Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

This is topic Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part I in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001722

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-22-2010, 09:39 PM:

What, no reviews yet? The movie has only been available on the web since last Tuesday. Ah well, I guess I'll start.

I enjoyed it. As a fan of the books, I was very satisfied. There were quite a few things missing and changed slightly as there always are with these movies, but the changes didn't bother me as much this time. Most of the changes seemed to be for pacing or simplifying things for an audience receiving the shorter version of the story. After all, you can only cram so many characters into a 2.5 hour movie without starting to confuse and lose your audience. In the book world you have much more time to flesh out and explore all of the characters. There's no reason to bring back Stan Shunpike for a quick cameo for example. Those who read the book know what I'm talking about.

But on the other hand, some scenes seemed word for word from the book, so hats off to that. Other things that played a part in the book, like the Erumpent horn in Xenophilius's house, were not even mentioned in the movie - however if you look you'll spot it hanging on his wall right where it's supposed to be. I enjoyed those little touches and attention to detail even if they didn't discuss them in the movie.

I've seen some reviews where people were complaining about the story being slow. I don't agree with that at all. I thought the pacing was just fine.

The acting has once again stepped up a notch for all of the "kids" - which also happens with every new chapter in this franchise. This one, like the others before it, definitely darkens the story even more. It's kind of funny going back and re-watching the first one and seeing where we came from in this series. It's not quite the kid's movie it used to be.

I'm eager to read reviews from fellow Film-Techers who have NOT read the books.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 11-22-2010, 10:09 PM:

I have not read the books, so my only knowledge is of the films. On that note, this one was fantastic.

The pacing, I felt, was perfect for the story. The movie really took its time just going through story, and made it very coherent, and this is only part 1!

The acting has been great throughout the series, and its just getting better. Not only the young actors, but the veterans as well.

I liked it!

AJG

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-22-2010, 11:50 PM:

I'm not a Potter fan, but the audience comments for this one have been pretty uniformly ecstatic. We've had a few repeat viewers already.

Our ticket sales have been slammed by the weather, however. We've had continuous cold weather (10 degrees and under) since it opened, and the first two days we had blizzards. We only had 20 people to our midnight show because of it. So I'm looking forward to Thanksgiving weekend, should boost things.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 11-23-2010, 03:38 AM:

All the above comments shit on the theory that you need 3D to have great takings. This is a good thing.

As always, it's the story and the telling of that story.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-23-2010, 11:31 AM:

Yeah - I hope that they decide not to make the last one 3D too. These movies by nature are too "dark" to be in 3D.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-23-2010, 02:36 PM:

They look almost monochromatic to me, kind of like Lord of the Rings (which it seems to be trying to emulate the look of).

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 11-23-2010, 04:52 PM:

I started thinking about the fact that this was going to be a 3D release. After watching the film, I have no idea why it ever would be.

I also figure by the time part 2 comes out, the theatre I've seen all of these at, in 35mm, will most likely be all digital. I guess I have to fully embrace the future.

AJG

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 11-23-2010, 05:53 PM:

Movie: I enjoyed the movie, but felt it was rather slow and depressing. Good performances from the core cast. They do seem to grow into their roles well with each installment. I have not read the books but have seen each of the installments in their first run at the cinema. Very dark and moody tone - definitely not a full on kid's film.

Presentation: Having just relocated north east of the Bay Area, we saw the film at the Brenden 16 in Vacaville, Ca. I must say that I was DEEPLY impressed. The facility itself was spotlessly clean, the box office, floor, and counter staff were very pleasant and courteous. Apparently all 16 auditoriums in the complex are THX certified. Our show was on screen #16 and was a 35mm print. The image was bright (as this film could be), tack sharp, and not a speck of dirt or scratch on the print. This was Sunday morning at 9:55am after running the print the whole weekend. I was even surprised that they added a THX Bounty snipe between the trailer pack and the feature. The sound seemed very well balanced and packed a good punch. I would give a 10/10 review of the theater, but am going to give it a 9/10 because I felt the trailer pack ran a little too long for my taste (7 trailers plus snipes)

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-23-2010, 07:39 PM:

We've been keeping an unofficial tally of people who thought this movie was going to be in 3-D.

Some are glad it's NOT in 3-D.

