I think Mark is pretty much spot on with this. I'm also someone that 'grew into' the Potter phenomenon and I think each film has done a great job of reflecting the growing darkness and, in some cases, despair of the the books.



Adding to Mark's point I would say the reason that this film works so well with the focus on the three characters and, at times, little else, is because of the great performances they put in. From the poor acting of the early films they have been able to rely more and more on these three to carry the story as they have constantly improved.



I think Emma Watson lags behind the other two but even she is much better than she was. For the last few films I've been very impressed with Daniel Radcliffe's performances but the Deathly Hallows part one belongs to Rupert Grint who I think was absolutely superb.

I saw Deathly Hallows two days in a row, and I think I've figured out my main problem with it. It's that the filmmakers are being somewhat unfair to fans only of the Potter films. I've read none of the books, seen all the films, and the plot detail in Deathly Hallows - making it a two-parter - brings in a number of elements which I've never come across, but which will no doubt please fans of the book, to whom the films before must seem like a mere accompaniment.



Case in point, the use of a shard of mirror, into which Harry looks and [someone] looks back is used several times during Deathly Hallows, and completely alienated me. I MAY be forgetting its background in one of the other films, but I'm 99.9999% certain it's never come up. It was completely fresh. It seems crucial to Harry's character development and the plot, but it lost me. Having had much of the books explained to me by friends, in the day following my second screening, I'm now worried there'll be masses of intricate plot details put into Deathly Hallows II, which will have no basis in the history of the films.



I felt quite alienated by the filmmakers in this way. They should either have filmed all the novels in such intricacy, with a detailed view as to how subsequent plots will be...OR they should have kept number 7 as stripped down as the others, eschewing the smaller pieces for the benefit of the whole.



SPOILERS







I've since been told that Voldemort is a much-different character in the book due to his different screen-time, and that Dobby's demise would have likely had a much stronger impact on me had he appeared in the films as frequently as the books.







SPOILERS



Don't get me wrong, I would never want to come across as saying "don't change the books, blah blah blah" because I can't stand that mindset - it's a film adaptation, it's NOT the book. But to create a standalone film series for 6 films, before throwing in two films-worth of detail, much of which will be brand new for sole film-watchers seems unfair, risking the loss of one audience for the sake of keeping the book-readers happier.



And PS - I've met NO Harry Potter readers who are completely happy with the films, so it's pointless to obsess over keeping them so. They're fanboys in the same way as those who decried Watchmen. So just make the film the way it fits and see who likes it. It's not like, even if people don't like the film, they won't shell out hundreds of millions of dollars to see it first.

And in response to Matt, I actually thought Radcliffe was by FAR the worst of the three. It's partly him and partly the less-than-stellar script, but he doesn't have the most watchable time trying to get through his lines convincingly.



And WHY they've obsessively tried to make him (16-17 in the film) look like a 30 year old is beyond me.

This was a massive let down for me



The Potter films have gone from strength to strength under the helm of David Yates with the Half Blood Prince being the strongest of the series (Dr K: Prisoner of Azkaban works better as a stand alone film, granted, but it's not better than The Half Blood Prince). But the Deathly Hallows is proof of what happens when a studio tries to squeeze every drop of money they can out of the last in a franchise.



The acting has gone downhill with the principles putting in weird pauses in between every line to either



a) provide moments on which the audience can reflect

b) give the audience a moment to laugh



Unfortunately a pinter-pause does not indicate gravitas. And as a result the rhythm of certain scenes was fractured, with the pacing at times completely off.



Then there's the middle section of the film that just SAGGED so badly under the weight of ponderous shots of the troop walking around doing....not much. It just went on forever. And didn't seem to shift.



I could go on at length as to the problems of the film but it all boils down to this: not enough happens...at all.



There are huge periods of time where an arresting plot is largely absent and it judders to a stand-still. And why is that? BECAUSE THEY'VE SAVED EVERYTHING FOR THE FINAL FILM SO THEY CAN MAKE MORE MONEY.



Deathly Hallows should have been the three hour rollercoaster action packed christmas movie that we all hoped it was going to be. If you can make the Goblet of Fire into one film you can certainly do it with the Deathly Hallows.



Instead Potter part 8.1 is just a precursor to the ACTUAL film that's coming next summer...Potter part 8.2



But it's going to make a fortune so who cares? Right?



Total stop-gap, an artistic compromise, and a massive disappointment.

