Reviews

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

3

The end of the beginning...

Previously on Harry Potter...

An eleven-year old Harry prevailed over a trying situation where the ethereal form of Lord Voldemort came out of the back of Ian Hart's head.

He stabbed a giant snake with a special sword and killed a diary with one of the snake's fangs.

David Thewlis turned into a werewolf. Gary Oldman turned into a dog. Hermione turned back time just so some stupid horse thing with wings didn't get its head chopped off by the man from Middlemarch.

Robert Pattinson got killed by Timothy Spall.

Harry tried to find a mysterious prophecy that could have made the series a bit shorter. But the prophecy was destroyed by his clumsy friend.

Gary Oldman got killed by Helena Bonham Carter.

Some good guys came down the chimney to save the day - including the man from Middlemarch who finally agreed that Lord Voldemort might be a problem.

The last time we saw Harry (2009's Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince) he was getting kissy with his mate's sister, pissy with overly cryptic mentor Dumbledore and dissy with Aryan class rival Draco.

He also learned that the way for good to triumph over bad was to destroy the shards of Voldemort's soul hidden in a bunch of magical artefacts ('Horcruxes').

Michael Gambon got killed by Alan Rickman.

So now, Harry, Ron and Hermione have bunked off their final year at Hogwarts to track down the Horcruxes and rob Voldemort of his immortality, so that the world will never again have to watch something coming out of the back of Ian Hart's head.

Problem: no school, no structure. Previous Potters have swaddled the younger actors in a huddly comfort zone of each other. Stilted delivery was muffled by the bustle of Hogwarts crowd solidarity.

Here, they're caught out in the open - wrapped up warm in coathanger-fresh cardies but exposed to the unblinking camera eye. As the three leads blunder across field and forest, bickering, bargaining, deciphering clues and making little camps, there's nowhere to hide.

Watson, as ever, is the star - breezy and effortless and never over-rehearsed. But the acting cogs still whir and clunk behind Grint and Radcliffe's eyes, and Watson's dominance gives the three-header scenes a tiresome air of matriarchy – as if she's playing mum to a pair of clutzy teenagers.

But all three are emerging talents who've awkwardly grown into their craft as they've grown up in public. Their uneven performances are an inevitable side effect of the pressure exerted by the film's over-reverential treatment of Rowling's books.

The final story may well be colourful and complex, but, on this evidence, there's absolutely no artistic justification for a two-movie split.

It's muddled and meandering and over-stretched - like the book. It's padded with rambling asides - like the book...

Next: Conclusion[page-break]

Instead of filleting Rowling's original for what could have been a gripping and pacy finale roughly split into two major acts (the build-up to the final battle and the final battle itself), we're stuck with an overlong prequel to 2011's main event.

Two and a half hours of fumbling and foreplay which could have escalated into something elemental if it wasn't so joylessly chaperoned by the dual-movie structure.

To Yates' credit, he sidesteps the studio politics and gets on with the job - directing with artistry and invention.

He tempers the hormonal anguish and cryptic beardiness with stealthy nods to the story's adult themes: a terrifying, McCarthyist reinvention of the Ministry Of Magic; the empowered Death Eaters' fascistic fervour for non-magical ethnic cleansing - complete with Nazi-like red & black livery.

Theres a smart expansion of Alfonso Cuaron's Prisoner Of Azkaban horror-movie elements: jars and jolts, fake scares, scuttling bugs, sweat-lashed nightmares, torture, murder and - the horror! - accidental owl death...

This (yes...) darkness applies to both tone and appearance. An emphasis on gloomy night scenes numbs the FX magic and maybe explains the difficulties with 3D conversion.

Pick of the adults is Peter Mullan's extra-evil Death Eater Yaxley - all reptile eyes and baritone blood-lust, flailing and wailing and spraying his killing curses into the air like a devilish dervish.

Bonham Carter is wild and witchy, Fiennes steps out of the shadows and layers a little more ham onto Voldemort's bones, while Rickman - the best thing about the series by far - makes the most of his disappointingly brief screen-time, swooping into Voldemort's stronghold and calmly laying the ground for Harry's destruction - raven-black, oily, inscrutable.

But Yates' second-unit indulgences - screensaver sunsets, languid helicopter sweeps over travel-brochure panoramas - only emphasise the emptiness.

There simply isn't enough material to fill 150 minutes and the waffer-thin stretching exposes a misguided and grabby dual-movie strategy.

This is Potter on pause - the magic muted by bottom-line logic. And, instead of what could have been a glittering orchestral climax, we've been served an extended drum-roll.

