Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1

The world of magic has entered truly the darkest times, but despite what random critical outbursts might suggest, it has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the film adaptation. Yates and Kloves had a challenging task of transforming the "slower and more talkative" part of the Relics into a separate explosive blockbuster. The director stood out with incredible bravura, and whether the Trio is leaving home, the Tale of the Three Brothers is being told, or the horcrux is being destroyed, the magical atmosphere literally shines from the screen. However, Kloves' screenplay occasionally takes shortcuts, and if I didn't have the source material loaded backwards and forwards, I would be quite lost. But even though Bill and Fleur become members of the Order from minute to minute, when they were omitted in the Prince, and Minister Scrimgeour steps onto the scene only to quickly descend from it, the criticisms are hard to find in the consequences. The overall impression for me screams that from four hundred pages full of expectations of great things and the fulfillment of smaller ongoing goals, an epic fantasy full of intoxicating moments and such sincere private drama has been created that it takes one's breath away. The Phoenix and the Prince have gained a successful companion, and if David Yates was the king after the previous installment, he has slowly run out of room to climb. (2010-11-27)

I feel like this doesn't have much to do with good old Harry Potter anymore. It's all a bit too dark and the Hogwarts atmosphere is sorely lacking. I still respect Harry as a fan though. I'm just of the opinion that a "new" viewer won't be impressed by this installment (at least the first part). At times I feel like I'm watching a Canadian thriller. I give it 4 stars, but on a completely different scale than the previous installments. But I'm looking forward to Part 2 anyway. (2011-05-12)

Now I’ve reached the age where I have read all of the Potter books, but it’s so long ago now, that I can’t remember anything more than the main plot and how they ended. Yates understands (but the studio doesn’t yet) that most of the fans have aged considerably (personally I first got to know Harry and his friends in the ninth grade and a whole lot of water has flown under the bridge since then) and, starting with part five, has begun slowly but surely to shift from slightly rugged fairytale into a dark fantasy which suits us, over-aged kids, better now. Part seven also has the advantage that it radically differs from its younger brothers in its most fundamental aspect. We are no longer shut in at Hogwarts, but we are beginning to move around, far and wide around the entire, well... British Isles. The visuals in the first half of Deathly Hollows are entrancing (the sea) and yes, I also mean the ingeniously handled insert about the three brothers. Desplat’s music is probably the best possible substitute for Williams’ awesome soundtracks. The cast give their very best performances (after all these years, they have their characters nailed) and because the story has been divided into two, they have a lot of room to strut their stuff. They are clearly saving Snape for the finale and Voldemort is at last truly demonic. It was interesting that although it was a little slow-moving, I wasn’t bored for a minute. In fact this made me want to see the last half and maybe read the books again. Sometime. So, our last meeting is in six month’s time, Mr. Potter. (2010-11-28)

The weakest Harry Potter instalment split into two parts? Oh dear, we're raking in the dough, we're raking in the dough. And unfortunately it phoned it in – the first part is boring. A fairy tale with thriller elements and coincidentally uncovered graves. It's sad, but as a fan, I'm disappointed. The music, the actors, the effects – nothing new, lackluster and drawn out. A brick on you. The second part might finally make you cry; so far it's been nothing but smirking. I had fun making fun of it. Otherwise, I was yawning. Sorry, Harry, you were acting like Frodo, and I won't forgive you for that. A weaker 3 stars. (2010-12-03)

Watching teenagers run around in the woods for 140 minutes is borderline torture. David Yates rips off Nolan's Batman themes at every turn, but doesn't understand that that alone doesn’t make a good movie. Because when the actors don't have anything to work with, and there is not a single memorable scene that will make it worthwhile, the result is more than trivial. An unfinished, poorly made film with no drama, where they drown in lavish camera panoramas and robust music, forgetting everything else that made the Harry Potter franchise a success. (2023-07-22)