Some are disappointed (kids mostly).

Others are disappointed, but glad to save the bucks.

None of these groups are in the majority, interestingly.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-23-2010, 07:58 PM:

I'm REALLY glad Warner Brothers ditched the 3D on this. I enjoy seeing these kinds of big movies in the semi-local 15/70 IMAX King of Prussia theater. I was going to avoid it if it was in 3D, but as it turns out, that's where we went, and as usual the presentation was pretty awesome. I hope they ditch the 3D on part II too.

Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 11-25-2010, 01:51 AM:

Will there be a rerelease of part 1 in 3D before part 2?
Just my cynical opinion.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-25-2010, 11:06 AM:

I'll bet not, because Warners probably would not like to have a gargantuan amount of bad press about lousy 3-D coming out right before Part 2 opens.

They'll save it for the Blu-Ray version and then that will suck, but by that time it won't make any difference.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-25-2010, 12:20 PM:

If they are "smart." They will forgo the 3D on Deathly Hallows as it would make part II the ONLY 3D version (theatrically). When you have something with that sort of success...why chance mucking with it. How many HP fans are demanding 3D for this franchise? Better to experiment with it at the home as they will have both versions.

-Steve

Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 11-26-2010, 01:35 PM:

Quality on the Harry Potter conversion actually was high. Clash of the Titans was handled by Prime Focus. They cut too many corners to make their deadline and the end product was not too good.

Both Deathly Hallows films, on the other hand, are being handled by IMAX. After producing partial 3D on the last two Potter films and Superman Returns, as well as converting scenes from Destiny in Space to 3D for Hubble, their co-production with WB, IMAX secured the contract in May. However, they did not get the first footage until August and did not realize until too late that they could not complete the first Deathly Hallows film in time. In the last few weeks before the 3D was canceled, they attempted to subcontract with other conversion and vfx houses, but were unsuccessful.

Posted by David E. Nedrow (Member # 4981) on 11-26-2010, 04:27 PM:

Here's my take on the film...

I thought it was easily the weakest of all the films.

Far too much action takes place off screen -- "Hey, Mad Eye is dead, he fell off his broom fighting Valdemort. Hey, the Ministry has fallen and the Minister is dead". All of those would have been more interesting than watching Harry brood away in the woods. And, way too much inaction is onscreen.

I don't mind movies that take their time telling a story, but it has to be a story more complicated than a Twilight redux. Hey, look, it's Bella and Jacob, er, I mean Hermione and Ron mooning at each other. Oh, and there's Jacob and Edward -- whoops, Harry and Ron -- fighting over Hermione/Bella.

The other problem, is that there is no sense of time passage in the film. When they mention that they've been searching for weeks, I cringed. It sure seemed like that insufferable segment happened over the course of three or four days. I think somebody here has previously mentioned the lack of scale, when it comes to time in recent movies.

It also bothered me that, sometimes, you couldn't even tell what time of day it was. One second, they're in brightly lit darkness -- I can't think of a single night scene that didn't appear to have a zillion chinese lanterns hanging overhead -- then all of a sudden, seemingly in the same scene, it's daytime.

WB unfortunately fell into the LOTR fan-boy trap with this book adaptation. I found the LOTR movies insufferably long. It doesn't take much of a scriptwriter to format a book into script-ese. One of the things I liked about the earlier HP films is that they still told the essential story while cutting the fat. I know this is basically a money grab on WB's part, but that doesn't make a good movie, or pair of movies.

I'm not sure what happened to David Yates. He's never been a particularly strong director, but he turned out a couple of mechanically serviceable Potter films before this one. HP7.1, however, looks clumsy and out of control.

I suspect that once I see HP7.2, my thoughts here will be confirmed, at least for me. [Wink]

I haven't seen any reason so far that precluded this book from having been done in a single go. Heck, nearly an entire reel is just credits!

Oh, and the credits. Is this the first one that didn't have something going on during at least part of the closing credits? I've taken to letting people know -- when they buy a ticket -- that once the end credits start, that's the end. No footsteps on a map, no flying parchment, no teaser for the next film, or coda for this one. Just one long, endless (not literally), series of credits.

