Marter to the Movies: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

[Marter]

Marter to the Movies
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1
<img height=400>http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/5032/harrypotterandthedeathla.jpg

I've heard a lot of people say that reviewing the newest Harry Potter movie is a pointless exercise. By now, people have made up their minds regarding the film series. If they are on-board, then they'll see it regardless, and if they don't like it, they aren't going to make an exception for the newest one. That's fair enough, but it's not a sentiment I necessarily agree with.

[Img_Inline width="265" Caption="Not actually appearing much in the film this time..." Align="left"]http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/4199/hogwarts3.gif[/Img_Inline]

I don't think that has to be correct, because Deathly Hallows Part 1 has convinced me it is not. I think it actually could turn people off the series. That's not to say that it is a terrible film, but all of the charm that the previous films had seem to have been lost with this one. There is also the worrying thought that since Part 1 and Part 2 were shot back-to-back, the second film will have the same flaws.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 is the first of two films based on JK. Rowling's seventh Harry Potter book. It, once again, stars Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter, Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley, and Emma Watson as Hermione Granger. That's about all the actors who "star" in the film, as none of the secondary actors are given much chance to enhance or establish their characters.

This ends up being the first problem with the film. None of the secondary cast members get their fair share of screen time. Take, for example, Alan Rickman as Severous Snape. He's a character that was incredibly interesting in the first few films, and pivotal in the last one. Here, he gets maybe two scenes over the course of the film, none of which are that important. This is true for all of the other secondary characters as well. They show up, disappear for a while, and then reappear for another scene. That's all we get from them, and it doesn't allow any time to get any insight into their character that we hadn't already been shown.

While you are expected to have watched the previous six films in order to get a feel for the characters, it almost feels like you could have skipped them and still have gotten a good idea of what is happening. Not being in that situation myself, I cannot be sure, but the film did seem to be a bit too direct in an attempt to fill the audience in on what happened previously. Certain plot points continue to be hammered home, multiple times, and it makes you feel like the film doesn't think you are smart enough to remember them.

Without involving the secondary characters, the film turns out to consist mostly of Harry, Ron and Hermione, one of which ends up being absent for a large chunk of time, searching around various locations for the remaining Horcruxes. Since Hogwarts has now been taken over, they can't go back there, so they instead decide to ditch their final year of classes and go on an adventure. The Hogwarts setting is actually what made a lot of the previous movies interesting for me, meaning this change was not a good one in my mind. Yes, I am well aware that this also happens in the book, and can't be omitted, but making it happen for almost all of the entire two and a half hours the film plays for is not welcome.

[Img_Inline height="275" Caption="The movie is based on this book.
Well, parts of it, anyway." Align="right"]http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/6718/harrypotterandthedeathlw.jpg[/Img_Inline]

This also means that the film does get kind of boring. The secondary characters made the previous films more interesting, but since most of them are absent from this one, we can only focus on our three leads. These are characters who, after this film, I have grown to dislike. I didn't before, because there would always be side-sessions with other characters dispersed between long sequences with the primary cast. Here, we don't get that, and I began to grow tired of Harry, Ron and Hermione.

The worst part about it is the fact that the film does attempt to have some emotional moments. Sadly, they almost all fall flat on their face. There is one scene, right near the end that was sad, but the rest of the time, I was sitting there questioning why they even bothered to try to stir emotions. There were also attempts at humor throughout, none of which worked in lightening the mood, and only served to remind me that when the film tries to change the mood, it fails.

The best part about the film was the visual effects. From transforming characters into multiple Harry Potters, to the house elves, to the spells used, you can tell that a lot of effort was put into the visuals. The film looks nice all around, and it does take you to various locations. At least you'll have some nice scenery to look at.

I'm still not sure whether or not I can dissuade Harry Potter fans from going to see Deathly Hallows Part 1, but I hope that they will take this review as a caution. This is perhaps the weakest film of the series, and it fails to bring any depth to any character that isn't named Harry, Ron, or Hermione. The scenery and visuals are great, but the secondary characters are pushed aside for ones that end up getting on your nerves. I do fear, however, for Part 2, as they were shot back-to-back. Hopefully they will rectify them in the editing process, or even go back and re-shoot some scenes before release. Either way, I was let down by Part 1.