P.S. I've just looked at my bookcase and the Order of the Phoenix is a HUGE book! Even bigger than the Goblet of Fire. And yet they managed to boil that down very well.



Once again: this has nothing to do with detail and a faithful adaptation of the plot lines and it REALLY shows.

I've never read the books and I'm pretty sure I never will. I generally liked HPDH-1, though I agree that it does sag badly in the middle and if they were looking for 10-15 minutes to trim, that's where they should start.



My spoilerous review: https://streetrw.blogspot.com/2010/11/harry-potter-and-deathly-hallows-part-1.html

Firstly, I think the film is excellent. Probably the second best after the PoA. The darkness of the film really draws you in and the tension throughout builds up quite nicely and I personally can't wait for part two. I thought the chemistry between the three central characters was excellent. They do pull it off really well. However, I do agree with Stephen Glass, especially with the shard of a mirror. I have read all the books (some of which several times), and I have to admit that in the film the use of the mirror was really unexplained. I'm not saying for one second that it ruined the film but whilst being totally engaged in the film, I couldn't stop myself from trying to remember where the mirror had come from. I just feel that with so so much to cover in the final film, some really key aspects will either be thrown into the last film with little explanation or some key aspects will lack the emotional significance that the books provide which will be a shame. I know the shard of mirror did not play a pivotal part but you just feel if its going to be used in the film with no explanation and with little purpose, was it even necessary in being in the film in the first place? The film could have been longer perhaps to fit these little pieces in. I didn't think the film was actually long enough!That said,like with all these Harry Potter films, I left the cinema with the feeling that I had just watched a really really good film. However, in the case of The Deathly Hallows Part 1 and the Half Blood Prince, I do somewhat feel a little aggrieved as just the tiniest of things could have made them better.

(...ZZzzzzzzzzz) *snrkk*... oh... wait,what? It's another Harry Potter film? Oh right,well, mind wake me when cinema gets interesting again (Zzzzzzzz...)

I actually only like the first THREE Harry Potter films!



The childish stuff is what HP was originally, at least for me, all about. And I think the Chris Columbus films captured that naïveté perfectly. Yes, the third one brought the films to a whole new level, but it also happens to be my personal favorite of the books as well. So hardly a surprise there. After that, I found, the films just got really convoluted, baggy and... ah, dare I say it? Boring.



One should keep in mind that the Harry Potter books originally started out as a series of very good childrens books. It's protagonists have aged almost in sync with most of its "first" audience. As the main characters grew older in the books, so did the kids reading them, and therefore somewhere in the middle Rowlings overall aesthetic started to mutate into something "dark" and "gritty". As a result, people of other generations will inevitably fail to appreciate the series as a whole - either it will be too "kiddy" for them in the beginning (yes, that's you, Mark!) or far too gloomy and wagneresque by the end. But for those of us who were kinds when this whole thing started, it has been a pretty smooth transition.



Although if I want dark and gritty, I'd rather watch something else.

I didn't have a clue about what was pecisely going on, and I have seen all the other movies. Admittedly I haven't read the books and I totally agree with @StephenGlass s assessment of the movie.

I felt foolish for not knowing what the shard of mirror was all about, or how many horcruxes there are and why it is essential that the gang find them. Why it suddenly turned focus onto the Deathly Hallows and the horcruxes were forgotten....it was basically confusing. Coupled with the long bits of exposition as the trio then duo then trio camped out, it was all a bit much.

Having said that, there were some nice moments. I agree with Dr K, the scenes in the ministry of magic were particularly good and I also enjoyed the Snatcher chase sequence which was geuinely scary.

Unfortunately for its young stars, the best scene didn't include them at all.

***SPOILERS (for yes talking about this movie can spoil it for some, not everyone has read the books)***

It never ceases to amaze me that however many times parents are warned about the darker aspects of Harry Potter they still insist on taking there tiny tots to see it.

The opening scene was very disturbing and dark, an evil come dine with me hosted by Lord Voldemort, where none of the guests wanted to mention the elephant in the room for fear of drawing his murderous attention. Said elephant being a female teacher from Hogwarts who has clearly been tortured and is hanging upside down over the table. The tension was palpable, the acting was wonderful (with particular mention to Mr Jason Isaacs - Hello to Jason Isaacs!). I fear I may have thought that this scene was a standout because of its adult actors and themes of torture and murder.



