Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Disappoints Michelle!

HarryPotterDeathlyHallows1

Sometimes being a “critic” sucks. It forces you to over analyze movies instead of sitting back and just enjoying them. When I walked out of the theater after seeing Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows I ran into a fellow critic and asked him what he thought, he was noncommittal but said he liked it, I was like “liked it?” I “LOVED” it, thought it was a fabulous movie but once I started thinking about it for this review, the more I realize how much Director David Yates hoodwinked us. He created a really strong, dark, generic road movie that’s set against the backdrop of a holocaust, but once he again he failed to deliver a real Harry Potter movie. He completely sucked the magic out of this franchise.

Let’s start by talking about the positives – Yates has managed to create a world where the fear and darkness is really palpable, he’s really heavy handed when it comes to the allegory of how the Death Eaters, who now control The Wizarding world treat non purebloods the same way Nazi’s treated Jewish people during WWII. The Ministry of Magic holds “witch hunt” trials to weed out people who “stole” their magic, manufacture anti-muggle propaganda, and build shrines to their pureblood superiority to all. This entire sequence is very affecting.

The movie has an amazing pre-credit opening where we see our three heroes Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint) prepare to take this journey to save the world. In this first five minutes you immediately realize how much the three leads have grown as actors. The weight of their world hangs on their shoulders and you see it in their faces and body language – all non-verbal. I was shocked, surprised and emotionally invested when the movie actually shows Hermione erasing her parent’s memory. The movie largely succeeds as a movie based solely on the strength of trio’s emotionally affecting and nuanced performances. Yates really knows the three main characters well and how their relationship works. The problem is he doesn’t seem to care about much else.

HarryPotterDeathlyHallows2

This movie reportedly cost over $150 million dollars but I’m at a loss as to what that could have been spent on. There’s almost no soundtrack to speak of, the cinematography is practically non-existent, just various shades of grey, but the worst part is Yates clearly doesn’t like magic as this movie has none. Yates’ idea of Wizarding fights is showing dark puffs of smoke all over the place. The spell work is non-existent just people flicking their arms and things exploding – usually little sparks and glass breaking. Again, I ask, where’s the magic? I want to go back to the first two movies where we saw jets of light and have spells show different effects beyond someone just falling down as if punched. Heck even in the beginning when Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) kills someone we barely see the sickly green death curse. Did I mention this movie cost over $150 MILLION?? Where was that money spent? Craft services?  I have grave concerns about the final battle in Part Two, Yates doesn’t care about magic, wizard duels, clearly doesn’t like using SFX, so how is he going to have a 1 1/2 hour final magical battle?

The one thing I’m thankful for is they ran out of time on post converting this movie to 3D. It would have been absolutely horrible, there is NOTHING, not one scene or moment in that would have looked good or even been worth watching in 3D. Unless you think watching bland, desolate landscapes in 3D would have been awesome.

The Deathly Hallows is a very big and dense book, where not much happens during the first half of the book, so the decision to split this movie in two was an interesting one. I’m actually glad they cut most of the stuff regarding Dumbledore’s book in the movie, but it felt weird because they show Gellert Grindelwald taking the Elder Wand but the movie never explains the significance of that moment or his connection to Dumbledore or even who this character is. Since the first part was 2 1/2 hours they clearly had time to spend 10 minutes showing the relationship between young Dumbledore and young Grindelwald. So yes, I just contradicted myself, by leaving out the Dumbledore stuff in the movie, it shows how important it actually was to the overall story.

This is my main problem with Yates and the last three HP movies, they introduce characters and concepts that have major story implications but never follow through or bother to explain so it always feels like you have to have read the books to really understand the significance of these moments. At the end when nothing is followed through on it ends up feeling like half hearted fan service.