Verdict:

The thunder before the lightning; the rumble on the tracks... Passable and occasionally potent, but a towering great tease that has no right to exist in isolation from the latter - better - part of the story.

Film Details

User Reviews

    • deedeedragons

      Nov 11th 2010, 12:31

      Wow! sarcastic enough Total film?

      Alert a moderator

    • deedeedragons

      Nov 11th 2010, 12:32

      Wow! sarcastic enough Total Film?

      Alert a moderator

    • Pekkala

      Nov 11th 2010, 13:01

      Obviously the sarcastic person who wrote this review hated the books or perhaps never read them. The Harry Potter movies were never perfect but the love for the story from directors to actors to audience was ever present. I don't care what you say I am going to be first in line to see it and make my own judgement. We agree on one thing: Alan Rickman and Emma Watson have been great.

      Alert a moderator

    • ChrisSmyth

      Nov 11th 2010, 15:07

      Have to say I am still looking forward to this movie big time - I have preferred every Potter film Total Film gave 3 stars compared to the ones they gave 4. Hopefully this movie will follow suit.

      Alert a moderator

    • alowe

      Nov 11th 2010, 18:01

      Hello... @Pekkala - I've read all the books and, mostly, enjoyed them a lot. I'm a huge admirer of the way Rowling has structured her plots and constructed the Potter world. (There's a fantastic spreadsheet of how she did it here - http://www.buzzfeed.com/peggy/jk-rowlings-plot-spreadsheet) Anyone who's read the Deathly Hallows book will surely agree that the final third is the most thrilling 200 or so pages Rowling has written. That's why it's such a shame that the producers couldn't arrange the book into what would have been an equally thrilling - SINGLE - movie, with all the extended asides and exposition boiled down to a build-up for an amazing final hour (similar to how, say, The Two Towers cranks up to the battle of Helm's Deep). As I say, there's a lot of good stuff here, but it's soured by the overstretched feel. I really, really wanted to love it, but it didn't happen.

      Alert a moderator

    • TheDMeister

      Nov 11th 2010, 18:52

      This review has clearly be written by someone who doesnt enjoy the Potter series at all and so I question the choice of Total Film to let someone like that review the biggest film event in generations. Disrepectfull in the beginning to whole series but improves later on with the tone of the review. Can't disagree with the review just yet however a bit more respect to the series would be warranted.

      Alert a moderator

    • agentblackacid

      Nov 11th 2010, 19:07

      I find it difficult to believe that some of you are attacking a review of a film you haven't even seen just because you want it to be good. The writer is simply giving his opinion. I have read all but the 1st book and I loved them all, I have seen all of the films apart from Deathly Hallow and I loved them all until I was totally underwhelmed by the adaptation of The Half Blood Prince. Compared to the book it missed out too much and bored me. On 2nd inspection (last week) I enjoyed it far more and have come to the conclusion that seeing the films too soon after the books doesn't work. The Deathly Hallows is a meandering book and that's part of the point, it builds up to a climax. It probably just doesn't justify being split in half, which sticks of a cynical money making ploy to take more of YOUR cash.

      Alert a moderator

    • TheDMeister

      Nov 11th 2010, 19:50

      True but the writer doesnt need to be disrespectful while he's at it, there's no reason for the sarcasm at all.

      Alert a moderator

    • Ichi1

      Nov 11th 2010, 19:59

      It's muddled and meandering and over-stretched - like this review. Got to the fourth paragraph and gave up. I'll wait for a real review.....

      Alert a moderator

    • GarthMarenghi

      Nov 12th 2010, 1:52

      Am I the only one baffled at Watson being singled out for praise from the main trio? I don't see it; I think she's as am-dram and stilted as the lads, to be honest.

      Alert a moderator

    • seifer900

      Nov 12th 2010, 2:16

      It's Totally fine to not like the film and offer criticism. But, this review seems more self congratulatory and about the reviewer's over use of language than it is about informing the reader. Remember, reviews are about your AUDIENCE, and about entertaining the reader by offering insight and information on the film, as well as wit. They are not about seeing how much you can overuse language in order to appear smart. It's grating and irritating. And even as you use all this language, this essay is for the most part incoherent. For the first half of your review, I had no idea what point you were trying to even make. Your review becomes exactly what you accuse the film to be, meandering and overstretched.