<spoiler=Other Reviews>
$2.50 Reviews: <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.226415-2-50-Reviews-The-Happening-2008>The Happening | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.226611-2-50-Reviews-Zodiac-2007>Zodiac | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.226846-2-50-Reviews-Doomsday-2008>Doomsday | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.227257-2-50-Reviews-Resident-Evil-2002>Resident Evil | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.227437-2-50-Reviews-Resident-Evil-Apocalypse-2004>Resident Evil: Apocalypse | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.227628-2-50-Reviews-Resident-Evil-Extinction-2007>Resident Evil Extinction | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.227851-2-50-Reviews-Hero-2002>Hero | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.228340-2-50-Reviews-Whiteout-2009>Whiteout | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.228546-2-50-Reviews-Max-Payne-2008>Max Payne | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.228761-2-50-Reviews-Pans-Labyrinth-2006>Pan's Labyrinth | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.228937-2-50-Reviews-The-Descent-2005>The Descent | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.229137-2-50-Reviews-Hot-Fuzz-2007>Hot Fuzz | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.229338-2-50-Reviews-The-Brothers-Grimm-2005>The Brothers Grimm | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.229562-2-50-Reviews-Van-Helsing-2004>Van Helsing | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.230212-2-50-Reviews-Hitman-2007>Hitman | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.230924-2-50-Reviews-The-Departed-2006>The Departed | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.231661-2-50-Reviews-Snow-Angels-2007>Snow Angels | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.231873-Marter-to-the-Movies-Scott-Pilgrim-vs-the-World>Scott Pilgrim vs. the World | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.232183-2-50-Reviews-Shaun-of-the-Dead-2004>Shaun of the Dead | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.232615-2-50-Reviews-Hard-Candy-2005>Hard Candy | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.233075-2-50-Reviews-Constantine-2005>Constantine | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.233733-2-50-Reviews-Shooter-2007>Shooter | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.234636-2-50-Reviews-The-Road-2009>The Road | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.234802-2-50-Reviews-No-Country-for-Old-Men-2007>No Country for Old Men | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.235149-2-50-Reviews-Benny-Joon-1993>Benny & Joon | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.235375-2-50-Reviews-Citizen-Kane-1941>Citizen Kane | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.235794-2-50-Reviews-Let-the-Right-One-In-2008>Let the Right One In | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.236294-2-50-Reviews-The-Condemned-2007>The Condemned | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.236591-2-50-Reviews-Se7en-1995>Se7en | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.237595-2-50-Reviews-Equilibrium-2002>Equilibrium | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.237678-2-50-Reviews-Underworld-2003>Underworld | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.237801-2-50-Reviews-Underworld-Evolution-2006>Underworld: Evolution | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.238014-2-50-Reviews-Underworld-Rise-of-the-Lycans-2009>Underworld: Rise of the Lycans | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.238328-2-50-Reviews-Cloverfield-2008>Cloverfield | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.238765-2-50-Reviews-Taken-2008>Taken | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.238957-2-50-Reviews-A-History-of-Violence-2005>A History of Violence | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.239125-2-50-Reviews-Monty-Python-and-the-Holy-Grail-1975>Monty Python and the Holy Grail | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.239253-2-50-Reviews-King-Arthur-2004>King Arthur | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.239993-2-50-Reviews-Skinwalkers-2006>Skinwalkers | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.240196-2-50-Reviews-I-Heart-Huckabees-2004>I Heart Huckabees | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.240356-2-50-Reviews-Hollow-Man-2000>Hollow Man | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.240465-2-50-Reviews-30-Days-of-Night-2007>30 Days of Night | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.240632-2-50-Reviews-Funny-Games-2007>Funny Games | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.240929-2-50-Reviews-The-Village-2004>The Village | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.241026-2-50-Reviews-Vacancy-2007>Vacancy | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.241363-2-50-Reviews-The-Sixth-Sense-1999>The Sixth Sense | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.241559-2-50-Reviews-Haute-Tension-2003>Haute Tension | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.241735-2-50-Reviews-Martyrs-2008>Martyrs | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.241838-2-50-Reviews-Silent-Hill-2006>Silent Hill | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.242013-2-50-Reviews-Trick-r-Treat-2007-Halloween-Wrap-up>Trick 'r Treat | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.242335-2-50-Reviews-Pirates-of-the-Caribbean-Curse-of-the-Black-Pearl-2003>Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.242568-2-50-Reviews-Pirates-of-the-Caribbean-Dead-Mans-Chest-2006>Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.242769-2-50-Reviews-Pirates-of-the-Caribbean-At-Worlds-End-2007>Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.242946-2-50-Reviews-Ultraviolet-2006>Ultraviolet | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.243272-2-50-Reviews-Eastern-Promises-2007>Eastern Promises | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.243349-2-50-Reviews-King-Lear-1953>King Lear | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.243507-2-50-Reviews-Stranger-than-Fiction-2006>Stranger than Fiction | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.243679-2-50-Reviews-Body-of-Lies-2008>Body of Lies | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.243884-2-50-Reviews-Gone-Baby-Gone-2007>Gone Baby Gone | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.244104-2-50-Reviews-Flightplan-2005>Flightplan | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.244328-2-50-Reviews-Natural-Born-Killers-1994>Natural Born Killers | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.244556-2-50-Reviews-Children-of-Men-2006>Children of Men, <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.244704-2-50-Reviews-Four-Brothers-2005>Four Brothers | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.244923-2-50-Reviews-The-Day-After-Tomorrow-2004>The Day After Tomorrow | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.245039-2-50-Reviews-The-Prestige-2006>The Prestige | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.245995-2-50-Reviews-Napoleon-Dynamite-2004>Napoleon Dynamite | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.246107-2-50-Reviews-Lakeview-Terrace-2008>Lakeview Terrace | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.246582-2-50-Reviews-Shutter-Island-2010>Shutter Island | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.246772-2-50-Reviews-Signs-2002>Signs | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.246871-2-50-Reviews-Serendipity-2001>Serendipity | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.247075-2-50-Reviews-Charlie-and-the-Chocolate-Factory-2005>Charlie and the Chocolate Factory | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.247197-2-50-Reviews-Stay-2005>Stay | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.247358-2-50-Reviews-Dogma-1999>Dogma | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.247857-2-50-Reviews-Snakes-on-a-Plane-2006>Snakes on a Plane | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.247953-2-50-Reviews-Eternal-Sunshine-of-the-Spotless-Mind-2004>Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.248538-2-50-Reviews-Requiem-for-a-Dream-2000>Requiem for a Dream