As for 3D, I'm glad they didn't do it. I don't mind IMAX conversions, though I'm just not a big fan of 3D. And when we ran MEGAMIND, we had people coming here specifically because we weren't showing it in 3D.

And as someone else noted, the success of this film is more proof that you don't need 3D to make a blockbuster. Just look at INCEPTION. If WB is smart, they won't bother with 3D for the last film, just to keep things consistent in the series.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-26-2010, 10:45 PM:

quote: David E. Nedrow
Far too much action takes place off screen -- <SNIPPED COMMENTS BECAUSE THEY ARE SPOILERS> All of those would have been more interesting than watching Harry brood away in the woods. And, way too much inaction is onscreen.

Sorry, but that's exactly the way it happened in the book.

quote: David E. Nedrow
The other problem, is that there is no sense of time passage in the film.

Starting out at the beginning of the school year and arriving at the graveyard on Christmas Eve didn't give you a hint? [Smile]

quote: David E. Nedrow
It doesn't take much of a scriptwriter to format a book into script-ese.

The same guy (Steve Kloves) did all of the screenplays, so I'm not sure what to make of that comment. Maybe he just got lucky the first six times. [Smile]

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 11-26-2010, 11:06 PM:

I screened the first Harry Potter film and was bored out of mind. So I haven't seen any of the others til now. I was talked into it. Well, again I found myself bored out of my mind. Don't know what it is. I can sit through all 3 LOTR films (even the director's cuts) and not get bored.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 11-27-2010, 01:56 AM:

CINEMA: Megaplex 17 at Jordan Commons, Sandy, UT
AUDITORIUM: 14
PRESENTATION: Dolby Digital Cinema DLP (apparently they let the THX certification lapse)
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: LF channel was out through the trailers and about ten minutes of the feature...smooth sailing after that.
RATING: Three stars (out of four)

THE PLOT: Horcrux hunting. Wackiness ensues.

This is the first of the movies I've watched after having read the book. And based on the book, I was sort of dreading watching the movie. We all know how I feel about movies where the characters aimlessly wander the woods.

But this totally worked for me. And it ended exactly where I thought it would. The experience of watching the worlds the book drew unfold on the screen was sort of amazing.

I suppose that means I should read more.

(I'm not going to read more.)

Posted by David E. Nedrow (Member # 4981) on 11-27-2010, 02:19 AM:

Mark,

I realize that the lack of anything interesting was exactly the way it happened in the book. I -- and my super Potter-fan wife -- both found book 7 borderline terrible. Had Kloves been able to write this for one film, I guarantee we wouldn't have to watch everyone walking around aimlessly for a good part of the movie.

As for the time frame, I had no idea it was the beginning of the school year. I don't even remember them heading for Hogwarts. The movie starts and the main characters are already in "action". Maybe I was too bored to pick up on the time shifts, but I've seen it twice and it still seems random to me. I mean, why would they stay in the woods for weeks? Hiding? I thought they were trying to find Horcruxes (Horcruxi?).

Even Radcliff has said in the past couple of days that re-writes were happening right up until the camera turned on each day. To quote him, "[this] was the most unsettled" of the films he had worked on. Sounds like they had no idea what to do when the decision was made to do 5 hours.

Most all of this I blame on Rowling, because book 7 was, in our minds, so bad.

My wife and I were talking today, and decided that neither of us even liked this film. And we thought the previous ones were great entertainment, though successively less so.

A lot of people in the audience also miss the fact that Lucius Malfoy's wand is destroyed in Voldemort's first attack on Potter. I hear them coming out asking why he needed the Elder Wand when he already had Malfoy's.

Oh, well, tomato, tomahto. [Wink]

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 11-28-2010, 12:56 PM:

I don't know how director David Yates was given the assignment to direct this two parter since 'Half Blood Prince' was an insanely BORING (let me repeat that: B-O-R-I-N-G) movie (and I'm Potter film fan, never read the books, except for the audio book for 'Prizoner of Azkaban'). Here though I thought Deathly Hollow (Part 1) worked generally, except when Harry and Hermione went to find the horcrux' - then the movie became 'deathly dull' (whereupon I promptly nodded off)

I'd give a 'B'

The digital projection I saw at Tysons was good, but the sound - wow! this would have sounded amazing in 6.1 or 7.1