For example they bring Kreacher back, so as a fan of the books, I couldn’t wait for them to do his story and show how Voldemort lost his first Horcruex and watch his complete character transformation. They finally introduce Bill Weasley and he’s on screen for less than 30 seconds just to mention he got into a fight with Greyback – again, no background or anything (hopefully we’ll get more in part two, but somehow I doubt it). The Burrow was burned down in the last movie, now it’s back and no explanation of how this happened. When Ron returns they don’t bother to explain that using Voldemort’s name brings snatchers to your door, etc.

Another example of this and major failing is the idea that Yates had TWO very long movies to work with (HBP and DH1), but NEVER bothers to properly explain how Voldemort chose his Horcruex’s and the significance to Wizarding History each one contains. It’s NEVER mentioned, they NEVER once act like they KNOW what the Horcruex’s are LIKELY to be. Would it have killed him to have one scene where we find out that Voldemort used the last known objects of the founders of the school as the containers of his soul bits. These are not some random trinkets he picked up at a thrift store. It goes to one of Voldemort’s central character traits and it shows that the trio actually has some idea of what they are at least looking for. Yate’s clearly doesn’t care about what they are hunting, only that they are searching for these objects.

I’m going to close now because the longer this review goes, the more I’m convincing myself that I hated this movie – even though as a whole I walked out very happy and looking forward to part two. I loved the pacing and overall flow of the movie. As I said in the beginning, I think as a character study the movie is really good, as a movie about magic and the world of Harry Potter it sucks. This movie was split in two parts so that they could be more faithful to the book but it seems like Yates once again focused on character building elements and ignored everything having to do with the actual world of Harry Potter and the details that make this world special.

Final Grade C

EM Review by
Michelle Alexandria
Originally posted 11.19.2010

27 Comments

  1. Michelle, try from time to time to open a book and read it… Your review being so technical is so lame and basic that it SUCKS!!! If your looking for atention by critizing the movie without reading any of the books this place you on the wrong track… What a way to lose control and think you are all mighty. Congrats to have the courage to publish it!!! You have to be “Mental”…

    1. I felt the same way Michelle since David Yates took charge of this franchise! The 5th movie was ok but was very slow do to the lack of magic, action, etc. He is concentrated more in the drama and thats fine with me but taking the magic away is being a mistake. I got bored with HP 6 that almost fall sleep at the theatre, Yates concentrated in the situations of the book that happened before in previous installments like the romance instead of the new moments of the book story. I still going to watch the movie and am expecting this movie to be darker, so am hoping to like it but for the first time I had to agree with one of your reviews for the most part!

  2. Thank u for opening your eyes to how jilted many of us feel by this installment. Die hard Harry Potter fans will state that the film is fantastic if you sat for 2 1/2 hours watching the three main characters hold hands and spin in a circle till they drop. If one actually invested time in reading the novels and the main themes that run through the series they might sing a different tune. 500 pages of the novel were thrown into this movie and so many critics and fans alike are saying “how true it was to the book”. Really? Did i read a different copy? Why would they cut the chapter when there is finally a sense of exceptance and closure with Harry and the Dursleys? Especially after Rowling brilliantly brought Dudley full circle? These characters were the begining of the books and first movies. All we saw were cameos of them throwing luggage in a car. The scenes where-in there is action and tension like in the Malfoy’s home took all of what seemed like 2 minutes to convey on screen. Cameo roles. Hey there’s tonks. I thinks I saw her?
    It was a long camping trip movie where I remember seeing alot of hills, trees, tents. Each time I thought oh finally other actors are on the screen this will be a good scene and bam most of the dialogue from their scenes were obliterated and it was back to the slow pace of hanging in another forest etc…Come on people 200 million was spent on what? The magic was shotty at best and downplayed and I felt like i was in the Blair witch project. I love the series and of course pray that the final movie will live up to the tale Rowling created but am fearful after this installment that again I will be left feeling frustrated at the filmakers for trying to make an indie film. Rowling’s books taught acceptance in being different, but HP fans really throw stones when another fan thinks and sees that the movie could have been brilliant instead of the mediocrity I watched yesterday at the theatre.