      Alert a moderator

    • seifer900

      Nov 12th 2010, 2:21

      In short, from one writer to another, take this advice. STOP ABUSING ADJECTIVES. It doesn't make you witty. It just makes it seem like you are trying too hard and are desperate for attention.

      Alert a moderator

    • QuietLife

      Nov 12th 2010, 11:55

      My god I'll be happy to see the back of this tepid, meandering saga. Aside from the secondary characters (Rickman, Oldman, Smith to name just some) the acting has been so wooden and lifeless it'd make a thunderbird droop their head in shame. I've not seen the movie yet but for some reason I'm sure it'll make its way into my viewing for some masochistic reason. I just hope Radcliffe doesn't screw up Woman in Black.

      Alert a moderator

    • PScott

      Nov 12th 2010, 12:20

      "It's muddled and meandering and over-stretched" - like your 'review'... "It's padded with rambling asides" - Like your 'review'...

      Alert a moderator

    • jamiecfc1

      Nov 12th 2010, 15:46

      I - like many others I suspect - have seen all the other films and (probably) read the books as well. A review is, of course, one person's opinion and I would hazard a wildly optimistic guess that, to the majority of people who have done either of the things in the first line, it wouldn't really matter what the review said - for a film like this it will have little or no effect on who does or doesn't go and see it. I will of course go and see it - have to make use of that Unlimited card, after all - and probably then compare my own thoughts with those of the reviewer. Or possibly not.

      Alert a moderator

    • RemyBlace

      Nov 12th 2010, 17:55

      Who thinks that the person who wrote this barking mad?...you idiots. Obviously you have no appreciation of J.K. Rowling's work or the films.

      Alert a moderator

    • Flaygor

      Nov 12th 2010, 18:41

      The biggest film event in generations...... lol get a f*****g grip man!

      Alert a moderator

    • pinkdegu

      Nov 13th 2010, 10:01

      Sorry to burst the bubble of all those who think only a Potter fan should review a Potter movie so he/she doesn't give it a bad review, but you all seem to be more than a little bit sentimental about this guff. All of the films have been dreadfully acted by the younger cast, and the story (if you have not read any of the books) is completely confusing. To take a child who has not read Harry Potter to see something like this movie (from what I briefly skimmed over in the book, the "story" shown in this film was dreadfully boring and tedious and wordy) would be really stupid. I imagine there will be lots of bottom fidgeting and running to the loo more than usual due to the lack of anything happening. If a Potter fan reviewed every Potter film then we'd end up with glowing reviews despite the quite obvious weaknesses in every film. Purely because Potter fans love the books, and seem determined to love a film series that comes across as a badly acted student film heavily laden with CGI to keep the kiddiwinks happy and to make everyone thing its technically amazing. Because without it, there would be no award nominations for these films. When you look at what it has won, it's all CGI nods and sound and costume. Ok I've said my piece. Shout if you like, but I think you have to step away from the books you enjoyed to see the bigger picture. The Twilight fans had to do it (even a die hard fan of the books can see that the last two films have bee shoddy), and so should you.

      Alert a moderator

    • InkyLink

      Nov 13th 2010, 12:34

      To say that the 2 movie split is a gimmicky ploy just to make more money is foolish. To adequately fit and do justice to the final battle, epilogue and everything leading up to it, the movie would have to be at least 4 hours long. Then you would likely just complain about how no movie should ever be 4 hours long. But when it's just 2, it seems incredibly rushed. There's no happy medium for you. I'm thrilled about the split and more thrilled that you likened much of part 1 to be just like the book. If it's that similar, I'm sure most everyone will find the movie to be exactly what potter fans have always wanted, a big visual representation of the book, not some re-imagined entity based on the book. But then, just from how harsh you were on the 7th story in general, you probably didn't like the book, and someone who doesn't like the book isn't justified in writing a review on the movie of the book. A prejudiced review by a pretentious writer.

      Alert a moderator

    • InkyLink

      Nov 13th 2010, 12:38

      @pinkdegu: The Harry Potter movies are for Harry Potter fans. That's it. It's not a movie for the average joe, because you simply cannot stuff all of the character building and story telling into a 2 hour movie. Of course they'd be confused. They're rushed for time. To go see the films without reading the book is a dumb idea, I thought everyone knew that by now. After 10 years. P.S. Most kids have actually read all of the books, considering it's first and foremost a book for older children and young adults.

      Alert a moderator

    • Azmodeo

      Nov 13th 2010, 17:09

      InkLink and potters winn... i mean fans, you sound totally stupid. I loved the review just beacuse it got you mad. Its a freaking movie, what kind of respect does it deserve? instead you are throwing S***t at the writter? Yeah way to go you disrespectful dog. Please do us a favor and shut up.