Marter to the Movies: <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.234554-Marter-to-the-Movies-Salt>Salt | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.236240-Marter-to-the-Movies-Let-Me-In>Let Me In | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.238550-Marter-to-the-Movies-The-Social-Network>The Social Network | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.239775-Marter-to-the-Movies-Red>Red

Marter Reviews: <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.176952-Marter-Reviews-Heavy-Rain>Heavy Rain | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.216897-Marter-reviews-MLB-10-The-Show>MLB 10: The Show | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.224454-Late-to-the-Party-Ratchet-Clank-Future-A-Crack-in-Time>Ratchet and Clank Future: A Crack in Time

Late to the Party: <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.209641-Late-to-the-party-Twisted-Metal-Head-On-Extra-Twisted-Edition>Twisted Metal: Head On | <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.223135-Late-to-the-party-Bladestorm-The-Hundred-Years-War>Bladestorm: The Hundred Years' War

If you are a fan of my reviews, and you want to boost my ego receive notifications when new reviews are posted, please join this <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/groups/view/2-50-Reviews>user group.

 

[DuplicateValue]

Most of your points don't account for the fact that the film is following the book.
I'm sure that the director would love to have made an emotional, lively adventure, full of colourful supporting characters and the like.
But that's not how it happens in the book.

The movie stuck very close to Rowling's book, and I love it for that.

As for your gripe about the emotional scenes, it all helped to set the mood properly. Big emotional scenes tend to slow down a film, and brighten or dampen the feel.
That wouldn't have done here - the characters have a goal to complete, and an urgency to do it quickly. They don't have time to mope around at every turn, they have to keep themselves together and press on.
I think this film portrayed this grim determination very well.

Otherwise, nice review.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

Nice review, but the majority of the movie was right in pact with the book itself. Emotion is supposed to be quick and fiery, interaction is supposed to be the exact same thing. It's the final struggle of the series. Ron, Harry, and Hermione are the isolated and in danger of their lives the entire plotline. Having more characterization with secondary characters would take away that feeling.

 

[andrew.wright16]

I personally think this latest film is excellent. I felt it was better than the book actually- for several reasons.
The book felt really rushed and badly written. It was relentless action and none of the character building/ relationships were enhanced like in the other books. Funnily enough the film for once does focus on the character relationship- more importantly the three main characters.
This was a fresh injection into what was a bit of a stale series of films- we can finally stop a moment and focus on the main characters and actually get some gravity of the scenaroi here- a band of powerful murderers are tearing up the country and are hunting them to their deaths.
It stuck well to the book (although Bills wolf attack was copied and pasted in a bit as it happened in the Half Blood Prince...) and actually focused on the bit the book was missing most- now im not saying the book had no character interaction but for me it was a bit OTT and seemed to want to get attention more than to be a good book.

