Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I Review

By definition, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I” is meant to leave you hanging. (Part II doesn’t get here until 2011.)

Fortunately, the first part in the final chapter of the Potter saga manages to be a wholly satisfying experience on its own.

“Deathly Hallows”, like the previous two installments of the franchise, is directed by David Yates. Yates has probably been the director who has most deviated from the source material (partly out of necessity, since the books were so massive by that time) to the delight of some, and the chagrin of most.

I always say that a movie should stand on its own — meaning you shouldn’t need to have read the book to be able to follow the movie. By that standard, I think Yates has been mostly successful. (I don’t so much mind the changes Yates and his writers have made. I mostly didn’t care for the rushed conclusion of “Half Blood Prince.” To me, THAT move felt more incomplete than “DH: Part I.”)

Anyway, I’m telling you all that to tell you this: Yates has absolutely hit his stride in terms of adapting beloved source material and turning it into an exciting moviemaking experience that stands on its own. (A big part of the reason is the fact that he has two movies to stretch his cinematic legs.)

Daniel Radcliffe once again stars as Harry Potter, who…ok, if you don’t know what this movie series is about by this point, why are you reading this?!
In “Deathly Hallows,” Harry, Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint) — bypass their final year at Hogwarts to hunt and destroy Lord Voldemort’s (Ralph Fiennes) remaining horcruxes. The horcruxes contain pieces of Voldemort’s soul and are the keys to destroying the Dark Lord.

When I read that “Deathly Hallows” would be split into two movies, I’ll admit I was slightly annoyed. I’m not one of those Potter fans who insist that ever single detail from the book MUST be included in the movies. On top of that, all that I remembered about reading “Deathly Hallows” (besides how awesome of a conclusion it is) was how much damn camping there was. I figured if there was any book in the series that could be considerably cut down, it was “Deathly Hallows” with its never-ending/downbeat passages with Harry, Hermione and Ron in the woods.

What I didn’t think about was how strong Radcliffe, Watson and Grint have become as actors over the course of seven movies. In “Deathly Hallows” those camping passages (even though they still drag in the movie — it’s unavoidable) are absolutely essential to building each of their characters and serve to personalize and ground their magical journey.

Radcliffe is once again a strong anchor, but I was really impressed by Grint (never better or more adult) and, especially, Watson, who pretty much carries this thing the same way the annoyingly-capable Hermione carries Harry and Ron. She was pretty excellent.

Also excellent are the obscenely talented roster of British actors that play the adult roles. The more I see Fiennes as Voldemort, the more I’m creeped out by him. It’s also absolutely insane how perfect Helene Bonham Carter is as psychotic witch Bellatrix Lestrange. I’m not sure why, but I also thoroughly enjoyed how haggard Jason Isaacs looked as the disgraced snob Lucius Malfoy. Alan Rickman only has a brief scene as the treacherous, conflicted Severus Snape, but he plays it perfectly. (The chilling scene that opens the movie sends the message that this isn’t your mother’s Harry Potter.)

As for the newcomers, I wish the great Bill Nighy had gotten a bit more to do as Minister of Magic Rufus Scrimgeour. However, Rhys Ifans fared MUCH better in his brief scene as the haunted Xenophilius Lovegood (Luna’s dad). Add to that the parade of beloved returning characters (the Weasley twins) and villains (Imelda Staunton’s Dolores Umbridge) and you’ve got a jam-packed movie.

Unfortunately, that means not everyone necessarily makes it out alive (yes, I teared up near the end), which is why it’s good to see Yates at least try to give each character their own brief moment to shine.

As for what the “Deathly Hallows” are: well, Yates answers that question ingeniously with a gorgeous animated sequence that served as a fantastic way of dealing with a necessary bit of exposition. (It was more interesting than having the camera on Emma Watson as she talked.)

I’d definitely consider “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallow: Part I” more of a paranoid drama than a family movie. I know that’s disconcerting for a lot of people, but as far as I’m concerned, I’ve grown up with these characters and I already kind of consider them family. So to me, “DH: Part I” is the best paranoid family movie of the year.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I…A-