      Alert a moderator

    • RoyMantooth

      Nov 13th 2010, 23:17

      HP fans are p****d! @InkyLink: What a travesty that these films are supposed to be viewed only by those who have read the books. I thought they were supposed to be adaptations of a work, not brief overviews of what you've already read. See a disconnect? That's where filmmakers make mistakes--expecting their gleam to suffice, while we supply the content from memory. Folks eat it up, though; I've seen every one...

      Alert a moderator

    • jimkissedpam

      Nov 14th 2010, 1:49

      I do agree that this movie isn't going to be the most exciting of the bunch, but it does allow the plot to move along the way it is supposed to, with all of the character development and all the background information.

      Alert a moderator

    • Nu2010

      Nov 14th 2010, 14:07

      This review is poor. I've seen the film and its very good. The film had the difficult task of getting a great deal of story points across and I think it does it well. Doing all this in one film would have been impossible. The film is bleak, funny and in my opinion the best Potter film yet.

      Alert a moderator

    • alanbaz90

      Nov 14th 2010, 17:05

      terrible review total film.. very disappointed. it's sarcastic, over the top and drawn out. Maybe someone who appreciates the harry potter series should have written the review.

      Alert a moderator

    • alanbaz90

      Nov 14th 2010, 17:05

      terrible review total film.. very disappointed. it's sarcastic, over the top and drawn out. Maybe someone who appreciates the harry potter series should have written the review.

      Alert a moderator

    • alanbaz90

      Nov 14th 2010, 17:05

      terrible review total film.. very disappointed. it's sarcastic, over the top and drawn out. Maybe someone who appreciates the harry potter series should have written the review.

      Alert a moderator

    • marc96

      Nov 14th 2010, 19:18

      hmmmm............ now im not much of a harry potter fan, i think the main 3 stars are quite poor actors but stil find some of the films enjoyable. Even i find total films review to be a bit b***hy and sounds like it comes from someone who hates the whole franchise.. if you write a review for any film in its simplest form like you have for this film then every film sounds supid. Lord of the rings for example: Bunch of little guys have to take a ring to a volcano to stop some evil dude from taking over a place called middle earth, thats how dumb this review sounds to me... (ps im not insulting lord of the rings, i love the trilogy) i expect a non bias reiew in the future total film

      Alert a moderator

    • rikrishi

      Nov 15th 2010, 3:55

      What a A-Hole!!!!! feed this person to dementors.....

      Alert a moderator

    • Lisah

      Nov 15th 2010, 4:11

      Hang on a SEC here!!! You send someone to WATCH the movie that Doesnt even GET the books???? Are you fraking nuts??? To not understand HOW the book works....then b***h about the movie?? Wow. I give Total film a -10........ Ignorant review.

      Alert a moderator

    • tadei0587

      Nov 15th 2010, 9:02

      3

      ok First, can you be any more sarcastic??? I mean i do not see the point of the first part of the review? was it to make fun of the actors? or the story? or what? second, I admit that the proposal of making 2 films out of 1 book its kinda silly, and it's obvious that the studio is trying to make more money than usual, but I mean if you read the book (which I think you didn't) you'll realized that the split is necessary. the 5th film (as you said it) is the longest book but the shortest film. Do you have any idea how much I hated that film!!! they cut out most of the book and took out (for me) the most important thing which is the prophecy. And trust me if they cut the film in two parts is because they need to mend all the mistakes and all the info that they did not put in the previous movies. so, in conclusion, this review is mediocre, it does not tell us if the movie is good or bad, just the opinion of a person that obviously does not like the franchise. and BTW Lucius Malfoy is the one that destroys the prophecy not "his clumsy friend"

