Brilliant.
MUCH better than The Half Blood Prince.
That is all.
MUCH better than The Half Blood Prince.
That is all.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part 1
- Thread starter Hiney
- Start date
Spider
New member
- Sep 15, 2007
- 3,614
Had mixed feelings on it to be honest. Not as good as either Prisoner of Azkaban or Order of the Phoenix, better than the rest of the films.
I like the tone that Yates is aiming for with his films, nicely dark but with some humour - and this film contains some of the best action sequences of the series. However, the decision to split the film into two parts means this one really drags at times, especially the bit in the woods. It also highlights some of the major flaws with the plot. The quest to find all the horcruxes seems like such a meandering concern, and Harry himself has to be one of the most passive heroes ever. I read the book when it came out, but when you throw in the addition of the 'deathly hallows', it all becomes rather confusing and starts to feel a little pointless.
I also hate the way so many actors stroll onto the screen to do very little, leaving you feeling at the end like nothing has really sunk in for any of the characters. There are several deaths in this film, yet NONE of them (except perhaps the climatic one - and even then only to a very small extent) feel particularly important. Decent characters are given tiny parts, but there are LOADS of them. Richard Griffiths, Robbie Coltrane, Alan Rickman, Bill Nighy, Imelda Staunton - the list goes on, all of these appear in the film to absolutely no effect. This is partly a problem of the books, but then it all leads to the question of whether an adaptation attempting to be so faithful to the source material is ever going to produce a genuinely decent film - in this case it has not.
Finally, one of the most important emotional dilemmas of the film, namely Ron's split with Harry and Hermoine, is handled appallingly. There is absolutely no sense of growing anger or intensity, he just looks a bit pasty and snaps a bit. Then we are supposed to feel some massive empathy when he acts in the dickish way he does.
Not quite finally, none of the lead trio can act yet. The attempts at tender character moments between Grint and Watson (one in particular where she tenderly touches a cut to his face) will surely have you snorting with laughter.
Apologies for the length of that nonsense - though I doubt many (if any) will actually get through it all anyway!
I like the tone that Yates is aiming for with his films, nicely dark but with some humour - and this film contains some of the best action sequences of the series. However, the decision to split the film into two parts means this one really drags at times, especially the bit in the woods. It also highlights some of the major flaws with the plot. The quest to find all the horcruxes seems like such a meandering concern, and Harry himself has to be one of the most passive heroes ever. I read the book when it came out, but when you throw in the addition of the 'deathly hallows', it all becomes rather confusing and starts to feel a little pointless.
I also hate the way so many actors stroll onto the screen to do very little, leaving you feeling at the end like nothing has really sunk in for any of the characters. There are several deaths in this film, yet NONE of them (except perhaps the climatic one - and even then only to a very small extent) feel particularly important. Decent characters are given tiny parts, but there are LOADS of them. Richard Griffiths, Robbie Coltrane, Alan Rickman, Bill Nighy, Imelda Staunton - the list goes on, all of these appear in the film to absolutely no effect. This is partly a problem of the books, but then it all leads to the question of whether an adaptation attempting to be so faithful to the source material is ever going to produce a genuinely decent film - in this case it has not.
Finally, one of the most important emotional dilemmas of the film, namely Ron's split with Harry and Hermoine, is handled appallingly. There is absolutely no sense of growing anger or intensity, he just looks a bit pasty and snaps a bit. Then we are supposed to feel some massive empathy when he acts in the dickish way he does.
Not quite finally, none of the lead trio can act yet. The attempts at tender character moments between Grint and Watson (one in particular where she tenderly touches a cut to his face) will surely have you snorting with laughter.
Apologies for the length of that nonsense - though I doubt many (if any) will actually get through it all anyway!
Billy the Fish
Technocrat
f***ing hell - I didn't know Barry Norman posted on NSC. Hello Barry 
Nice review
Nice review
- Thread starter
- #4
Blimey!
That was a bit heavy.
I just enjoyed the film, I don't go in for all the pompous analysis of the plot, cast and director.
I just enjoyed it and thought it was a pretty good representation of (half of) the book.
That was a bit heavy.
I just enjoyed the film, I don't go in for all the pompous analysis of the plot, cast and director.
I just enjoyed it and thought it was a pretty good representation of (half of) the book.
