(My apologies to any of you out there who read this blog and have been waiting for this review to actually appear for months and months. For whatever reason, I just haven't gotten around to this review sooner. Finally, I have sat down and written it. Better do it before the final film is released, no?)
Let me preface this review with a warning that this review is probably less about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 than it is as a sounding board for me concerning the one issues with today's films in general, of which this film just happens to be an example - length, and more specifically editing and pacing.
First, the vitals about the film itself. One thing is for sure – the Harry Potter franchise of films has been pretty darn entertaining stuff from the get go. There have a been a few different directors who have helmed, two Dumbledores in Richard Harris and Michael Gambon and a excellently cast group of young actors who have grown up with their characters on screen. OK, maybe a little faster in the case of Rupert Grint. Despite the scope of the franchise and the fact that a key character has been portrayed by two different actors, as a whole the series is very entertaining! There has been ample opportunity for things to really go awry, but it hasn't, and despite some stylistic differences from film to film, with this series you basically have a seamless “whole”. It is an impressive feat!
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 represents the first part of the final chapter of the story of young wizard Harry Potter and his companions at Hogwarts. Much like the children who grew up with the books, the films have also matured over the past decade, getting more serious and certainly darker in tone. Never has it been darker than in this, the final chapter. For Harry and his cohorts, the situation certainly is bleak and often seems to be without any hope at all.
This film see Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Harmione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint) on the run and on their own. Voldemort's agents are everywhere and have infiltrated even the inner workings of the Ministry of Magic. Our heroic trio must prepare themselves for the final showdown with the forces of evil and in doing so must face their own doubts and fears. Needless to say, the tone is heavy and dark.
Did I mention that Harry, Harmione and Ron are on the run? They are... for the whole movie. And while that is in keeping with the story, with the film clocking in at 146 minutes, by the end I couldn't wait to get out of the theater. It felt like an eternity had passed!
The film itself is fine. Radcliffe, Watson and Grint once again do a great job with their performances and the action that there is was good stuff. Without a doubt it is another solid entry in the franchise, if only the first part of the final chapter.
And that is where my beef comes in. Why was this movie 146 minutes long when a solid third of it was nothing more than Harry, Harmione and Ron sulking amongst themselves and wallowing in their own self-pity and loneliness? How much can they possibly drive home the point that, yes, they are on the run, they are on their own and they are riddled with their own doubts? If I had to spend one more minute at their makeshift camp in the wilderness I might have had to slit my wrists. GET ON WITH IT!
What is even worse is that you can pretty much rest assured that the final film will be nothing but action from the open frame to the rolling of the credits, so why did we have to endure a two and a half hour precursor wherein very little of anything with any real substance actually happened? To make more more money with two films? (BINGO!) Because they thought it was necessary to tell the story? Both?
I have the same beef with the Lord of the Rings films. With every subsequent viewing they just seem to get longer and longer. I actually have trouble sitting down and watching them now (definitely require a break in the middle) and I don't own them. Don't get me wrong, that trilogy is great, but they are really long, arguably too long. Yes, they have great action sequences and are epic stories, but other movies like Clerks II make great fun of them by accurately pointing out how much filler they actually contain that contributes nothing substantial to the end product. (Randall: "The first film - walking. The second film - walking. The third film - walking... toss the ring into the volcano. Hell, even the trees walked!")
I tend to give the Lord of the Rings films a pass because they were the first of this current generation of film making to really push the two and a half hour mark. They are that long without the “extended edition” cuts and with the fact that they cut a lot out from the books. But that is the difference – the source material is a book and these are films. Practically speaking, the film medium demands more editing, because in a theater you cannot just put down the film and pick it back up at your leisure like you can with a book. Hell, as much as I love it, even The Dark Knight is probably a tad bit too long.
So there I was sitting in the theater, watching Deathly Hallows, Part 1 and wondering when the hell it was going to end, knowing that this wasn't even the final film. The film needed to cut down because they definitely could have conveyed the despair of Harry, Harmione and Ron in much less time than they took.
I could even understand if they wanted to do one three hour final film to wrap up the series. Yes, it would have been VERY long, but it would have been a grand finale and the action heavy story would have made it bearable. You could also save substantial running time by making use of the editing that should have happened with Part 1. However, by having two films as they are and dragging the first one out as long as they did just seems excessive to me. Needless to say, regardless of the fact that this was not a bad film, I won't be watching it on DVD very often (or any time soon) because it is just too long for what it is. It isn't the book. If you want the book, then read the book. It's a matter of knowing how to use the medium.
So the bottom line from me is this – the Harry Potter franchise has another solid entry to it, but it is just too damn long and for that I must dock it a few points. 7/10
3 comments:
In months past, I posted my thoughts on the movie and the source material, so what I'll say is this:
I'll readily agree that the biggest flaw with the film is that it didn't take as many liberties with the source as past entries in the series did. It could easily have been cut down and/or sped up without losing a whole lot. The problem is that the fan base (or at least its most vocal portion) doesn't want movies, they want to see the books on the screen. Potter-philes have been pissing and moaning about every little change or tiny cut from the books since forever, and I suspect that Yates and co. wanted to do their best to appease their most loyal fans with these final outings.
The thing is, the joke is on them. Deathly Hallows is by far the weakest entry in the series. It's horridly paced and has nothing in common with the rest of the series save characters. As I say in the critique I posted, the characters and the few essential elements to wrapping up the story are enough to make it worthwhile, but I will never think of it as a fitting conclusion to the series -- and if the reactions I've heard from friends and family who have only watched the movies are any indication, neither will they.
Viewers for adaptations from other mediums are always finicky for a million different reasons. I think the excellent author Dan Simmons said it best, "I don't want the film version of one of my books to be the book in movie format. It's a different format, a different story can be told. They're two different things."
That being said, I've yet to see any of the Harry Potter films. Good review.
I agree with some of your points and I fully agree with Mad Doctor Josh. I think the main reasons the film suffered are the editing, pacing and just missed opportunities. The previous film Half-Blood Prince was longer than this and that was, overall, a better film. It's just, as Mad Dodcor Josh pointed out, the filmmakers try and please the pissy book purists and that is their main downfall.
Post a Comment