      Alert a moderator

    • InkyLink

      Nov 16th 2010, 11:34

      @Azmodeo: What I'm saying is that it's a broken sort of disjointed film as a whole if you haven't even read the books. Sure, they try and make it more coherent but without knowing back story, all of the things you've missed and much of the character depth you are just seeing the tip of the iceberg. I know people who only see the movies and they think the magic is a neat aspect, but have decided based on the movies that they don't really like Harry Potter as a whole. I forced one such person to read the books and later he decided that he loves Harry Potter. And from the sounds of it the author of this article didn't like the books. If you don't like the book you aren't going to like the movies. From what I hear the Golden Compass is another good example. For instance, I haven't read his books, but I did see the movie and I didn't like it at all. But for a fan of the series, just getting to see it come to life is probably amazing. No matter how broken feeling the movie is it would feel, in a way, more fluid to you because you'd know all the stuff they left out. (you might hate they left it out, but what can you do? It's a 2 hour movie) But if I didn't like the book, I could guarantee I would hate the movie before even seeing it and that would make me biased. If you hate the story behind it you're going to hate the movie, that makes the article writer biased. They should have had someone with a more level head review the film is all I'm saying. @RoyMantooth: Making the Harry Potter movies marketable to anyone might be the goal, but it rarely ends up being successful from what I've seen anyway. They do so well because, well, there are TONS of people who have read the books. As someone who works at a movie store, I'd say the ratio of people who have read the books to those who haven't is probably 4:1 (from what I've seen and heard from renters) You'd be hard-pressed to walk into a room filled with all kinds of people and not have a good portion of them be HP readers. That's why they've been so successful. Not because the re-written screenplay is so informative and coherent that you'd give it a standing ovation if you hadn't read the books.

      Alert a moderator

    • BruceShark

      Nov 18th 2010, 1:51

      1

      So I come out of the screen and say to the better half and some of her friends, "what the f..k was that about". And one friend pipes up. "Well if you'd read the book you'd understand it". And there in a nutshell is the problem with this film. I went to watch it cause I haven't read the book, well that's a lie. I went to watch it cause I was dragged along. Like I have to them all. Though I did enjoy No3. But the film plays like it expects that you have. It's slow, boring and full of plotholes you could through a bus through. I could write more but this film has bored me so much I won't waste my time on it. The one star is for the only decent thing in the film, Emma Watson. She can't act to save her life, but boy is she good-looking. And you get side-boob. Who'd have thunk it.

      Alert a moderator

    • BruceShark

      Nov 18th 2010, 1:51

      1

      So I come out of the screen and say to the better half and some of her friends, "what the f..k was that about". And one friend pipes up. "Well if you'd read the book you'd understand it". And there in a nutshell is the problem with this film. I went to watch it cause I haven't read the book, well that's a lie. I went to watch it cause I was dragged along. Like I have to them all. Though I did enjoy No3. But the film plays like it expects that you have. It's slow, boring and full of plotholes you could through a bus through. I could write more but this film has bored me so much I won't waste my time on it. The one star is for the only decent thing in the film, Emma Watson. She can't act to save her life, but boy is she good-looking. And you get side-boob. Who'd have thunk it.

      Alert a moderator

    • d-tox

      Nov 19th 2010, 12:55

      After attempting to read that review (I just couldn't be arsed to read such nonsense) it just goes to show why Total Film is in a distant second to Empire and that is a magazine that disappeared up its own a**e a long time ago. I would recommend that Total Film retract that review and ask someone that actually studied the art of writing to re do it. As for the film, I'll catch it on BD. The series has been a little bit 'same old' for a few episodes now.

      Alert a moderator

    • aliceISalive

      Nov 19th 2010, 22:35

      5

      I was gonna give it four stars, but I couldn't fault it. best harry potter film ever. acting was immense & there was humour as well as action and drama. I F*CKING LOVED IT

      Alert a moderator

    • danclay77

      Nov 20th 2010, 9:44

      2

      Whisper it quietly just in case the kids are in earshot, but the new Harry Potter film is sadly actually the weakest of the lot. There, it's said so now we can figure out why. Owing much to Meyer's new kid in town, the sharp-fanged Twilight series where no one ever laughs, director David Yates has ditched the fun and doubled up on the forlorn. In short, it's not so much like watching paint dry at times, more like watching it being manufactured - the drying would be a more enjoyable event. And yet there was some much to hope for. After the breezy, humorous and highly enjoyable sixth part the posters and trailers promised fire, action and fury. What we actually get is a 146 minute long teaser disguised as a film which no doubt means Part 2 will have all the best bits, all the action and a hell of a lot to make up for. Things seem to start well initially, even if the opening chase through the skies might have been more effective if the viewer had have joined half way through, the clouds exploding in grey-blue hues all around. Instead, the first fifteen minutes suffer from the same problem the rest of the film is saddled with - too much talk. The plot itself this time is actually more of a quest. Having left the cosy confines of Hogwarts behind after Dumbledore's death Harry, Ron and Hermione set off across the country to find and destroy the remaining Horcruxes which each house a small part of Voldermort's soul. What this makes up for in some terrific set pieces along the way - the Ministry of Magic break in to steal one such Horcrux for example - also falls flat during an extended middle section which, despite some fabulous scenery, must go down as the most deathly dull camping trip ever undertaken. That's not to say there's not much to enjoy. The action, when it comes, is well-handled and exciting, especially in the closing twenty minutes as the trio find themselves trapped with the dark lord approaching. With a knowing reference to Meyer's lip-bitingly angsty novellas and an unintentionally humorous moment in which Ron apologises to Harry for his present being only ten inches Yates shows he hasn't broken his funny bone altogether. However, given that the last three films have benefited from his knack of condensing long books into hugely entertaining movies, it's a shame that cash-hungry studio execs have forced the opposite in this case, taking us back to the over-exposition of Chris Columbus' first two efforts. Key plot points are forgotten about, major clues stumbled upon and then left hanging until Hermione, betraying her usually quick-thinking character, is signalled upon to restart what by then has become a stuttering engine of a plot - Clouseau would have gotten things solved quicker. Undoubtedly Part 2 will be much better given there's so much to cram in. Let's hope Yates knows how to make endings dazzle on screen because this beginning barely fizzles at all.

