Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 (2010)

Part 1 of the epic finale.

★★★

After nine years since the first film hit cinemas, it was time for the finale book to be adapted. However, director David Yates and executive producer Lionel Wigram suggested to split the book into two parts. David Heyman initially responded negatively, but Wigram asked, "No, David. How are we going to do it?". Having reread the book and discussed it with Steve Kloves when the 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike ended, and having Rowling's approval, he agreed with the division. Before Yates was chosen to direct, Chris Columbus, director of the first two wanted to direct it, as well as Alfonso Cuarón, director of the third film. Guillermo del Toro was also interested, but "The Hobbit" trilogy took up his schedule. So, David Yates was set to return. Not the best idea, but i'll get to that later.

The film follows Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), and Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) as they undertake on a perilous expedition to destroy Voldemort's Horcruxes, which are items containing bits of his soul that provide him eternal life. As they escape Death Eaters and encounter various trials, their friendship is put to the strain, particularly when the effect of one Horcrux generates tension and mistrust. Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes), Bellatrix Lestrange (Helena Bonham Carter), and Severus Snape (Alan Rickman) all appear in the film. It goes into the mythology surrounding the Deathly Hallows, three powerful magical relics that could aid in their quest. The film closes on a cliffhanger with the death of a beloved figure, preparing for the final showdown with Voldemort.

Since the 7th book was split into two parts, both parts had to adapt a part of a story. Part 1 adapted the the Trio hunting for Voldemort's Horcruxes as well as the Battle of the seven Potters. "Part 2" adapated the final battle. In my opinion, Part 1 felt long, dragged, and a bit boring. There was so much filler content. All the good scenes were deleted, especially the Dursleys. David Yates did those people dirty. I understand they aren't the greatest people in the world, but the books were able to show a different side of them, especially Dudley. He changed a lot since the first book. But alas, David Yates wanted to focus on some of his fantasies.

This movie is controversial for one big thing: Harry and Hermione. David Yates is a big Harry and Hermione shipper. After Ron leaves the two, Harry and Hermione have a little dance, which angered many fans, especially the fans who read the books. Look, I get it, it's not book accurate and it feels rushed in the film. I too, felt upset by that. Harry and Hermione could've worked, but Rowling put Ron and Hermione together in the book, and i'll leave it at that. However, I didn't mind Harry and Hermione either, but I like to follow the original soruce material. Another reason why the film is controversial is Dobby. A character that was perfectly introduced in The Chamber of Secrets, became absent in the remaining films. I can forgive Mike Newell for cutting him in The Goblet of Fire, but he should've been in 5th and 6th film because he's a huge part of the those stories. Fans who have only seen the movies, would probably have forgetten him by then, or wouldn't feel any sort of emotion because he was absent. Cutting him from the 5th and 6th films was a big mistake. Newell cut him out of the 4th him and gave all his actions to Neville Longbottom which helped with his character development, but in the 5th and 6th film, his actions are forgetten and weren't given to anyone else.

Radcliffe, Watson, and Grint's acting is professional at this point. Those three really have come a long way since the first film and feel like professional actors at this point. But again, if Alfonso Cuarón and Chris Columbus came back the film would've been a lot better, as well as the acting. Despite my fustration with David Yates, the film is still good and an adequate adaptation.