Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1
Directed by: David Yates
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint

I was wary of seeing the first part of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. I’m a huge fan of the books. I’ve read the series many times, though I’ve only read the last book three or four times. It’s my habit to re-read the series at least once a year, I love it so much. With most book-to-movie adaptations, I can separate the canons in my head. I like the Lord of the Rings books, and I love the movies. They exist as separate things.

Not so much with Harry Potter. I guess because I’ve read the books so many times, I’ve developed too strong a mental image of how things should look/happen. Most of the movies have been disappointing to me. The first two were too kiddy and fluffy for my taste; Prisoner of Azkaban looked great but the story was totally screwed up; Goblet of Fire substituted dragon chase scenes for plotlines that really matter; Order of the Phoenix, actually my favorite, was the closest to my mental version; and Half-Blood Prince was an awful exercise in stripping away all of the emotion out of the story.

So I went to see Deathly Hallows with no small amount of trepidation. Because I didn’t see it on opening day (blame the Fanfiancé), I’d heard lots of people saying that they loved it, that it was true to the book, so on and so forth, but I still kept my expectations low.

I definitely wasn’t disappointed. In fact, I think this might have been the best of the movies so far. That statement comes with a caveat, though: if you like the book version of Deathly Hallows, you’ll like the movie. If you didn’t care for the book, then you’ll probably think that the movie is boring.

I liked the book, so I enjoyed the movie quite a bit. It is deliberately paced (says the Fanfiancé: kinda boring), but it stayed true to the book’s storyline without adding silly diversions like dragon chases or omitting important information. The slow pace serves to establish Harry’s own disappointment in Dumbledore and his frustration at not knowing what he’s supposed to do other than the general, “Find Horcruxes and destroy them.” Because we as audience members might get frustrated with the lack of forward movement through part of the movie, we can better sympathize with… er, certain characters who also get frustrated. How was that for avoiding a spoiler?

As Deathly Hallows part one is directed by David Yates, the same director who helmed Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince, the visual style remains consistent, and luckily, it’s a very nice style. Everything is a bit desaturated, which works very well to instill a sense of the bleakness that the wizard world is feeling. My one complaint about the style was the use of hand-held cams in random scenes. I get that it’s used to try to make the audience feel the urgency, but it’s nauseating, and during one chase/fight sequence, I felt more like I was watching a Bourne movie than a Harry Potter movie.

Also consistent is the understatedness of the acting. It bothered me in Half-Blood Prince; it felt more like the characters weren’t reacting at all. But in Deathly Hallows, it feels more like shock. I’m not sure if I can put my finger on why it works better in this film, but it just felt less sterile.

Bring tissues if movies make you cry. I welled up several times and cried outright at the end, and thank goodness I grabbed extra napkins on the way into the theatre.

I have to say, this is the first Harry Potter film that’s really done it for me. I enjoyed it, both as a movie and as an adaptation of my beloved books. July cannot come quickly enough.