Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1

I don't know if this is a fantasy tribute to Satantango, but the fact is that, if all the shots were thrown out where the characters were mindlessly stumbling or looking soulfully into nothingness, there would be about 30 minutes of film left and I would have a hard time defending its purpose. The entire Harry Potter series has since become an unbearably stretched and non-inventive spectacle on the silver screen, which includes purposeful piling of meaningless branches and the creation of soap opera odor. Yet even in terms of character rendering, it is poor and dead tired, without sparkle and anything that would keep a person’s attention who does not look at it as an overpriced illustration of a book. Utterly useless, boring, and I dare say even a stupid half-part. (07/10/2011)

The seventh book is unnecessarily, although readably, drawn-out in the first half; and the second half has a fateful finale as we like them best. It’s movie adaptation has only got half way so far (somewhere around page four hundred of about six hundred), but it’s already better than the book at least in that Yates succeeded in approaching it in a way that doesn’t come across like unnecessarily watered down porridge. And if so, certainly less than the book is. Thanks to the convincing (!) emotions, the finally acting well central trio, the great atmosphere and Desplat, it works wonderfully. It’s true that there are a few scenes that stand out in quality above the others, but even so, the movie works primarily and mainly as a whole. But still, it is evident that where the creators dared to let their fantasy loose and not to stick word for word to the book, the movie is clearly at its best. Now all I can wish for is for Yates to manage to deal with the special effects-full, epic second part, while not forgetting those emotions and characters. If he manages that, we’ll have something to look forward to. But if he doesn’t, we will really have something to “look forward to". (11/18/2010)

The weakest Harry Potter instalment split into two parts? Oh dear, we're raking in the dough, we're raking in the dough. And unfortunately it phoned it in – the first part is boring. A fairy tale with thriller elements and coincidentally uncovered graves. It's sad, but as a fan, I'm disappointed. The music, the actors, the effects – nothing new, lackluster and drawn out. A brick on you. The second part might finally make you cry; so far it's been nothing but smirking. I had fun making fun of it. Otherwise, I was yawning. Sorry, Harry, you were acting like Frodo, and I won't forgive you for that. A weaker 3 stars. (12/02/2010)

Watching teenagers run around in the woods for 140 minutes is borderline torture. David Yates rips off Nolan's Batman themes at every turn, but doesn't understand that that alone doesn’t make a good movie. Because when the actors don't have anything to work with, and there is not a single memorable scene that will make it worthwhile, the result is more than trivial. An unfinished, poorly made film with no drama, where they drown in lavish camera panoramas and robust music, forgetting everything else that made the Harry Potter franchise a success. (07/22/2023)

I saw the first four Harry Potter films and stopped there, as I’m not a fan of the series. I went to see Deathly Hollows: Part I only because of its attractive billboards. And I was bored to death. The beginning of the series introduced us to the characters and the story’s lovely environment and, in the case of Alfonso Cuarón’s contribution to the series, brought us a unique, wonderfully dark film adventure that showed a lot of inventiveness on the director’s part. The films had their own stories and always took the audience somewhere. In comparison to them, Deathly Hollows: Part I is only a protracted masturbatory porridge, slavishly and without any creative input following the original book, the qualities of which I don’t know, but if they’re anything like this film, I’ll gladly pass. (11/18/2010)