Did anyone else think it was bizarre that Bellatrix, Wormtail and Lucius Malfoy couldn't be sure that they had captured Harry, so locked him in a cellar to plan his escape? These are all characters that have seen him before and know who his friends are.



***end of SOILERS***



It was interesting to actually have the opportunity to see Voldemort, in close up, in a brightly lit scene. We hear him speak for longer and interact with his ghastly followers. The scene was a role call of British character actors, and was all the better for it.



Another thing that I noted and was surprised that Dr K missed was its comparison to Twilight. I felt that maybe the makers were trying for the Twilight audience with the (mistaken) love triangle and its inherent jealousies, the wooded setting and the camping aspect. I guess this is all part of the characters "growing up" and the story "growing up" too.



Overall not a bad movie but not as exciting, or indeed as easy to follow, as I thought it would be. Standout performances, Jason Isaacs, Rupert Grint and Helena Bonham Carter (who is truly vicious).

I thought it was good, though it did sag in the middle and they really could have cut the film down, it was trying to be like The Lord of the Rings, but at least with Lord of the Rings there was a lot going on, and it wasn't just Frodo and Sam's journey, there were other things happening around Middle Earth, whereas Harry Potter it just focused on the three children and it was really really boring, and predictable.



What really pissed me off is that Cineworld were charging an extra £1 for the Harry Potter movie, compared to their other movies, they were charging at evening prices even when the showings were on in the afternoon, and to rub salt in to the wound they charged £2.10 for booking, so in total it cost me £21.70 for 2 adults and 1 child.



And they wonder why people pirate movies.

I really enjoyed HP7a. Being a cynical adult and having never read the books until just before the first movie came out, I quickly became a convert to the wonderful world portrayed by JKR and the subsequent screen adaptations of each book.



I found the "wandering in the wilderness" section in the book rather tedious but was pleased with how quickly it moved along in the book.



I have enjoyed how each of the books/movies have progressed as the characters age and the situations become more mature. I actually like the darkness of the last few movies. Love the cinematogrophy and colour palette of the HBP and TDH P1 particularly.



Loved seeing the death eaters together with Voldemort at last. Great to see Lucius Malfoy back again (wonderful performance from Jason Isaacs, also "Hello to Jason Isaacs".



I particularly found Rupert Grint's performance the best he's done to date. Greater character depth and my how he's filled out, what shoulders!



Even my sister was suprised at how quickly the movie went along. I was very happy where the movie ended. It was where I was hoping it would finish.



Now I can't wait for HP7b next July!

Who are Hermione and Dumbledore? Are they lovers or siblings?

I see most of the criticisms are coming from the not-read-the-books brigade and presumably they kept away from spoilers so as not to spoil the film.

This film was depicting the slow part of the final story, but intentionally slow. In order to better appreciate the gravity of the task before them you had to experience all the protracted no-progress disappointments of aimlessly traipsing around forests hiding out in a tent with absolutely no idea where to find these horcruxes save for the paltry information left to them. They were depressed, lonely, sad, irritable, confused and exhausted. Stuff all that into 15 or 20 minutes just to appease those grunts with a lousy attention span and the entire premise is lost. When you read the book the tension became tense and frustrating but entirely tolerable, as it was in the film.

It also gave us plenty of time to enjoy Ron Weasley's finest hours. Great performances from all 3 but Rupert Grint's portrayal as a continually more hacked off sidekick to the all famous Harry Potter was outstanding.

I believe the decision to make the last book into 2 films was the right one; HP7 part 1 may not be blockbuster action every single minute but if you appreciate the reason behind that maybe there's hope for you yet.

I haven't read any of the books but I do love all of the films. This latest one though is poor compared to what came before.



Yes the acting is much improved and I agree that Daniel Radcliffe is the least improved of the three. Rupert Grint gets to show off in this film and Emma Watson (barring one line where she replies to Harry calling her a genius which was a clunky line anyway) is also really good, particularly in how she displays emotion non-verbally.



The problem is that by splitting the book into two they've turned the whole "wandering" part of the story into a massive drag on the middle of the film. It goes on for too long with very little happening other than the characters staring off at the landscape. It could have been done much better in a shorter amount of time but seems to have been allowed to go on just to fill up running time and it kills the enjoyment of the film. It's not dark or menacing or portentious. Just dull.



WB could also be sued for false advertising considering the trailers for this film clearly includes a chunk of exciting parts from the final film to make it seem more interesting.



