A MONTH OF MAGIC: Hero Complex is counting down to the Nov. 19 release of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows — Part 1” — the penultimate film in the history-making “Potter” franchise — with exclusive interviews, photos, videos and reports from the set. Today, Los Angeles Times critic Kenneth Turan reviews the film.
Robbie Coltrane and Daniel Radcliffe in "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1" (Warner Bros)
What’s the latest Harry Potter film like? If you’ve seen the previous six, you already know. If you haven’t, there’s no point in trying to catch up now.
It’s a tribute to how much the series’ true believers are being counted on to carry the film that this latest episode makes little attempt to bring newcomers up to speed about what’s come before. Much of the plot of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” involves the attempt to find and destroy a series of Horcruxes, and if you haven’t a clue about what they are or why they’re important, you might as well stay home.
There is something different, however, about this Potter movie, and that is the words “Part 1″ that end the title. Understandably distraught about “Hallows” being the last of the phenomenally popular J.K. Rowling novels, Warner Bros. has split the final effort into two films and is likely kicking itself for not having thought of that with the earlier books. You don’t make $5.7 billion in theatrical revenue, however, by being cavalier about your source material and the watchword for the “Potter” series in general, and this film in particular, is making the audience feel like it’s in safe hands.
Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley in "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1." (Warner Bros.)
Though adventurous filmmakers such as Alfonso Cuarón have made “Potter” films, David Yates, who directed the two previous epics as well as both installments of “Deathly Hallows,” is not one of them. Capable and dependable, he can be counted on to make solid albeit unsurprising films that believe in connecting the dots rather than creating risky excitement. When studio president Alan Horn said his priority for the series was treating the books “respectfully,” he wasn’t kidding.
Being respectful also means making sure you have quality people behind the camera (Steve Kloves has written almost all the screenplays and the new cinematographer is Oscar-nominated “Girl With a Pearl Earring” veteran Eduardo Serra) as well as top acting talent in front of it. Even if you don’t always have enough for them to do. In fact, the Potter films are so loaded down with the best of British performers that Bill Nighy, who was added to the cast this time along with Rhys Ifans, wasn’t really kidding when he commented, “For a while, I thought I would be the only English actor of a certain age who wasn’t in a ‘Harry Potter’ film.” Nighy sets the tone for the latest film…
THERE’S MORE, READ THE REST
– Kenneth Turan
RECENT AND RELATED
VIDEO: ‘Potter’ stars arrive at London premiere
Tom Felton: The final films will not disappoint
Rupert Grint: I’m happy to be unemployed
Radcliffe on his tearful final day on “Potter” set
Forget Hogwarts, stars love fugitive life
Which star needed fat-suit after weight loss?
EXCLUSIVE: Tom Felton gives tour of “Potter” props
Comments
Print
Read Later
Our legion of super contributors is led by Hero Complex editor Gina McIntyre and 
Just one more to go. …Rats! ….and I don't mean Peter Pettigrew either.
For someone who has followed the complete series I have to admit my disappointment with the seventh production of the saga. The magic is lost, the movie is slow and the lack of creativity in several scenes is evident. Yates should keep in mind the infinite possibilities of a magical world vs the money making.
I would not recommend this movie to anyone, except for the reason that you kinda have to see it to understand the next movie. Overall, it was slow, jumped around alot, and did not have enough excitement to keep my interest. I almost fell asleep a couple of times.
The "movie-only" Harry Potter fans are likely to be disappointed but for those who read the books..it's amazing. As a reader, I think it's amazing when the movie is exactly how I pictured it when I read it.
What a pitiful excuse for a movie. It was like they tried to make a cheap 3D without the technology.
the entire movie was boringly bad lines interrupted every few minutes by some loud screeching thing lunging at the screen. It was never really clear why these emotionally pathetic characters were wandering around in a simplified depiction of hitlers Germany. I am glad they split it into two parts because I am not simple minded enough to sit through the second half. cannot recommend it to any one with a brain. This series has gotten worse with each episode.
I don't know if you're a troll or just dumb. The movies just keep getting better, and Deathly Hallows is the best of the lot. Come back when you have an actual criticism besides "it sucks".
Rhonda
Wish I would have never of spent my money on this terrible movie. I am a huge Harry Potter fan, but this one was such an insult– to even a mental midget. People were yawning. 14 people left the theater before we did, so I know that I am not alone.
I'm not a troll, or stupid, I just know a bad movie when I see one.