Bad Ash
Unregistered User
Like Spider I thought it dragged a bit, and the ending was rather unclimatic (unsurprising given that it's not really an ending).
Lewes' best seagull
New member
- Jan 31, 2008
- 1,145
Some tedious scenes, especially when they're in the woods.
Also, it portrayed Harry being in love with Hermione, when the book never even suggests this.
Good overall. But not a patch on the book.
Also, it portrayed Harry being in love with Hermione, when the book never even suggests this.
Good overall. But not a patch on the book.
Spider
New member
- Sep 15, 2007
- 3,614
Blimey!
That was a bit heavy.
I just enjoyed the film, I don't go in for all the pompous analysis of the plot, cast and director.
I just enjoyed it and thought it was a pretty good representation of (half of) the book.
I don't think any of it was pompous - I just wrote far too much! And to be honest, it's mainly the reason that a lot of people will watch this film simply wanting to see a few of their favourite bits from the books recreated on screen that makes me feel worse about this film. It's frustrating because this approach has so far led to 2 awful films, 4 average ones, and the one which most attempts to be a decent film in its own right (Prisoner of Azkaban) is the best by some distance.
Anyway, carry on. I did actually enjoy the film, it's just disappointing that, when compared to, for example, The Lord of the Rings adaptations, the Potter films have so consistently failed to deliver.
Spider
New member
- Sep 15, 2007
- 3,614
Are you sure 'love' was intended. I actually forgot to say in my intial post that one of the biggest failings of this film is that it completely forgets the Harry/Ginny relationship, which will in turn make all that stuff in the next half fairly hollow. I think they're trying to suggest how close friends Harry and Hermoine are, whilslt Harry is 'in love' with Ginny. It doesn't really work in the film anyway, since it is at no point believable that Hermoine, especially as she looks like when played by Watson, woul fall for Ron over Harry.
Lewes' best seagull
New member
- Jan 31, 2008
- 1,145
You're right, I didn't mean 'love' but I thought they handled the whole 'Ron fall out' badly, and the subsequent dramatic tension the same.
Maybe it was just me.
Meade's Ball
Well-known member
I thought that Grinty section of him falling into the bitterness of jealousy was the only bit that even resembled a human emotion in the film. Yes, it was a carbon copy of Frodo's eyes of desperation led by the evil ring and carried a hundredth of the weight of LOTR, but it had a miniscule sense of loss to it and i find that feature vital in any heroic tale. The rest of the film was a couple of posh turds reading out the storyline bit by bit. Dross.
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
I watched it last night, pretty much agree with everything you say, but still really enjoyed it. As I think you say later on, it works fine if you've read it because all the depth provided by the book is there as background in your mind.
The cinema was packed and the Indonesian audience thoroughly enjoyed it, its quite funny in places, the CGI is very good and the action sequences are worthy of the name. Agree these name actors aren't in it much, but some of them get to spread their role over eight films so I suppose they're not complaining!
Having NOT read the books, I found this film to be somewhat impenetrable. It felt very much a fan film for those who are familiar with the story.
The narrative is very bitty, there is virtually no plot to hang the scenes on, and as others have said, the acting is pretty poor, as the majority of the film has to be carried by Radcliffe, Grint and Watson, rather than the established adult actors.
My eldest daughter, 12, who has read the books (twice), was enthralled. My youngest, 9, who has kept up with the story through film, was thoroughly lost, and kept asking questions, (which I couldn't answer).
Poor effort
The narrative is very bitty, there is virtually no plot to hang the scenes on, and as others have said, the acting is pretty poor, as the majority of the film has to be carried by Radcliffe, Grint and Watson, rather than the established adult actors.
My eldest daughter, 12, who has read the books (twice), was enthralled. My youngest, 9, who has kept up with the story through film, was thoroughly lost, and kept asking questions, (which I couldn't answer).
Poor effort
I can't remember what I said on the film 2010 thread, so may be repeating myself.
I am a fan of the books and have mostly really enjoyed the films. I've discussed them with other people, and for all the other films people said you need to be a fan of the book and I never agreed with them. I thought you needed to pay attention to the films, remember what happened in the previous films and use a bit of logic/common sense and then you'd be able keep up with what was going on, maybe needing a second viewing (I don't think needing to watch a film twice to fully understand it is necessarily a bad thing). However, watching this one (only once so far) there are plenty of things that I can't use logic and the films to explain (for example the mirror, which was cut from OotP and shows up here with no explanation), there appeared to be some odd editing decisions, just a few minutes after explaining "the trace", then reiterating it, the trio go off on the run and suddenly the idea that they used the trace to track them to the cafe is ridiculous because it's supposed to leave him when he turns 17... oh yeah we forgot Harry's birthday.
