Originally published in Cinema Knife Fight, November
22, 2010
OK, I’ll jump right in to the meat of this review. HARRY
POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART 1 (2010) is, in my opinion, the
best HARRY POTTER film yet. It’s also the darkest of the seven
movies which are based on the world famous J.K. Rowling books about young
wizard Harry Potter and his madcap collection of friends and enemies.
Seriously. It’s really, really dark. As
my daughter Amanda and I were getting in the car to head home, there was an
eight-year-old boy bawling his eyes out as he and his mom walked out behind us.
Suffice to say, this is not like the first film with the cute, wonder-eyed
little orphan boy discovering his legacy of becoming a master wizard, and the
really bad man who wants to give him a boo-boo. In fact,He Who Can Now Be
Named, Voldermort, the dark wizard who almost took over the world when
Harry was born, until his attempt to murder baby Harry resulted in his own
near-death, opens the film with a dinner party he is throwing for his inner
circle. Sitting around the table is a Who’s-Who of Rowling’s bad guys and
girls, eating dinner, planning their world domination, and… what else… ah
right, the slow torture and eventual murder of a teacher from the Hogwarts
School who happens to like Muggles (non-magical people like you and me). She
floats above the table while they eat, crying, half-dead, begging for her life,
until Voldemort (played with maximum creepiness by Ralph Fiennes) finally puts
her out of her misery with a flick of his wand… then feeds her to his
monstrously large snake, Nagini. The scene sets the tone of this film,
especially creepy when you realize you’re watching a movie version of the most
beloved young adult book series in history.
But the book on which this movie is based is no less dark.
In fact, the film is exactly like the book. Almost word for word. Over the past
– what’s it been, twelve years or so? – I’ve had the tremendous joy of reading
each book to my children, beginning with my son Andrew, then all three kids,
until this final book which I read to my youngest daughter Audrey (who is
currently sitting on the couch not letting me go to the bathroom until I finish
this review and send it off…). I thought books One through Four were excellent,
and I always enjoyed the movies – mostly because the casting has always, always been
perfect. Every actor has taken whatever character he or she played and kept
their performances loyal to Rowling’s vision.
Then books Five and Six were released: HARRY POTTER
AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX and HARRY POTTER AND THE
HALF-BLOOD PRINCE. In these, Rowling was so obviously trying to cram in
every bit of back story, and introduce so many more characters, in order to
bring us to the final chapter. This made the books a bit convoluted, confusing
and at times disjointed. The film versions of the novels, on the other hand,
were well done, and clarified a lot of questions I had, personally, in reading
the books, especially in regards to the dozens of new characters who are
critical to the final novel, but shoved into books Five and Six and, never
really had time to gel in our minds. The worst of the baddies, Bellatrix
Lestrange, being the biggest. She’s one the best baddies in the films, played
with gleeful insanity by Helena Bonham Carter (SWEENEY TODD, 2007, THE
CORPSE BRIDE, 2005), and comes to dark life in the films. And she is even
darker and crazier in this movie (she even gets to slowly torture poor
Hermoine). I was pleased to find that the final, book was much better written,
with less back story and more forward-action towards the inevitable, climactic
battle. However, one aspect of the novel which I found a little daunting were
the hundred and fifty pages or so, smack in the middle, where Harry, Ron and
Hermoine go into hiding and do very little but move around, argue and try to
find the remaining pieces of Voldemort’s soul (known as Horcruxes). In the film
version of DEATHLY HALLOWS, most of the two and a half hours are indeed
spent with Harry and his two best friends in hiding throughout Great Britain.
But here’s the difference, and where I think the film
version far outshines the admittedly well-done final novel by Ms. Rowling: in
these scenes, the three best-cast child-cum-adult actors in the history of
celluloid finally got to shine. Daniel Racliffe (as Harry Potter), Rupert Grint
(as Ron Weasly) and Emma Watson (as Hermoine Granger) are far more than
talented kids playing the roles of a lifetime. Since the first movie, these
three have become these characters. Not in real life of
course, that would be weird, but on screen they fit so well into the skin of
the three friends from Hogwarts. In DEATHLY HALLOWS, they’ve grown
up, and go so much further in their roles. Of course, it was their last time
filming these movies together so may as well go whole hog and hit the gas, see
how far they can reach.
One particular scene struck me, and showed how far Rupert
Grint has come as an actor. Always the clunky, quirky sidekick to Radcliffe’s
Potter, Grint was head and shoulders in this film above his previous performances.
