Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1

The world of magic has entered truly the darkest times, but despite what random critical outbursts might suggest, it has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the film adaptation. Yates and Kloves had a challenging task of transforming the "slower and more talkative" part of the Relics into a separate explosive blockbuster. The director stood out with incredible bravura, and whether the Trio is leaving home, the Tale of the Three Brothers is being told, or the horcrux is being destroyed, the magical atmosphere literally shines from the screen. However, Kloves' screenplay occasionally takes shortcuts, and if I didn't have the source material loaded backwards and forwards, I would be quite lost. But even though Bill and Fleur become members of the Order from minute to minute, when they were omitted in the Prince, and Minister Scrimgeour steps onto the scene only to quickly descend from it, the criticisms are hard to find in the consequences. The overall impression for me screams that from four hundred pages full of expectations of great things and the fulfillment of smaller ongoing goals, an epic fantasy full of intoxicating moments and such sincere private drama has been created that it takes one's breath away. The Phoenix and the Prince have gained a successful companion, and if David Yates was the king after the previous installment, he has slowly run out of room to climb. (11/27/2010)

I feel like this doesn't have much to do with good old Harry Potter anymore. It's all a bit too dark and the Hogwarts atmosphere is sorely lacking. I still respect Harry as a fan though. I'm just of the opinion that a "new" viewer won't be impressed by this installment (at least the first part). At times I feel like I'm watching a Canadian thriller. I give it 4 stars, but on a completely different scale than the previous installments. But I'm looking forward to Part 2 anyway. (05/12/2011)

I am not going to complain about this movie, but I have to point out that I am so exhausted from the whole series that I would gladly accept Voldemort's victory. I have previously mentioned that, from my point of view, the movie series should have had only four parts, as this fully demonstrates a lot of filler from the books. Additionally, since the producers decided to divide the last book into two movie parts for higher profits, this flaw is even more evident in this case. Logically, the film does not escalate as it should and thus lags from a dramatic perspective. On the other hand, it once again scores points with the big budget and the care of the film studio, so Harry Potter fans will not be disappointed. Overall impression: 50%. (04/06/2011)

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)