The film ended at a very good point I thought, and the darkness of the film showed that JK didnt ever write her books for an age group, rather, she wrote it for a generation of young people. The books matured as they did, and fortunately I feel the final films have made up for the poor final books, and the Harry Potter ending looks to be a sensational one.

You note how other characters dont get much focus- there wasnt ever much focus really- and I think Helena Bonham Carter is really given the chance to shine in what I think is the 2nd best role behind Snape, who we WILL see more of in the final film.

 

[zombiesinc]

This is perhaps the weakest film of the series, and it fails to bring any depth to any character that isn't named Harry, Ron, or Hermione.

I've read all of the Harry Potter books but this one, so I'm curious, did the supporting characters show up a lot during the book? Or does the film follow the book with this one?

I haven't watched a majority of these films. I... may eventually.

That was a little clunky, due to the repetition. Apart from that, there was nothing that immediately stuck out to me, so very nicely done.

I'd have to agree with Fargo. It felt a bit simple and chunky. Otherwise though, a good review.

 

[Captain Pirate]

I've read all of the Harry Potter books but this one, so I'm curious, did the supporting characters show up a lot during the book? Or does the film follow the book with this one?

I haven't watched a majority of these films. I... may eventually.

It follows the book religiously this time.
Shame, because it really shows up how little effort they put into the previous three films, which, in the books had so much detail.

And no, the supporting characters, for the first part/half at least, don't show up too much in the books either.
In the first third the Weasleys and the Order of the Phoenix show up quite a bit, but then when the main three set off on their journey it's mostly just them.

However, when supporting characters do show up, including ones we haven't seen in the previous books/films, they are all amazingly acted and their scenes well done.
I didn't think there needed to be character development for them too much.
You get an idea of who they are in their scenes, what they're doing, etc.
A huge backstory isn't needed, and in my opinion would only have hindered the film's pace if it had to explain in greater detail who all these people are.
What matters is you get shown who they are, and then what they do and how they fit in the story.

 

[Timmaaaah]

...it's spelled martyr

 

[Marter]

That was a pretty bad review to be honest. Most of the films "flaws" where caused by it following the book properly for once and not cutting out important details.

So...it's a bad review because it is one you don't agree with?

See, I don't think "because it followed the book properly" to be a proper way to defend a movie. A movie still needs to work on its own merit, meaning some changes need to be made. Go watch Moviebob's The Road review. That is basically the entire argument he lays out there. Some things just don't adapt straight into a movie. While it is nice to see them keep many things the same, it just didn't quite work. Cut out some of the main character's time, especially when there are a couple of scenes that definitely didn't have to be included, and replace them with some secondary character development, and then we'll talk.

...it's spelled martyr

...I'm not referring to that word at all.

 

[Hairetos]

I don't know why "it's following the book" is an acceptable rebuttal to his/her review. Of course it follows the book to some extent and, to that extent, Marter will be criticizing the book.

But there is more to a movie than following plot. The important part is portrayal of the themes in the book, such as the emotions of the characters and whatnot. If the director feels that the book was inadequate in its delivery, then it's up to him to fix that in the movie. If he feels that the book did a good job maintaining the audience, then he has no reason to change it. Either way, there is plenty to review and saying "well it followed the book, nothing's the director's fault" is nonsense.

Now I'll be the first to admit that I didn't like the last book, and that enmity extended to the movie. I thought it did a poor job at interesting an unbiased reader, for the reasons mentioned in the review and the fact that way too much of the novel was spent in a forest. And no, I don't think that deserves spoilers.

All-in-all, decent review and refreshing to read after all the pro-Potter positions.

 

[Caspertjuhh]

nice review mate.

 

[bdcjacko]

I think this was one of the best Harry Potters for a while.

 

[SadisticPretzel]

You people saying that it followed the book so well have me wondering if we read the same book. I sat down the night I saw the movie and made out a LONG list of ways it deviated from the book. I won't post it here for fear of spamming, but...

It's a good movie, but they slaughtered the book.

 

[PhiMed]

Well-written, but I have to disagree. While I loved all the side stories and characters in the previous films, they were all pretty bloated. Some of them were so long and disheveled that I have difficulty sitting through them for a second viewing. This one was pretty succinct and to the point, and I appreciate that.

While I disagree with you on many of your points, you laid them out well.