Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part One (2010)
Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, and Ralph Fiennes
Directed by David Yates
I realize that the seventh and final book of the Harry Potter series was long, but, while whoever thought of separating the final film into two parts was a financial genius, the split causes Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part One to be a tremendously boring film that fails on all fronts. When it finally picks up the pace and actually gets going in the film's final thirty minutes, it's too little too late to redeem itself.
The gist of the whole thing: Teenage wizard Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) has to find some magic objects and destroy them before the evil Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) gets a hold of them and gains a bunch of power. Potter's friends Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint) are going to help him.
That's it. Except for the fact that what's listed above is even more than what happens in the film. I mention that Potter has to find some magic "objects" with an emphasis on the plural there. Well, he actually only finds one object...in 150 minutes. Two-and-a-half hours and he finds one frickin' object. This intrepid quest really goes nowhere for this whole movie. Instead, we get a bunch of shots of Harry standing around with Hermione and Ron, all of them looking really sad and worried. There's no arc to the story and not a bit of an emotional arc with the characters.
Let's face it -- Daniel Radcliffe isn't a great actor. He's rather awkward as Potter and he's not the least bit interesting to watch. This has always been the case with Radcliffe throughout all the films, so I'm not sure why I was expecting anything different here. The biggest problem, however, is that in this film Radcliffe is in nearly every single scene. In the previous flicks, we'd at least cut away (maybe) to a little Ron or Hermione side adventure...and Rupert Grint and Emma Watson could at least hold our attention because of their charisma. Here, even Grint and Watson are just dreary. I realize these characters are facing some deadly and dire situations, but there was hardly a smile cracked onscreen the whole time.
David Yates is a more than adequate director and the most positive aspect of the film is the rather adult, simplistic way it's shot. However, he (and his cinematographer) bathe the film in dreary dank blues and grays. It's really not even a pretty film to look at despite some rather interesting settings.
All this being said, I was intrigued by the film's final half hour which utilized some very clever animation techniques to tell the backstory of the Deathly Hallows (this scene was the only one that really worked for me). Ultimately, Part One ended on enough of a positive note to make me interested in knowing the outcome of Part Two. However, this film should never have been broken up into two parts -- it's a move that will ultimately taint my decision of Deathly Hallows as a whole regardless of how much I like the final act.
The RyMickey Rating: D+
This didn't sit well with me either but a D is really harsh. I'd say C+
ReplyDeleteAlso watch this and then tell me Radcliffe isn't awesome
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/a1c04ce68e/i-am-harry-potter?playlist=featured_videos
I honestly felt like there was nothing redeeming about this at all. I haven't read the book so I have no attachment to the source material, but I couldn't help but think that had it been one movie, the pace would have been considerably picked up and the movie wouldn't have felt like one big lull until the final 30 minutes.
ReplyDeleteWhat's irritating is that the animated sequence is kind of a moment of brilliance, but I was just bored out of my mind during the rest of the film. Can't tell you how many times I checked my phone for what time it was or how many times I stared up at the ceiling in sheer boredom.
I was wavering between a D and a D+, and it's possible I may have a change of heart when I wake up tomorrow, but it certainly won't be any higher than that. Even in other movies where I felt like nothing happened (see movie #6), I wasn't bored by the storyline. Here everything just seemed stretched out for the sheer purpose of trying to create two flicks.
And there's more acting on display from Radcliffe in those two minutes than in his blank-faced expression throughout the entire 150 minutes of the movie.
ReplyDeletePerhaps a bit harsh, but he always seems so vacant onscreen to me...