Overall I'm disappointed. It was good any time they weren't in the wood but boy did they spend a lot of time in the wood. It's a relief when they finally go and see Basil Exposition and return to the plot.



On another point... I know Dr K has mentioned how 3D makes films look duller and less colourful. In my screening the entire film was very dark and drain of colour to the point I thought I was wearing 3D glasses by mistake. Was that how the film was for everyone or did my local cinema mess up the screening?

@ MargeGunderson



I agree about the Ministry of Magic scenes, they were surprisingly exciting (although the ADR made the film look a little cheap, but I can forgive that). I also liked seeing Voldemort in a well-lit scene, it makes him a scarier presence, giving him an imposing human form. Much like The Joker in The Dark Knight, beyond all the spiritual/psychological torture he can utilise, we never forget he's a formidable human being.



SPOILERS AGAIN



I actually think the best moment in the film is the reveal of Hermione's arm after Bellatrix tortures her; seeing 'Mudblood' carved into her skin like a concentration camp number was really affecting.



SPOILERS OVER

"This film was depicting the slow part of the final story, but intentionally slow. In order to better appreciate the gravity of the task before them you had to experience all the protracted no-progress disappointments of aimlessly traipsing around forests hiding out in a tent with absolutely no idea where to find these horcruxes save for the paltry information left to them. They were depressed, lonely, sad, irritable, confused and exhausted. Stuff all that into 15 or 20 minutes just to appease those grunts with a lousy attention span and the entire premise is lost. When you read the book the tension became tense and frustrating but entirely tolerable, as it was in the film."



Sorry but you seem to assume that anyone who had a problem with the middle section is some kind of action-junkie who can't sit through the quiet parts without fidgeting. I wouldn't have a problem with the film if it had managed to portray how they were "depressed, lonely, sad, irritable, confused and exhausted" effectively but it didn't. There was very little in the way of tension, if anything it killed the tension that had been building.



That part of the film was badly executed. It may be entirely accurate to the books but it failed to do what it was supposed to (through no fault of the actors - they did the best they could with what they were given).

WB knows that the game is up after Deathly Hallows, and wants to milk this lucrative franchise dry whilst it still can, hence splitting the film in two - have no-one tell you otherwise!

As a reader of the books growing up, I have to admite that the films even though I have seen them all have never excited me, nor have I ever enjoyed them.



The problems as stated is that too much is changed/left out for anyone to be truely happy.



For example when the OOTP was being filmed/was released, that was when the DH book was released. We realised in this how important the 'shard of glass' given in the OOTP book(not movie) was to the DH book. Ad this was not included in the OOTP movie, it was shoved in this one with no after taught for those who only see the movies and will not get it.



''POSSIBLE SPOILER'' - OOTP book and why the 'glass' is important.



Sirius gave Harry a 'mirror' at christmas which he hid and didnt pay much attention to but it was only discovered at the end of the book that it was basically like a video phone and Sirius always carried the other one, so Harry could get in touch anytime he wanted.

If Harry had remember this item before then Krecher on the orders of the Malfoys wouldn't of lied to Harry that Sirius was at the MOM and then Harry wouldnt of went after him, the fight would not of happened and Sirius would not of died!! To me the OOTP is my favourite book and this is part of it, as you as a reader and Harry where kicking themselves for this mistake and you really saw the youth of Harry eg jumping to conclusions and not thinking rationally. It was a really moving part of the book.

Anyway back to how it effects the DH, if my memory is correct as the 7th wasnt my favourite and I read it in 6 hours the day it was released. Dumbledore comes to Harry in the glass (it broke in the OOTP) and this leads him to his recuse at certain times which you have seen so far.



''END''



Sorry for that long rant. I just had to explain why to me, the movies will never work and whilst they are good as a one off, they could never compare to the books themselves.

Loved the film. As with all films that follow great books there is the issue that the film never matches with your imagination. That's just life. Cinematically it didn't detract too much from the books and I think the tone matched well.



I agree with Mark's comments about the 3 leads. I think it's great that all 3 young actors have matured to the extent that the narrative weight of this film can rest safely and securely on their shoulders.



As to the criticism above that Daniel Radcliffe acts about 30 I think from the books Harry has always had that tension that circumstances have remived him from a normal childhood. In many ways he has always been grwon up. Personally I believe that is one of the reasons these books have appealed to all ages. Not just a childrens book and not just adult fiction.



I think it is great that this is not just another retrofitted 3D special effects extravaganza but a proper film.



