Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I Review

Let's get it out of the way: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I is the worst of the series so far. It isn't for lack of effort, but the series feels sapped of its magic at this point. After the series high point, Half-Blood Prince, it was already an uphill battle for this first part of the finale, and sadly, by cutting the book in half and thus relegating the less exciting chapters to this entry, the film never gets a chance to reach the heights of its predecessors.


The decision to split Deathly Hallows in half is where all the problems start. It isn't necessarily a matter of there not being enough material to fill two movies: the book is rich and full of interesting backstory and character development. This movie clearly illustrates that what works on the page doesn't always work on the screen. This is a faithful adaptation; purists will likely be satisfied by how many scenes are almost word-for-word recreations of their literary antecedents. It's great to see such attention to detail - it's clear that David Yates and his cast and crew are trying to bring the world of the novels to life in a way that will be satisfying to fans of the series, a ravenous, demanding bunch. But by sticking so closely to the source material, the film runs into two problems: first, the more boring passages (in this case, the abundance of camping) aren't any more thrilling on film, and second, such a strict adherence to the book makes the film dull for fans of the books. 

Yes, it's still fun to see characters, locations, and events from the book come to life for the first time, but too straight an adaptation feels lazy and anticlimactic. When the film does veer from the novel, we get some of the best moments of the film, such as the sweet, funny dance scene Harry and Hermione share after Ron's departure, or even the uncomfortably sexual vision Ron has while trying to destroy Slytherin's locket. These scenes demonstrate that Harry Potter is in able hands, something that was proven many times over in previous installments. That's why it's so frustrating, then, to see how few risks are taken with this entry. There's so much more potential for an exciting movie that flies from the page while remaining grounded in the world we all know and love so well.

Still, even a bad Harry Potter movie is an exciting watch. The series' production values have never been better. The attention to detail is exquisite, from Fleur's gorgeous wedding dress to the intimidating gates of Malfoy Manor to the quaint, fairy tale-esque Shell Cottage, which makes a brief appearance and will be featured more in Part II. This is a fantasy world fully realized and utterly believable, deftly blending the everyday with the magical, the new with the old (it's always a pleasure to see Hagrid's polka-dotted tie). It's all beautifully captured by Eduardo Serra, who masterfully uses gorgeous, sweeping shots of the landscape and intense shaky-cam footage for the action scenes. His camerawork speaks to the trio's paranoia as well as suggesting the scope of their journey, the hopelessness and loneliness of finding such specific, unknown items in a huge, dangerous world. (The only disappointment from a visual standpoint is the awkward animation during the tale of the three brothers. The animation itself is well-done and attractive, but it feels out of place within the film.)

By this point, the cast is so comfortable in their parts, that it's almost unnecessary to comment on the acting. However, it's important to note that their mastery of their characters doesn't equate to a sense of acting on auto-pilot. Each member of the cast still has a firm grasp and an acute focus on portraying their character faithfully. Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson are good as always, though Watson's subtlety sometimes comes across as underacting. Rupert Grint is the standout of the trio this time around - no longer relegated solely to comic relief, Grint gets the chance to dig into some meatier material and does so very well. Helena Bonham Carter, Jason Isaacs, and Imelda Stauton are all deliciously vile in their respective villainous roles.

The two most notable additions to the cast are Bill Nighy as Rufus Scrimgeour and Rhys Ifans as Xenophilius Lovegood. Nighy nails Scrimgeour's character: he's rough, battle-scarred, and rather reminiscent of a lion. It's a shame Nighy wasn't brought in for the last movie, because his performance is so spot-on. Ifans doesn't fare so well; we get a brief glimpse of Xenophilius at his craziest at Bill and Fleur's wedding, but when Harry and friends visit him at home, he's only a ghost of himself, and it's no fun for anyone. It's not bad acting, per se, just disappointing that Yates decided to sap the character of his crazy charm. Andy Linden also joins the film as Mundungus Fletcher, and he embodies the character to a tee, making it even more disappointing that the character has been sidelined up to this point. It just seems wrong for him to be introducing himself to Harry this late in the series.

Being only half of the film, Part I obviously feels incomplete (it is). It feels even more so because of the lack of important supporting characters: namely, everyone back at Hogwarts. Snape, Neville, and Ginny make brief appearances, while McGonagall and other teachers are left out completely. The film would have benefitted from showing some scenes within Hogwarts: foreshadowing the students' actions and showing the Death Eaters at work there. It's hard enough to watch Harry, Ron, and Hermione away from Hogwarts, so it would have been nice to at least see it through other characters' story-lines. Additionally, the film shows Rita Skeeter's book about Dumbledore multiple times without ever really delving into it at all; it feels like a missed opportunity, especially with how large a part that subplot played in the book.

Of course, all these complaints and praises seem almost arbitrary since this is only half of the finale. But that's the problem. Based on this film, there was no reason to split Deathly Hallows in the first place. One three-and-a-half hour movie would've done perfectly, and likely would've left me feeling much more fulfilled than this fragmented, dull affair. In this case, it seems that the best is yet to come. Despite my disappointment, I'm still waiting with eager anticipation for Part II.