‘Deathly Hallows’ Part 1 is great, but stops shy of full potential
As I walk out of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1”, I can honestly say that a movie has never disappointed me this much in my life. I mean what kind of a director constructs his finest masterpiece ever, infuses it with such beautiful acting, screenplay, music, and then just…stops? David Yates, screaming fangirls (and boys) from all over the globe are after your blood.
I may be a self-proclaimed Potter-fan, but the people in the theater tonight are Potter-freaks. I feel like the movie means more to them than it does to me, which is bogus, because I’ve only been monitoring the Internet for tickets since I read “Deathly Hallows” three Julys ago.
As the movie starts, I notice a few things right off the bat:
1. This movie uses a lot of close-ups. Seeing as it starts with a close-up on Rufus Scrimgeour’s narrowed eyes, I can safely say that this is going to be a trend throughout the course of “DH Part 1” (and even Part 2).
2. The acting’s better. I know this because, unlike this film’s predecessors, the backdrop is very light. It hasn’t been shot in the dark, so the lighting specialists are not trying to cover up any failures on the actors’ parts. It’s always better when you can see the actor’s face. Nothing spectacular, though– the parts where I felt like I was being hit with a Jelly-Legs Jinx were mostly the product of amazing graphics. And you can actually see the scenery which, by the way, is very nice.
3. The images in this movie are more compelling than those in any of the other Harry Potter films. In the opening, Hermione modifies her parents’ memories with a well-placed Oblivate and her parents watch their daughter’s own face disappear from all of the photos in her house. As Hermione walks down the middle of a Muggle street still wet from rain, you can tell that the movie promises to be a good one. Movie-wise, I think it’s on par with “The Prisoner of Azkaban.”
4. The movie uses visual detail in the place of some dialogue. There have always been discrepancies between the movie and the book (some of them huge), but this movie is the first where this is not a huge disappointment. For example, Harry doesn’t recognize Bathilda Bagshot as the author of “A History of Magic” until he sees it at Grimmauld Place. Also, the movie has a very intriguing way of recounting the “Tales of Beedle the Bard” that involves shadow puppetry. This movie definitely makes use of its visual advantages, the whole show-don’t-tell concept put into play. If you plan to watch Harry Potter 7, you are in for wicked visuals and snigger-worthy scenes alike.
They still could have done more. This is most likely the Potter-fan in me griping, but I was looking forward to seeing Cousin Barny. I also wanted to see Wormtail’s hand strangling its owner, seeing as the guy’s had it coming to him since Harry’s third year.
To all those not as obsessive as I: Read the “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” before going. It’s hard to follow if you don’t know what’s going on, especially since it’s already in its watered-down version. Bonus points to you if you read “Tales of Beedle the Bard.”
Awesome lines that weren’t in the book
Neville to Death Eater: “Hey, losers—he’s not here.”
Voldemort to Bellatrix: “As inspiring as I find your bloodlust, Bellatrix, I must be the one to kill Harry Potter.”
Dobby to Bellatrix: “Dobby never meant to kill. Dobby only meant to maim, or seriously injure.”
Ron and Hermione: “Are you still mad at me?” “I’m always mad at him.”
More Gripes of a Potterfan
For all its glory, its hype, and its sheer power, the film stops short. Not the screenplay, not the interpretation. I am one of those reasonable fans who, despite being absolutely furious that the movie was split into two parts, understood that the producers were simply taking care of business. I also get why they ended Part 1 where they did, but couldn’t they have ended it better? (By the way, the rumors that the movie ends at Malfoy Manor are just a bit off.)
When DH Part 1 ended, the movie still had not truly finished. The last image was vivid, but as with any movie, the whole last two scenes remain ingrained in the viewer’s memory. And for me, grunting and sentimental music don’t count as witty repartee (you’ll just have to guess where it stops).
The movie started off strong, followed through swimmingly, and ended not with a bang, but with a tiny deflating noise, reminiscent of a defective Whoopee Cushion. It was weak, and lacked the one thing Potter-maniacs across the world are looking for in the finale of a series—closure. But I walked into theater knowing that Part 1 would have to end for there to be a Part 2. And since the beginning was pretty gosh-darned good, I guess I can live with the faults.
Next time, David Yates, you will not disappoint me—I’m already online looking for tickets to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2. Nox.