Can't wait for Part 2.



Thank you JK

I really liked this film... In fact, the more I think about it the more I seem to remember how much more mature and emotional this 7th chapter was.

Also, as Jason Isaac said last week, I thought it was a rather brave film in attempting to do something so different from the previous installments.



My review is here.

https://wp.me/p19wJ2-3v

"Bang on"

Mark Kermode, BBC 5 Live



That is what they should have put on the posters.



Great review, It is the first time that I agreed with absolutely everything that you said.

Ok, so I'm 17 and have grown up with the Harry Potter movies. My brother was fortunate enough to grow up with the Star Wars saga, but I guess Harry Potter will have to do.

I liked the first two, especially "Chamber of Secrets", and thought that the third as also a good film. However, I knew after seeing kids coming out of "Goblet of Fire" crying that there was something wrong. I know the films are based on the books, so they can't help getting darker and darker to the point where everything on screen is a grey mess. However, there is no need to make them that dull...

I watched "Deathly Hallows: Part 1" with my friends and family, and I can honestly say that we were all dissapointed apart from myself, because I knew it would be unimaginative, depressing, and so vacuous - it is as if the creators had lost all their passion for the series.

4+/10

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I am unashamedly a fan of the books and to a lesser degree the films.

I tend to agree with a number of the other comments in that it would be difficult for people who have not read the books to understand some of the intricate plot points. If the previous films (since Goblet of Fire) had been more faithful to the books then this would have been less of a problem.



Too much was missed out of Order of the Phoenix and Half Blood Prince. EG by the end of Half Blood Prince (book) we knew exactly how many Horcruxes there were and a pretty good idea what they were. Also the mirror was first seen in Order of the Phoenix.



Forgetting about plot flaws I enjoyed the film and I thought the performances by the three leads was good especially Emma Watson who was immense in the torture scene as was Helena Bonham-Carter.



The film did lag in the middle but so did the book; I believe it was meant to. It gave time for exposition and to develop a sense of how boring and scary it was for Harry, Hermione and Ron to trudge around the country trying to stay alive whilst at the same time achieve they're seemingly impossible task.



I did love the little bit of Neville calling the Deatheaters "losers" as its a great indication of what is to come from that character.



Though I expected it, Ginny remains too peripheral as a character and the relationship between Harry and Ginny seems too wooden, innocent and just wrong. The snog needed to be more full on and passionate as it is largely what keeps Harry going during the dark times whilst searching for the horcruxes.



I am now so looking forward to the last film. I of course know what's going to happen, I just hope that they don't get carried away with the crash bang wallop and forget about some of the excellent J K Rowling dialogue. (For the book readers "Not my daughter you bitch!")

the bit about people don't have to go 'oh wait, what is godrick's hollow' because it was mentioned in other films ....



it wasn't



as far as I can remember, it only appears in the last book and is explained there, and is certainly not mentioned in any of the other films

Am really late to the party but I think Mark is right in parts.



The_Jon_M godric's hollow is mentioned in more books other than the last one in that we know Harry lived and was almost killed in Godric's Hollow.



As for the non book readers not getting the significance of the shard of mirror and how many horcruxes there are - I completely agree with you that the movies fail the non book reader. The movies have shorten everything down that there are parts that you do really need to have read the books.



I don't think it was ever really mentioned that there were 6 horcruxes in the films or what they are. Movie 5 was done spectacularly badly imo in this regard as it cut out huge amounts.



In movie 7, i'm sad they missed out on the characterisation of Kreacher. Kreacher turns into such a different character in book 7 yet you miss out on that characterisation in the movie, likewise with the Dursleys all the characterisation is gone.



In the Deathly hallows part 1, they missed out on what i think was a beautiful scene by a lake where you had the trio under their protection listening in on 2 goblins & 3 wizards talking about life, why they were on the run, the news in the outside world including at hogwarts and the continuation of Dumbledore's army by Neville, Luna and Ginny. One of the wizards bring the conversation around to Harry & say that if you want to fight then you've got to make helping Harry number 1 priority, another says its hard to help someone who has effectively fallen off the face of the earth. With the other saying that if he ever bumped into Harry he would gladly take tips off him as he had managed to evade capture with the whole wizarding world after him which is quite some feat.



For me that scene emphasises the danger that the trio are in because during the "wandering" around moments you did lose a sense of the tension & the build up so I was sad to see that cut.