This is one were you do have to be familiar with the book, and I am very familiar with the book, so these small details aren't so bothersome to me. From a selfish book reader perspective, I thought it was rather good. Though, agree the acting wasn't great, especially the emotional scenes. Compare Grint's monologue about the light with Broadbent's monologue about the Lily in Half-blood prince and there's a world of difference.
I also thought it suffered from being only half the story. I was against the split when it was announced, and I don't think the film changed my mind.
Overall, I really liked it, but recognise the faults it has.
I am a fan of the books and have mostly really enjoyed the films. I've discussed them with other people, and for all the other films people said you need to be a fan of the book and I never agreed with them. I thought you needed to pay attention to the films, remember what happened in the previous films and use a bit of logic/common sense and then you'd be able keep up with what was going on, maybe needing a second viewing (I don't think needing to watch a film twice to fully understand it is necessarily a bad thing). However, watching this one (only once so far) there are plenty of things that I can't use logic and the films to explain (for example the mirror, which was cut from OotP and shows up here with no explanation), there appeared to be some odd editing decisions, just a few minutes after explaining "the trace", then reiterating it, the trio go off on the run and suddenly the idea that they used the trace to track them to the cafe is ridiculous because it's supposed to leave him when he turns 17... oh yeah we forgot Harry's birthday.
This is one were you do have to be familiar with the book, and I am very familiar with the book, so these small details aren't so bothersome to me. From a selfish book reader perspective, I thought it was rather good. Though, agree the acting wasn't great, especially the emotional scenes. Compare Grint's monologue about the light with Broadbent's monologue about the Lily in Half-blood prince and there's a world of difference.
I also thought it suffered from being only half the story. I was against the split when it was announced, and I don't think the film changed my mind.
Overall, I really liked it, but recognise the faults it has.
Scoffers
Well-known member
Jeez, some people seem hell bent in over-analysing things. Do you go in to such detail when buying a sofa or doing the weekly shop?
Just enjoy it for what it is. A bit of harmless fun !
Just enjoy it for what it is. A bit of harmless fun !
I sympathise as I feel the same way about all the football analysis that goes on on here: "I think Murray is lazy and he should 'of' made more effort to get on to Elliot's crosses and Painter wasn't as good as previous weeks and ... etc." Jeez. Just watch the football you f***ing anoraks.
If on the other hand you think it's ok for people to offer an analysis of an Albion game then it should also be ok for someone to offer an analysis of something else.
countrygull
Active member
I agree with you about the Lord of the Rings: I wonder what would have happened had Peter Jackson been given a Potter film?? Also agree with much of your review: esp the split in the woods. I felt the whole film lacked real emotion, as if the movie's darkness precluded anger and emotion.
The other thing is that it's luck of the draw when you pick 11 year olds for a 7 film deal, which of them will develop into really good actors. Unfortunately in this case, it's none of them.
ben andrews' girlfriend
Nurse Laura
Well I really liked it.
Yes, it isn't going to be as in depth as the books, otherwise it'd be 10 hours long.
Due to it's fantasy element, it's always going to be compared to LOTR (especially with the crossovers between them) - but Jackson had far more time, far less pressure and far more talented and established actors (for the lead roles anyway). Of course LOTR is bettr, but Potter has a very different audience, and they have to cater to that. Some of the stuff in the books is genuinely scary, and it would not have been appropriate to show to the audience base that Potter has.
In conclusion, it's a fun, kids movie - embrace it!
Yes, it isn't going to be as in depth as the books, otherwise it'd be 10 hours long.
Due to it's fantasy element, it's always going to be compared to LOTR (especially with the crossovers between them) - but Jackson had far more time, far less pressure and far more talented and established actors (for the lead roles anyway). Of course LOTR is bettr, but Potter has a very different audience, and they have to cater to that. Some of the stuff in the books is genuinely scary, and it would not have been appropriate to show to the audience base that Potter has.
In conclusion, it's a fun, kids movie - embrace it!
