aren't seen on screen, but mentioned by the characters. It's OK, because it's necessary for the brisk pacing, and it's not really that important anyways. Besides, the human mind can imagine these images far more powerfully.

There are many themes in this film. Sacrifice, determination, (obviously) friendship, and above all - acceptance. As the films progressed the films started to gain an increasingly dark momentum - signaling that all hope may be lost. But in the end, will good triumph over evil? Like the film, real life isn't so sure. Also, the fact that the actors and crew are moving on after a decade of making these films - it's also another way of acceptance - the films have ended, they're moving on for the better of their lives/careers. It's real life, and I wish all these promising young actors brilliant lives and careers ahead of them.

"Hallows: Part I" is many parts thrilling, as there are quite a number of intense action sequences. Many of them, of course, are done with well-rendered visual effects, and in this one they just blend in at a natural level without being too jarring. However, the action sequences are perfectly blended in with the gripping, dramatic moments. They don't feel heavy handed and it's beautiful to look at. The animated sequence about the origins of the Deathly Hallows is an absolute masterclass and jaw-droppingly beautiful to both watch and listen. If separated by itself it can win an Oscar for best animated short.

The crew also get their due here. David Yates has gotten a firm grip on the film's direction since directing the fifth and sixth films years ago. The cinematography is stunning and exquisite, and it gives off a certain moody hue to the film. The editing is also crisp, it's not choppy when it doesn't need to be. Alexandre Desplat's score really makes a difference, it literally puts you into the world with its beautiful, harmonious, and emotional tones.

In short, I would have to say that this film is the best "Harry Potter: film yet in all honesty. I grew up with the series, and as per the actors, it will be an emotional goodbye. But rest assured, the finale will be grand.

One more thing. This interpretation of the novel is the best one yet. The novel is done justice, something not seen since the first three films. It's something for both the fans and novel-readers alike, as there are some pieces only book readers can discover while watching the film. It's definitely a huge improvement over "Half-Blood Prince"'s adaptation, which for me is the worst Potter film.

Harry Potter is a phenomenon. But, like all things, it most come to an end eventually. This is the beginning of the end, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Overall rating: 75/100

P.S.:Eat your hearts out, Twi-hards.

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.

Up until now, I was convinced that from the 4th book onwards, Harry Potter-books had become too complex to make into film: Goblet of Fire was a sore disappointment. Order of the Phoenix left many Potterheads wanting more, even if it wasn't a bad film per se (personally I thoroughly enjoyed it, even though I felt they left out too much). Half-blood Prince -while visually stunning- did not capture the brilliance of the book. With "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows", I think the makers have finally succeeded in crafting a movie that was both fun to watch for casual viewers while also catering to the needs of the hard-core fans who know the books by heart. The decision to split the movie into two parts may be judged as a financial one by some, but I'm convinced it was the only possible way to make this work. The movie was cut off at the perfect time as well, having the viewers yearn for more without being too abrupt.

I don't want to give away anything, so I'll just say this: Hats of to you, David Yates. One can only hope the second installment will continue in the same vein...

A lot slower paced than the others, which isn't a flaw. The acting and action is great. It is good to see some change within the characters but it felt like just another setup movie that leads into the big finale.

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.