Skip to main content

Seems silly, doesn't it? A wedding. Given everything that's going on.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I
(2010)

(SPOILERS) What’s good in the first part of the dubiously split (of course it was done for the art) final instalment in the Harry Potter saga is very good, let down somewhat by decisions to include material that would otherwise have been rightly excised and the sometimes-meandering travelogue. Even there, aspects of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I can be quite rewarding, taking on the tone of an apocalyptic ‘70s aftermath movie or episode of Survivors (the original version), as our teenage heroes (some now twentysomethings) sleep rough, squabble, and try to salvage a plan. The main problem is that the frequently strong material requires a robust structure to get the best from it.


The split finale device, a means of milking the last pennies from a terminal franchise, was quickly latched onto by other YA makers, Twilight reaping benefits and – showing you really have to love a series to keep getting fleeced – Divergent being unceremoniously axed. Did Deathly Hallows merit the decision? Well, I found Part II the most underwhelming concluding chapter since The Matrix Revolutions (tellingly, both culminate in an endlessly nullifying battle), so I’d argue not. I don’t doubt there’s more than enough material in the Potter books – at least, after the first couple – to split each into two movies, but that’s only truly beneficial if you’re decide to go the whole hog and follow the TV route. This kind of decision can make or break a movie, interrupting its natural flow (It got lucky this year, but might easily have come a cropper). Of course, the official version is that this happened for entirely creative reasons, but who are they trying to kid, right?


By this point, it seemed as if every seriously well-known thesp had appeared in the series, but there’s still room for Bill Nighy as the new Minister of Magic, presiding over a world gone to pot as Voldermort makes his reincarnated presence felt. And the opening scene with the hissable one is exactly as impactful as he should-but-hasn’t-quite-been before, relying more on the reactions of others to his presence than his presence itself (Jason Isaacs is particularly good as an undone Lucius), although I did like his mimicking of Lucius’ trembling “My lord?” in response to a request for his wand, the schoolyard bully bullying the father of a bully. Snape’s effectively unflappable here too, coolly maintaining his united front yet still managing to be superior to everyone else.


Mad-Eye Moody: Nip it, Mundungus!

There’s a snappy pace to the first half of the film (the shortest Harry Potter until Part II), preceding the more interior “road trip” of Harry, Ron and Hermione. I wondered a bit about the decision to create Harry doppelgangers, amusing as the sequence is (“Bill, look away, I’m hideous!”) –why didn’t they all take the Polyjuice Potion to resemble someone else entirely, or several other people, none of them Harry, as that would surely have created greater confusion (or have multiple Harrys except for Harry himself, who is disguised as someone else)?


The subsequent chase ain’t all that, sometimes showing that special effects haven’t moved on sufficiently to make the flying entirely convincing – either that, or they needed more time for rendering – even if it illustrates the continually rising stakes (Mad-Eye dies off screen, Harry’s owl buys the farm – rather silly to have him flapping along anyway, drawing attention to his true owner – and George Weasely loses an ear). However, following an entirely indulgent and illogical wedding (identifying this as idiocy within the text in no way makes it excusable) the trio’s alighting in London to secure a horcrux leads to the best scenes in the picture, like the previous instalment illustrating that, when the series brushes with other genres, it can be at its most engrossing. The news that the Ministry of Magic has fallen and is enforcing draconian Big Brother policies picks up from Order of the Phoenix, so the return of Imelda Staunton as Dolores Umbridge is both appropriate and welcome.


The London section is expertly judged, beginning with a very fine, brief café altercation with Death Eaters that plays as the equivalent of a gangland hit. The ensuing ministry infiltration heist/caper is great, and sees the return of deft physical comedy of identity (the personas assumed by the trio) mixed with genuine danger and menace. Ron’s “What am I going to do? My wife’s all alone downstairs”, in response to the news that the wife of the individual he’s impersonating is about to be interrogated, is hilarious. And Peter Mullan is particularly fearsome as Death Eater Yaxley, taking on the unstoppable tenor of an Agent Smith.


Harry: You’re not still mad at him, are you?
Hermione: I’m always mad at him.

The burden of the locket in the woods is perhaps a little too The Lord of the Rings for comfort, however, and the wits’ end of frayed nerves at times shows the limitations of the performers; they aren’t quite good enough to sustain these long dark nights of the soul, Grinch excepted, who is yet again adept at showing discontent with his friends (previously highlighted in Goblet of Fire). The flirtation with Harry and Hermione developing more than platonic feelings, meanwhile, comes across as Rowling deliberately baiting Harry-Hermione shippers, only to disappoint them.


If this section doesn’t quite come together, one can at least admit it’s a different and unusual development at this point in the story, so full marks for willingness to go that route. And it’s followed by an encounter with Rhys Ifans’ Xenophilius Lovegood, at his house in the middle of nowhere, resembling something out of The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. It’s a fine, nightmarish episode, as unease leads to the dawn of dread realisation that they have been betrayed, offering en route some lovely animation telling the story of the Deathly Hallows. Again, while I’m cynical about the reasons for splitting the story, being able to indulge an interlude such as this almost makes the decision seem creatively justified (ultimately, it’s more the deficiencies of Part II that suggest it as fundamentally flawed).


I don’t think the subsequent passages work nearly as well, however. The capture by Snatchers, with Harry being zapped into having a disfigured face, seems like a slightly desperate and tenuous plot device; it’s odd that the Malfoys don’t instantly think the ugly fellow with Hermione and Ron might be Harry, or attempt to cast spells to find out if it is him. Likewise, bringing back the much-loathed Dobby, absent from the screen since Chamber of Secrets, for a pathos-filled death smacks of exactly the sort of thing you cut not just for time but reasons of good drama too.


But, for all that it is structurally awkward and prone to indulging elements that would have been pruned in the past for good reason, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I offers some of the series’ best scenes and sequences. It registers with its pervading gloom and oppression, and shows Yates still inspired – even if it’s clear from the start that there’ll be no clear skies in Potter again, even on a sunlit beach it feels overcast and destaturated, which suits him completely – three movies into his affiliation with the series, still coming up the goods where it counts.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.