I find myself in a quandary. I have seen hundreds of movies over the years, and never felt the way I feel now that I've seen this latest Harry Potter film. I feel dissatisfied...I feel like what I've just watched can't be fully evaluated.
I feel, specifically, like I've just been told half a story.
"These are dark times" as we're told off the top of HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS. Heroes are falling, villains are rising, and death seems to be everywhere you look. All signs point to an inevitable showdown between Lord Voldermort (Ralph Fiennes) and Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe)...fulfilling a prophecy that we learned about two films ago: Neither can live while the other survives. But that's getting ahead of ourselves.
The first order of business is to get Harry safe, and this in itself is no easy feat since with every passing day, more and more protective obstacles set out by his loved ones seems to be falling. He finally flees to the home of The Weasleys, where hopefully he can soak up some last drops of protection. While he hides out, he hatches a plan with Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) to take down Voldermort once and for all.
This plan was briefly explained to Harry by Dumbledore in the previous film. Unfortunately, the plan was only vaguely explained to Harry in the previous film...and as such, when our hero and his friends take to the road in hopes to put this plan in motion, they do so with a massive amount of uncertainty.
This film is very well acted, shot, edited, and scored. It has a moment or two that rubbed me the wrong way, but they're not important in the long run. My problem with this film, and what makes it "unrateable" is its construction. This instalment of Harry Potter's adventures is half a book, and unfortunately for the filmmakers, that book was not written in an act one/act two manner. Thus, when the decision came down to split this instalment into two films, the tricky bit would be where to split a story that doesn't have a natural break.
By breaking off this story where they have, the filmmakers leave audiences off balance. There isn't much of a beginning, and there is no real ending. What we go through is an awful lot of middle, which at this late stage does nothing to serve the overall story. What's worse, is the fact that the "middle" we endure is meandering, introspective, and unsure. I have nothing against long contemplative moments spent with Harry, Ron, and Hermione...but not with this little time left on the clock.
If there's a flaw in the Harry Potter films, it's that the filmmakers have always been so in love with the world their stories are set in, that it distracts them from actually telling their stories. Instead we spend moment after moment sweeping over hillsides, castle corridors, and meditating on detail after detail. It's all very lovely, but believe me gang - it adds up. In this film, that tendency to look to the horizon while our characters sort things out runs amok...which is not a good thing for a film that is already breaking the rules of structure.
So is this movie bad? No. But all by itself, is this movie good? Again, no. The book Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows is intricate. Rowling dropped a lot of bread crumbs in those first six novels, and this was finally the moment to follow the trail. The problem is, there is no way to pick up all those crumbs in 2.5 hours.
So how to handle it? Two movies? Maybe...maybe not. I'd offer that in lieu of sacrificing an instalment, that filmmakers might have been better off going all David Lean, and creating one long epic film. As it stands I don't think this film works without its sequel anyway, and its audience is an absolute quantity at this point. So now would have been the time to be daring - to drop a 3+ hour tome on audiences and tell the story the way it was written.
Instead what we're given lacks any urgency. It plays less to the bravery of these three friends, and more to their insecurities. Harry Potter is sometimes accused of getting where he is by luck and circumstance, sadly this film doesn't do much to dispel that myth. This film contains a daring mission to The Ministry of Magic, and a dangerous jailbreak from the heart of enemy territory. Unfortunately, the film feels compelled to dedicate just as much time to Harry getting a haircut...or slowdancing with Hermione...or lots and lots of staring out to the horizon.
Perhaps not rating the film is a cop-out. If that's the case then I would have to give this film no more than two stars. I cannot foresee myself watching this film without immediately moving on to its sequel, and if the film's construction does not allow it to stand alone as its own story...then perhaps splitting this tale in two, was likewise a cop-out.
What did you think? Please leave comments with your thoughts and reactions to HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Review: HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS pt. 1 (Unratable)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
29 comments:
I've seen this movie twice (so far). It's the BEST of the series.
-Lady Hatter
I totally agree as I said in my earlier comment. This is a 2.5 hour setup for the final film.
I am actually with you about maybe releasing a 5 hour movie instead thats how it will be consumed on DVD and Bluray anyways.
Love Lady Hatters comment as usual would love to see her break it down in her own column. =)
It doesn't need to be reaccuring it can be when ever she feels like, kind of commitment.
Yeah, I imagine it's going to be a frustrating experience. It may all be worth it in the end. Although, I've always had trouble telling the Potter films apart.
Who is this super awesome new poster named Joel?? Why do I like him so much???
Actually, I might be writing something up about Deathly Hallows. Mainly because Hatters review made me so angry! Grrrrrr!
