Find Local Events (pick a date)
 
Browse Boulder real estate by neighborhood, school and zip code along with other homes for sale in Colorado on COhomefinder.com
Browse Boulder real estate by neighborhood, school and zip code along with other homes for sale in Colorado on COhomefinder.com.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Home / Articles / Entertainment / Screen /  Deathly boredom
. . . . . . .
Give Through iGivefirst
Thursday, December 2,2010

Deathly boredom

By Dave Taylor
After six successful films in the Harry Potter franchise, the setup for the final showdown between Potter and his archenemy, Voldemort, should have been an easy winner. That’s why Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 proves such a disappointment.

 

Prior to Deathly Hallows: Part 1, one of the best things about the Harry Potter films was that they worked as standalone movies, entertaining, exciting and with stories that let Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) overcome challenges and mature as a courageous young man. If you’d seen the previous films in the series, the story worked even better, as you could share the adolescent journey of Potter and his pals Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint) as the epic tale of good vs. evil progressed.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1, however, is a tediously slow chase film where the heroes hide from Voldemort’s minions by camping in various isolated locations while trying to track down the magical objects that make Voldemort indestructible.

The film is about the challenges of the adolescent characters, including the still-unresolved, complicated romantic triangle between Harry, Hermione and Ron. As actors, they’ve all grown in their craft and their performances are nuanced and thoughtful, but weak material makes for a slow film.

The film opens with Harry and Hermione leaving their families, the latter inexplicably casting a spell that removes her from her parents’ memories and family portraits. The world has become a far more dangerous place, with Death Eaters taking over both the Ministry of Magic and Hogwarts. At times there’s an Orwellian sense to the film, particularly in the scenes where Harry and pals sneak into the Ministry to encounter Nazi-like thought police.

One of my favorite parts was a rather odd animated sequence that told the story of the Deathly Hallows, a series of three magical objects (the Elder Wand, the Resurrection Stone and the Invisibility Cloak) that are Voldemort’s ultimate goal, even as Harry and pals seek the Horcruxes to try and defeat him. Animated by Ben Hibon, the shadow-puppet sequence still seemed like it’d be a better fit in a Don Quixote film.

How much of the blame for Deathly Hallows: Part 1 lies with director David Yates or screenwriter Steve Kloves, and how much should be assigned to J. K. Rowling, whose series peaked prior to the release of her last book? Just as The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian was the weakest book in the Narnia series and produced a weak film, the overly long 784-page book Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is also slow, often boring and unsatisfying (with an unnecessary epilogue that this reviewer and fan dearly hopes they omit from the second part of the film).

If you’re a Potter fan, you’ve already seen the film and probably found it a delightful opportunity to catch up with not just Harry, Ron and Hermione, but the Weasley family, Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) and Mad-Eye Moody (Brendan Gleeson) and hiss at evildoers Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton), the over-the-top Bellatrix (Helena Bonham Carter) and Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes). From a purely cinematic perspective, however, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 just doesn’t work as a standalone film and won’t be enjoyable to anyone other than Potter fans.

Respond: letters@boulderweekly.com

  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
POST A COMMENT
No Registration Required
 
Close
Close