Granted, he was head and shoulders above most in the cast as he’s about a
hundred feet tall now and just as wide, but he was able to convey so much
emotion with just his expressions and voice. The scene in question was during
an attack on the three characters in a London diner. After subduing the bad
guys (known as Death Eaters), Ron stares at them and in that moment he
understands that he could kill them – cold-blooded killers who may have already
killed everyone in his own family (the friends escaped an attack on his
brother’s wedding and Ron spends the rest of the movie never knowing who
survived and who died in the attack). So much of the movie depends on the
ability of these three actors (I’ve been using “actors” gender-neutrally, if
you haven’t noticed by now) to carry the scenes, it was good to see how far
they’ve come with their own chops, and, as always, the chemistry between these
three people is almost flawless.
So, there had to be at least one part I didn’t like. Yea,
maybe. In one scene late into the film Ron Weasley explains how he ends up in a
certain place at a certain time. Though his explanation is important, and verbatim from
the novel, his dialogue is too tender, a bit over-dramatic and decidedly un-Ron-like.
Screenwriter Steve Kloves and director David Yates must have thought this as
well, because in the very next scene, one of many great buddy-scenes between
Ron and Harry, Ron makes a decidedly Ron-like crack
about that very but of dialogue and the audience roared with delight. So did
the actors.
That was it, though. No other complaints. The screenplay was
brilliant, Kloves keeping to the original novel religiously yet still tweaking
it, every so slightly, to make what was a critically acclaimed novel actually
better. Of course he knew exactly whom he was writing every line of dialogue
for, the strengths and weaknesses of every actor. But I want to give credit
where credit is due. He did an excellent job. As did director Yates, who also
helmed the previous two POTTERmovies.
Back to the humor for a moment. These movies always have a
good sense of humor about them – as have the books. Rowling seemed to have lost
much of her lightness as the books progressed, the stories growing darker and
more serious. Amid so much angst and stress among the characters in this
particular movie, there was just enough humor to lighten the mood, if only for
a moment, to give the audience a break, let a smile break through the clouds of
despair, but little enough that the mood of the story was fairly consistent.
I should say, however, that if you haven’t see the other
six POTTER films, don’t go see the seventh. It will make ZERO
SENSE to you. In fact, for you movie fans who have not read the
books, I’d recommend reviewing the events of the previous movie at least before
watching this one. The movies, and books, have no explanation or recap as to
what has happened to-date. In this way, the seven books, or six and a half
movies (let’s count PART 1 as a half-movie) are all one long
story.
By the way, I took quite a lot of notes while watching this
movie in the dark theater, assuming I’d be able to read my notes well enough
for the next couple of days only to find that pen ran out of ink after the
first page. So here I am now, left with a mostly empty notebook. Ah well, just
assume the points I had jotted, er, scratched down were insightful, direct, and
very educational to your understanding of the film and filmmaking overall. Tell
your friends. Trust me, I’m sure the notes had all that in them.
PART 1 is just that – Part 1. It’s not a
standalone movie in any sense of the word. After two and a half hours, Yates
chooses a semi-logical stopping point… though it will seem that way only if
you’ve read the book, otherwise you will feel like I did in 1980 when THE
EMPIRE STRIKES BACK just – ended – after whopping me
upside the head with Luke’s hand being chopped off, learning Darth was his dad
and Han being deep-frozen and shipped off to certain doom. In DEATHLY
HALLOWS, the first part ends on a very sad note in the story (hence the crying
eight-year-old boy in the parking lot later), and Voldemort getting exactly
what he’d spent the entire film looking for. All is lost, there is no hope, and
a few beloved characters are dead! Dead! DEAD! by the end of
the movie … let’s roll credits!
But this is fine. HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY
HALLOWS is a five hour film. It’s the last in the POTTER series,
and for once, FINALLY, they are filming Rowling’s entire
novel. As fans of the series, we can’t ask for more. Hell, there was even
partial nudity in the movie! Granted, it was Harry and Hermoine, so it’s akin
to seeing your brother and sister naked, ick…. Still, it was an interesting
touch to throw in there. And we know PART 2 is coming soon –
after they make as much money as possible out of PART 1. So we’ll
get to see Harry finally face the evil he was destined to face, and see more of
our beloved characters die! Die! DIE! But most of all, to see
them all one last time.