-Lady Hatter
I just got back from the movie and while I echo your sentiments I do feel it can stand on its own merit and be reviewed as such (much in the same way I can review Kill Bill Pt 1 and 2 separately). I'll probably be a bit more generous in my review (Wednesday) than 2 stars. What I still don't understand is that with all the knowledge of Deathly Hallows out there when they went into Half Blood Prince they didn't do themselves a favor and explain some things better. A lot of people have shown much love to David Yates for doing what he does but I keep feeling as if he does too much Cliff Notes for the big things and too much exposition on the little ones (the odd character moment that wasn't all that important in the book).
You HAVE been told half a story. The movie is based upon one half of a novel. It's called "HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, Part I". Good grief! Surely you knew this?
@ Rush... I'm not complaining that I didn't know. As a "part one" this doesn't work, because it wasn't originally written as a "part one".
It lacks the structure of any good story - any "part one" included - and because of that, it doesn't work.
Cant wait for this matinee cast. I of course expect a guest appearance of Lady Hatter. Everything else than that is anticlimactic.
Hatter: You sleeping on the couch tonight btw?
@ Lady Hatter... Guess there's no argument on who's dvd shelf this movie will live on, eh? PS - I've been telling you about Joel's fandom for about a week now, thanks for listening :)
@ Joel... Lady hatter is not taking part in the podcast - somewhat thankfully I recorded it while she was out. She is however mulling over writing a complete rebuttal to this post.
@ Chris... As I think about it more, my advice is to hold off seeing this film until the next one comes out - watch 'em back-to-back and it might make this one a bit more palatable.
@ univarn... I know when Matt on Filmspotting watched Half-Blood, he wanted two more lines of dialogue explaining a bit more about Horcruxes, so you aren't alone. I'd wager that at this stage, they're playing straight to the base (who already know what such things are) and are just hoping everybody else can keep up.
I agree with everything you said in your review. As a Potter film fan and non-reader of the books, I think I would have preferred one long film and there were parts in this one I could have done without (the dancing etc)
Such a great podcast! Love the ranty tone! I so agree wtih you on all points you brought up!
Nick was an ok substitute for the Lady Hatter but nothing beats the original.
This is probably the only movie ever that is completely critic-proof. More than Twilight of LotR, it is so ingrained in public memory that it has an audience anywhere.
lol... glad I'm just an "OK substitute" for you, Joel :P .
Nick: No pun inteded Lady Hatter is not easily replaced. =)
I'm debating whether oto just wait for the dvd and the next release or waiting it out.
Fitz: I'd definitively do that. If you live in a bigger city I'll think some cinemas probably will do back to back screenings with both films also when the other one is released.
I see a lot of sense in your argument that this is a tough one to rate. Lady Cheshire agrees with a lot of your points, but still holds that she really enjoyed it.
I enjoyed the film for what I saw it to be, a set-up for the coup de grâce that will be in July, and accepted the flaws because the studio messed up by neither releasing it as one long movie with an intermission, or releasing the second part sooner.
Actually, I now have the biggest beef with Warner Bros. for the unacceptable wait for the second story. If the winter months are where studios lose the most revenue, why not release a guaranteed money maker during the slowest time of year? From a retail standpoint, you have major sales in January and February to entice customers back into the store. If I was a studio exec, I wouldn't sit on a goldmine that is Harry Potter 7-2. Casual fans are not going to pay to see part 1 or part 2 at this point.
Just goes to show that studio execs have NO understanding of fandom, and no love of movies in general. They want 4 summer tentpoles, not 3. Greed for box office returns, not love of movies. Jerks.
Cheshire: I haven't thought about it that way. But you totally have a point they should have released both films simultaniously they would totally crashed the boxoffice and dried it out for other movies the next month.
Jeez...am I ever behind in responding!
@ Emma... Good to know I'm not alone. My position on this is starting to turn into a bit of a lonely place!
@ Simon... I think Pixar's movies are pretty critic-proof at this point too. But you're right, people will see the Potter films no matter what. At least by-and-large, they've been done well.
@ Fitz... Wait for pt. 2 to drop next summer. Rent this the night before you go to see the new film and the whole thing will go much better.
@ Cheshire... Good point. It's not like a film like this really gains an advantage from being released during the holidays, and Lord knows there's only scraps in theatres during the spring months anyway...why WB decided to do it this way is beyond me. Perhaps The Matrix movies left them gun-shy (tee-hee)
@ Joel... Think you might be my new biggest fan - thanks for sticking around, mate!
Greatly well written review but I can't agree with you. Surprisingly, I loved the film and support Lady Hatter's comment that it's the best film of the franchise so far. I understand what you mean by saying that it had no beginning but as for ending, the last scene looked like a watershed in the story in my view.
Anyways, what are your expactations about the part 2 now?