    1. Completely ridiculous. I like to consider myself a die-hard Harry Potter fan, and I was vehement about the campy-kid ridiculousness of the first few movies. We ain’t the Twilight folks; we believe in quality. This and the sixth one were the only books, in my mind, that the filmmakers did justice to.

      “Cameo roles. Hey there’s Tonks. I think I saw her?”

      Tonks barely shows up in the 7th book (beginning and end). So no, we probably haven’t been reading the same book.

      It was magical. It’s by the most entertaining, alluring, and original of the bunch. They could have did it the easy way out and cut out 3/4 of the time spent in the woods in a desperate attempt to retain our attention, and yet kept us aware, and engaged in the frustration and ennui felt by Harry, Ron, and Hermione while they lived in exile (Btw, did you not NOTICE the splendiferous scenery all around? The scene with the stunning cracked-rock cliffs? The amazing camera-work and cinematography? It was apparent even in the trailers. What is wrong with you people?) The action scenes were taut, intense, and scared the crap out of the audiences. The final scene left us emotional and anticipatory. You could practically hear one long, collective exhale in the theater when it ended.

      In this age where all movies either move at a break-neck “Transformers” style ADHD speed or at the pace of a snail, enchanted with its own languidness, I simply cannot recall the last time the audience sat so still for every little frame, every breath, movement, and expression. My friends and I were pleasantly surprised by the occasional injections of original thinking (SPOILERS: the animation sequence used for the Tale of the Three Brothers, the art design for the Ministry, etc.)

      They outdid themselves. They made a crowd-pleasing movie that managed to retain its own soul and unique signature at the same time. All of the other movies should have been made this way, and I can only say that it’s a pity that it took them five movies to catch on. But otherwise, bravo.

  3. Seriously? You’re wondering what the money has been spent on? Did you actually see the film? And its 76387632487638746873264782364827364872364 locations all over Britain?And you say the cinematography was non-existent?

  4. Shelbert, ‘Rowling brilliantly bringing Dudley full circle’ doesn’t strike me as all that important in the grand scheme of things. If you look for every page literally being translated to the screen, you’re going to be very disappointed indeed.

    As it is, this film has left a lot more in than other films have, and people still manage to bitch and moan.

    By the way, the Dudley scene wás shot, especially for those who walk into the cinema with the book in one hand and a pen to write down what was copied and what wasn’t copied in the other hand. You’ll probably see it when the DVD comes out.

    1. If I hear one more person state “oh they can’t put all of the book in the movie” I understand. Order of the Phoenix left alot out but I still loved the film. But hallows is split into 2 movies with a running time of 2.5 hours. That is not the only scene that could have had 1-2 minutes of screentime instead of watching Harry and Hermione dance. The characters we have come to love and hate deserve their time on screen, if the author could give us a complete wrap up don’t suggest that the filmaker could not have done equally or beyond our expectations. Fans do u realize how many billions of dollars, your dollars, that this franchise has made. It boggles the mind. So to use the same excuse oh it can’t be just like the book is lame. sorry. Look at what Peter Jackson did with LOTR. Cinema at it’s best. I can only begin to imagine if someone like he directed this franchise. I don’t live in a Twilight after school special of making films. I do look for brilliance because I love the Harry Potter series and because they have all the money in the world to make these films beyond our expectations. Again, like I stated, HP fans love to throw stones at an opposing viewpoint.

      1. Since you haven’t seen Part II of Deathly Hallows II all of your complaints are unfounded. You have no idea of what direction the filmmaker will be taking it. He may wish to begin bringing the characters and their families together tighter near the ending climax, showing the ring of support Harry and his team have juxtaposed to the ring of fear and backstabbing hatred that Voldemort inspires. I saw this film and that is what I saw brewing, maybe you need to see it again. All of Voldemort’s people were on edge, shaking, scared and all looked like they wanted out, whereas Harry’s crew were digging in their heels and making bonds stronger. Showing Harry’s cousin’s change in the very beginning and then letting Harry travel off alone would have confused moviegoers more than appeased them.

