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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

If a rat were to walk in here right now as I'm talking, would you treat it to a saucer of your delicious milk?

Inglourious Basterds (2009)
(SPOILERS) His staunchest fans would doubtless claim Tarantino has never taken a wrong step, but for me, his post-Pulp Fiction output had been either not quite as satisfying (Jackie Brown), empty spectacle (the Kill Bills) or wretched (Death Proof). It wasn’t until Inglourious Basterds that he recovered his mojo, revelling in an alternate World War II where Adolf didn’t just lose but also got machine gunned to death in a movie theatre showing a warmly received Goebbels-produced propaganda film. It may not be his masterpiece – as Aldo Raines refers to the swastika engraved on “Jew hunter” Hans Landa’s forehead, and as Tarantino actually saw the potential of his script – but it’s brimming with ideas and energy.

Check it out. I wonder if BJ brought the Bear with him.

Death Proof (2007)
(SPOILERS) In a way, I’m slightly surprised Tarantino didn’t take the opportunity to disown Death Proof, to claim that, as part of Grindhouse, it was no more one of his ten-official-films-and-out than his Four Rooms segment. But that would be to spurn the exploitation genre affectation that has informed everything he’s put his name to since Kill Bill, to a greater or less extent, and also require him to admit that he was wrong, and you won’t find him doing that for anything bar My Best Friend’s Birthday.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

Hey, everybody. The bellboy's here.

Four Rooms (1995)
(SPOILERS) I had an idea that I’d only seen part of Four Rooms previously, and having now definitively watched the entire thing, I can see where that notion sprang from. It’s a picture that actively encourages you to think it never existed. Much of it isn’t even actively terrible – although, at the same time, it couldn’t be labelled remotely good– but it’s so utterly lethargic, so lacking in the energy, enthusiasm and inventiveness that characterises these filmmakers at their best – and yes, I’m including Rodriguez, although it’s a very limited corner for him – that it’s very easy to banish the entire misbegotten enterprise from your mind.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994)
(SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump. And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

That woman, deserves her revenge and… we deserve to die. But then again, so does she.

Kill Bill: Vol. 2  (2004)
(SPOILERS) I’m not sure I can really conclude whether one Kill Bill is better than the other, since I’m essentially with Quentin in his assertion that they’re one film, just cut into two for the purposes of a selling point. I do think Kill Bill: Vol. 2 has the movie’s one actually interesting character, though, and I’m not talking David Carradine’s title role.

The adversary oft comes in the shape of a he-goat.

The Witch (2015)
(SPOILERS) I’m not the biggest of horror buffs, so Stephen King commenting that The Witchscared the hell out of me” might have given me pause for what was in store. Fortunately, he’s the same author extraordinaire who referred to Crimson Peak as “just fucking terrifying” (it isn’t). That, and that general reactions to Robert Eggers’ film have fluctuated across the scale, from the King-type response on one end of the spectrum to accounts of unrelieved boredom on the other. The latter response may also contextualise the former, depending on just what King is referring to, because what’s scary about The Witch isn’t, for the most part, scary in the classically understood horror sense. It’s scary in the way The Wicker Man is scary, existentially gnawing away at one through judicious martialling of atmosphere, setting and theme.


Indeed, this is far more impressive a work than Ben Wheatley’s Kill List, which had hitherto been compared to The Wicker Man, succeeding admirably …