I hear ya, Hatter...you raise some valid points there regarding the book is written and how there isn't really a natural break for this story. Perhaps because I haven't read the book, I don't mind it so much and I think the filmmaker did a pretty decent job in continuing the story where the 6th film left off and leaves audience anticipate the final FINAL film (probably even more so than before seeing this one). I do see your points about the slower scenes, they do feel tedious at times but I guess because I've fully invested in these characters, I also don't mind 'em so much.
At first I was ambivalent too about the decision to split it into 2 movies, I mean I for one wouldn't mind watching a 3+ hour movie if it means I don't have to wait 8 months to see how it ends. But most people don't have a long attention span and marketing-wise, I don't think the studio is willing to risk younger people not going to it 'cause it's too long and plus, they make way more money this way! :)
In any case, I do agree that I think the best is yet to come.
I agree, this movie doesn't stand along particularly well, but I don't think ANY of the Harry Potters do beyond maybe the first one (where it ends all happy and shiny). I don't think the Star Wars movies stand particularly well on their own either (Indiana, maybe). But stories envisioned as a series rely on each other to get the story told. No, they didn't take artistic license to firm up the ending to their advantage and I hold them accountable for allowing a bad ending to frame this film poorly. But I have to agree with Lady Hatter's rebuttal, it was still a great flick (silver side boob not withstanding). I do see where you're coming from though.
Good points, man. Still liked it myself, if only for the technical aspects and how much better these kids have gotten as actors, but you're right, this would be SO much better watched back-to-back with Part 2. All the same, felt like I was the only person in the theater who wasn't surprised when the movie ended (initially thought it was gonna end after they destroyed the first Horcrux, anyway)and that didn't bother me a whole lot. Still, can't wait for Part 2.
@ Lesya... Having read the book and knowing what's left to be told, I know that part 2 will be far more action-packed and will build to an amazing climax. I wholly expect to love it.
@ Ruth... Pity the studio wasn't more daring. I'd wager that those youngsters would have been alright, especially with the wild ride that comes at the end of the whole she-bang. Oh well, it'll all be okay in a mere eight months.
@ Jess... I disagree. I think Azkaban and Goblet stand beautifully well on their own. Looking at other franchises I'd put good money on Empire Strikes Back, The Two Towers, and The Godfather 2. And they all did it without slow dances, smoke monsters and side-boob!
I'm seeing this tomorrow, so I can't really comment on the movie yet. But your classification of unrated caught my attention.
It reminds me of The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. I remember so many people complaining that that instalment felt like a rip-off because it had no beginning or end. As a LOTR nut, I disagreed.
I believe that, if a movie is well-made and still manages to carry the scenes and characters as through the film could stand on its own, it could work. I think LOTR: TTT worked considering it was a tough position for a film to be in.
Is that kind of what this latest Harry Potter is like? Do you agree that they should have split it in two?
wow, so many comments~~~
I gave this a 3.5/5 - probably would have given it a 4/5 if they had make it work as one film.
I really do believe that this time around they didn't just want to focus on general audiences, and Hp7 - besides being money grab - they just wanted a fan send-off.
As a fan of the book, but also fan of film - I can appreciate the improvement in characterization... and is actually a lot less whiny than the book.
@ Laura... Funny that you mention THE TWO TOWERS since it's the example I keep coming back to. I've described this as "The Two Towers minus Helm's Deep".
Specifically, that it's an unfinished tale - which is totally fine - except that there's no massive daramtic climax to still satisfy the rules of structure.
The point they chose to end it with needed to be a longer/tenser/bigger moment. That would have made the journey to get there feel more worthwhile to me.
@ Amy... It's funny, because the HP books were still being released as the film series was rolling along, Warner and the filmmakers weren't always certain what they'd committed themselves to.
As such, when book seven dropped, and it played as an intricate bit of stitching sweing up the whole tale, there was never a chance that they'd be able to tell it in the 2.5 hour installment they'd come accustomed to (even though they'd become pretty good at streamlining the later, thicker books).
I've said it before, I really wish they'd just gone all old school and given us a 4 hour send-off. Woulda meant for less showings in a day, but would have been so very worth it.
A four hour film would have been much better. I saw this on date night with my significant other to cap off an excellent weekend (We Beat Boise!) But left the theatre feeling cheated.
When the credits roll it feels like not only could they have kept going a bit further, but everything extraneous they included in the first part is even more irritating.
@ Fitz... I've been thinking about it a lot over the last two weeks. Basically that scene at Malfoy Manor had to be "more". darker, longer, more dangerous.
Had they given it a few more minutes, and infused it as being the real threat to Harry's mission that it is, I might have been more forgiving of the breaking point.
Post a Comment