        1. Since you have not seen part 2 and unless you are a friend of the filmaker your ideas may also be “unfounded”. I really do not see a need to argue because we all have different opinions. But I never stated I hated this film or thought it was terrible, just dissapointed. Another point is that as some adults fail to realize that these books are located in the children’s section at bookstores and that children have generated the most money to this franchise wether we as adults jumped on board or not. The main characters are portraying teenagers not adults in this series. Many people never read the books but only followed the movies, like my friend whom fell asleep during this installment, I had to explain so much to her after the film was over not because she fell asleep briefly, and I have read some reviews that agree with my idea that the filmaker had a obligation to readers and non-readers of the books to explain a liitle bit more of what was going on as Rowling did in her novel. I love that the books became darker but it is still a childrens book and to go all artsy seemed a bit unfair when making a film to appeal to many different ages. Now I mentioned one of many scenes that would have been nice to see since the series is being wrapped up for good, that of the Dursleys. It was a great section of the book to bring closure in an unexpected way to most readers. The first few films started with the comedic performances of these minor characters that left you despising how they treated Harry. All I asked was would it have killed the film to have a bit of dialouge before they dissapeared never to be seen again. Guys my real point was they had 2.5 hours to give us not 80 minutes. They split the book into 2 movies. Can anyone say that if the part 1 was 3 or 3.5 hours that you would not have gone to see the film. That is just one, for me, plot line I would have enjoyed saying goodbye to on the film not just in the book. Perhaps I should see the film again and perhaps others should think about what they saw and sit down and read the first 500 pages of the novel again and maybe, just maybe others would go “hey that would have been great to see this or that done on film or explained a little more” Characters came on the film and then bam “oh there dead” mad eye mooney’s eye in the door, if u blinked u missed it. Alot of things that were given care in the book never made it to the screen and as I reader we all get a visual idea and how wonderful that we have films to give us another visual perception. Just ,for me, felt cheated and felt for the people who never read the books how confused they may be after seeing the film. So, no hatred here just an opinion like each of you have. Thanks guys!

      2. LOTR was a very descriptive book though, it was almost like a film script in places, so fairly easy to covert into a series of films.Also, if you are going to cut out a lot of the stuff in previous films (which, given the size of the books, was inevitable) then, even if you have got the time in the last film, you can put everything in the book in there, as a lot of the stuff was relevant to the things that were cut out of the previous films.Harry and Hermione’s dance was very good I thought, given the sexual tension that has been running through the last few films.

      3. I take it you have you never read Return of the King then have you? Jackson basically cut half off the book. The whole Scouring of the Shire is non-existent. Also the battle for the city of Gondor is completely different from the book as well. The Orcs never get into the city and half of the military leaders are not even shown. Plus, with Denethor we get no reason for his madness but in the book it is explained that he has gone mad because he has been using the palantir way to much. So not the best example.

    2. I felt the film evoked the reconciliation off screen. Showing them leaving because it isn’t safe any more showed that they took magic, and the darkness of their situation seriously. I wonder if Ebert ever read the books. he says in his review that he thought that the opening scene showed “harry taking care of his family first”. What a turn around that is. And I think that it was in his most subtle moments of direction that Yates has succeeded, in the places he has succeeded. He evokes things off-screen, which I felt were more moving than the things on the screen. the film wasn’t so much boring (as I said to the people I saw it with last night) as it was tense, and slow-moving. It was a grown-up film, and whatever good things it has, are not as easy to point out as the as candy-coated earliest films. But that mirrors the book’s development too. And the author’s development from a writer of children’s ripping yarns, to a rather brilliant all-grown-up novelist.

