Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt.1 Review

I really wanted to hate this movie. The stories are hugely over-hyped and I am very cynical about the producers’ decision to split the final book into two movies.

Yes, of course, this is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1. The penultimate instalment of the seven-year battle versus good and evil looks promising from the trailers. It looks adequately epic for such a long story and seems to do the books justice.

So what are the good bits? What are the bad bits? And what are the ugly bits?

I was surprised to find so many bits of the movie I actually enjoyed. The scenes set around an apocalyptic countryside, broken power stations, deserted caravan parks and the like are genuinely lonely, cold and depressing. As for the action set in the Fascist Fortress that is the Ministry of Magic. Well, it was excellent. At times it felt like I was watching a film adaptation of Robert Harris’ Fatherland. The actor playing Potter’s Polyjuice Potion disguise seemed to do a better job than the “real” Harry Potter. He looked more certain, more confident, less terrified and more determined to finish the job. Which, however brilliant it was, introduced inconsistencies into the film. I mean, if he’s the same person, surely he should have the same qualities and personality? Perhaps the script made sure both actors would play the same Potter, but as ever I am doubtful of Radcliffe’s acting ability.

Daniel Radcliffe does not live up to his role as “defender of magical humanity”. There were times when I wondered whether he was grimacing or smiling. His anger is downplayed by Ron’s, his affection is downplayed by that shown between Bill and Fleur Weasley and, really he isn’t convincing enough of an actor to give me any faith in his ability to save the world.

Other than the unavoidable casting of Daniel Radcliffe and, I’m sorry to say, Emma Watson as Harry and Hermione, respectively, the film is on the whole pretty good. Special commendation should be made to Ralph Fiennes, who’s Lord Voldemort is the most convincing character in the whole film.

In terms of the production, it can’t be faulted. It’s very good, with dark, action scenes being sprinkled with light comedic relief. But that, to me, is a problem. It was too perfect. Hermione’s house looks more like an Ikea showroom than a home. And as for the more magical rooms, they had more of a feeling of a themed restaurant than magical strongholds. The perfection in production extends down to the clothes worn. Our characters walk through London, they wear street-style clothes. They get transported to a wood , suddenly Harry is wearing a lumberjack shirt and Hermione can be seen in a Hippy-esque cotton “robe” collecting herbs? I found myself wondering where these clothes came from. Presumably Hermione packed an outfit for every occasion in her “Wonderbag”.

As the franchise draws its penultimate breath I wonder if this perfection is such a great thing. To me, movies that continue to be great for year do so because the actors play genuine roles and because the production offers something new, never seen before. This perfection seems to copy lots of different films; 28 Days Later, Catch 22, Lord of the Rings, Pans Labyrinth, The Nightmare Before Christmas and even gangster flicks such as The Godfather and Reservoir Dogs. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is therefore, really nothing more than everything you would expect from it. It is a copy of other greater films and, looking back, I think more memorable films could have happened if directors and casting directors were given more freedom to make what they wanted to make. When I got home, I started imagining what this film would have been like if Guillermo del Toro or Christopher Nolan or Tim Burton had had fun with the script. Would the movie have been more memorable? Probably.

7/10

1 year ago  /  0 notes