      I said above that the film is flawed, but it’s not crap, either.

      W

      1. Great post! For the most part I agree with you and that’s the problem. On one level the film worked really well but it could have been great if Yates actually cared about the source material. As you said, a lot of stuff took play “off camera,” but that’s only because you know it from the books. That stuff really isn’t implied in the movies themselves, my mind just “subconsciously” fills in all the gaping holes because I have read all the books and I don’t think the books have been particularly good since the 4th one. It seemed like JKR went out of her way not to follow through with the stuff she sets up in previous books.

        1. Out of curiosity, what stuff specifically do you feel like books set up but didn’t follow through on? I always felt that pretty much every loose end was tied up by the end of book 7.

          1. It’s not that the books didn’t close all the loopholes, it’s that they didn’t go in the “obvious” directions. Maybe I’ve read too much fanfiction and speculation in between the books but after Book 4, I really wanted to see the start of the War in Book 5. Wanted to see the OOTP become a real fighting force, wanted to see Harry actually get properly trained and step up and become a real hero, once the DA was introduced it would have been fun to see them act as a unit in book 6, etc. I wanted more menace from Voldemort…. She spent 4 books building all of this up and she never really followed through and kept the War as a “backdrop” and never really showed Harry stepping up and taking control (a bit of that happened in OOTP). I wanted Ron to grow up and finally show off his strategy skills…

          2. I think you’re taking away the actual enjoyment of the books here. You can’t get what you want out a book. You need to just sit back and let it take you for a ride. Say hypothetically this happened in real life, I am quite sure things would not go your way, it’s going to go fate’s (Rowling’s) way. You read the book because you may have thought it was interesting, or it was fun, or it was a good past time, etc., but what I think happens to people (and maybe I am wrong for you, but still…) is that they’ll read too much into it, and expect something out of it that applies something more to them. And that’s wrong. We should be reading, watching, playing, listening to something because we enjoy it, and not make something else out of it. That’s my take on it anyway.

            And I whole heartedly disagree with this review. I walked in without really thinking anything, and came out satisfied. Not the best movie out there, but I thought it was good. Although I do agree with how some parts were unclear because it was more centered around the book. I understood everything that was going on except that damn piece of glass. It’s been a while since i read the book but I can’t place that one.

          3. Not seen the movie yet but i assume the peice of glass is a mirror that links to dumbledore’s brothers. Harry thinks that it’s dumbledore’s eye he see’s. When they get caught and meet Mr Ollivander and luna in the cellar he asks the mirror for help and aberforth sends the house elf.

  5. Thanks for this review. I also felt like I liked the movie as I watched it, but it fell apart the more I thought about it afterwards. I think the reason I enjoyed it while watching it was because I had faith and goodwill going in, but looking back on what has been delivered so far I am only disappointed.

  6. “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1” (AKA “Harry Potter and the Crappy Movie”) takes Harry and his two friends to all sorts of places so they can be moody and do all sorts of things. Have not read the book so don’t know if the book was as lifeless and depressing. Abysmal acting, repetitive special effects, and boring settings. Save your money and 2 ½ hours.

    GRADE = “C”

  7. I haven’t seen the movie yet and have high hopes for it still…but by what the director has done with previose movies, I agree with you. I loved the first two movies, the director made sure everything tied in with the books and made beautiful visuals. But since the 3rd movie, I knew it was getting weaker and sadly, the 3rd book was my favorite of the series and the movie was my least favorite. He tried is all I can say for the director who started with the 3rd movie and ended with the 7th. Allot of the characters, aside from the main three, were sadly downplayed to the point where I didn’t even care when Sirius died and will only care that snape dies in the last for he was in the series from the begining. The only character who I felt was well played in his movies was Belarix, but that could have simply been the actress and how well she pulled off the maddness to this character. I have strong hope to the movie though for I never cared for the last book. That’s right, I’ll admit it, I hated the 7th book. To me it all ended at the 6th book, it felt like the perfect closure to me, but I won’t get into why I hated the book so for I’m hear to bitch about the movies, so let’s say, I felt it was rushed. But that’s why I have high hopes for the movie, maybe they’ll fix the mistakes of the book and make it not feel as rushed, I don’t know. Apperantly, he once more didn’t that great on a HP movie though. I’ll find out tommorow! ^.^

  8. This is the best review I read yet of the movie. If they weren’t going to tell the story of Dumbledore and Grindelwald, at least they could have made up for it, by telling the story in a different way, where JKR could have even written some new angle, to explain the “horcruxes versus hallows” theory that Dumbledore explains in the book, but not in the movie. The hallows themselves, title of the book or not, are a symbol on Pere Lovegood’s locket, and on a grave, and a story, but the horcruxes get no explanation. Someone in the movie should have spoken of the four founders, maybe it should have been a speech from Voldemort himself, where instead of merely menacing and killing and bullying, he holds forth and lets his cronies in on whatever strange and twisted desires lead him to choose those horcruxes. He must not seem aware of why he is telling his cronies all that he tells them, but he must make an impassioned speech about the essential nobility of his task. For Voldemort cares little for good, or evil, and has no thought to justify himself as good. But he deeply desires, longs for, and thus idolizes all forms of power. This hunger for power could have supplied the meat on the bones, that this film lacks.

    However, I still loved it.

    W

  9. The Unstoppable : D
    The Social Network : C
    Inception : D
    Iron man : C
    Avatar : C
    Despicable Me: C

    these are from this Critic….
    Seriously …………….

    Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

  10. honey, you are one in 10 million. the movie is absolutely beautiful. find another job.

  11. I watched to movie last night with some friends. Most of us who haven’t read the book didn’t know what was happening on screen. I felt that the director simply didn’t intend the film for those who haven’t read the book. You got it right when you said “It’s NEVER mentioned, they NEVER once act like they KNOW what the Horcruex’s are LIKELY to be.” While watching the movie, I thought about how the heck are they going to find the other horcruex when they just seem like some random objects.

    1. Have any of you thought that perhaps things that weren’t explained in this part will be explained in the next? As someone who has read the books it seems pretty obvious how things are going to laid out in the next film. I’d also like to point out that the little bit of info they had on what the horcruxes MIGHT be in the book plays absolutely no role in the actual finding of the hiding places of them. The feeling of hopelessness is exactly how Rowling wrote the book. Dumbledore left them with virtually no helpfull information and three teenagers are somehow supposed to complete this nearly impossible task. I also saw the movie with people who never read the book, and they had no problem following what was going on. Yes they asked how in the world are they going to find the next horcruxes….but this is exactly how the characters felt. No they didn’t get to see all of the complexities and growth of EVERY single character in the books, but come on people… it’s a movie. Is it really important that Dudley isn’t quite as mean as you think, or Aunt Petunia ALMOST says something to Harry when she leaves. If you want the same exact experience you got when you read the book then read it again. Don’t ever go see any movie adaption of any book.

      1. i think that it is just hard for those of us who love the books, but who also have friends and family who have not read them, find ourselves explaining to those people what the hell is going on on screen, without tossing our hands up and telling them to “just read the books.” yes, the dudley and aunt petunia example you gave isnt as crucial, but what the horcruxes might be, and where they might be, umm..yeah. slightly important. my problem is not with this movie, but with HBP. HBP should have been the movie that made you able to understand DH1. but it fell short, and instead of defining crucial details, it stuck in random scenes like the burrow burning.

        the fact of the matter is, the books are great and should be read. but the movies allowed for people who arent readers to experience it. and it is worth the experience at any level. its just hard for those of us who know it at its finest to see those who never read the books get confused or uninterested.

  12. The 3D bit?

    Nagini eating the teacher… that was made for 3D, surely?

Comments are closed.