      Alert a moderator

    • SuperBeth

      Nov 21st 2010, 2:09

      4

      As a fan of the books, I thought that the film concluded in a great spot. Very good cliff hanger for us who knows what happens next. I thought this film was a great inprovement in style and acting. My fav bit, even though it doesn't include the acting much, style wise was the animation of the story behind the Deathly Hallows. Very inspired and shocked me with it's brilliance, which was a first for me in the Harry Potter universe. Althogether I very much enjoyed myself, good laughs for the kids and good laughs for the adults, and a lot of unspoken references to the book itself. Well done.

      Alert a moderator

    • TIAB456

      Nov 21st 2010, 12:15

      5

      The fact that you didn't even mention the visually stunning scene that was the explanation of the Deathly Hollows completely negates this review. It may be hard not to let your feelings towards a series come through but credit where credit is due. It was by far the best film adaptation of the books.

      Alert a moderator

    • Matt164

      Nov 21st 2010, 19:11

      5

      Yes I will agree the acting can be poor in the films, especially the most recent, but people love the Harry Potter series for the story and they always will. This is what i feel you can't fault in everyone of these films. It was an excellent adaption of the book and the CGI is excellent in this. I think this is by far the best films yet.

      Alert a moderator

    • Matt164

      Nov 21st 2010, 19:21

      Also i think that some of the acting can be faulted but I have the upmost respect for the film makers for keeping most of the actors in the films British and the fact that they choose actors that are suited to the role well as oposed to actors that are very famous. For example Bill Nighty not the most famous actor in the world but he was excellent as rufus scrimgeour.

      Alert a moderator

    • MrJellyfish

      Nov 22nd 2010, 12:21

      Another poorly written review, what's going on Total Film?! Why are you dumbing down all of a sudden? I see you're more than contented to bludgeon the film with the obvious "shouldn't have been two parts" argument, but you could have at least pointed out the humour, which was spiky and dark and prominent throughout and the fantastic surrealism, which is incredibly odd for such a mainstream blockbuster. Further more this is the only review I'm read that has claimed, as if obvious, that Emma Watson is the best actor of the trio. The general feeling being that she's just as good and, at times, bad as the other two and it's utter nonsense to claim she is somehow better. I'm not a fan of Harry Potter, but this new film is certainly one of the best ones I've seen so far. Apart from that, this review sucks!

      Alert a moderator

    • yasmin

      Nov 22nd 2010, 19:25

      the review was a bit too harsh- the movie was amazing. it including all the relevant scences and it was 100% better than half blood prince. so congrat david yates xD

      Alert a moderator

    • ChrisWootton

      Nov 25th 2010, 14:41

      The films are ok but just play out as chapters of the book.. scene 2: nearly headless Nick "oh look, it's nearly headless nick" Scene 3: the gooblefook "I've got a gooblefook" and so on. I actually thought the review was spot on and mildly entertaining. If you want less sarcasm, go buy Empire.. i for one like Total Film's style of writing.

      Alert a moderator

    • egipt

      Nov 25th 2010, 19:50

      When Harry rescues all the muggles in the book it shows his depth,eliminating it in the movie removes that. Along that same thought, when Harry, H and Ron visit Luna's house, in the book they make sure the Ministry/deatheaters who come at Luna's dad's bidding see Harry. Why? Because Harry doesn't want luna's dad penalized for faking out the Ministry saying that Harry was there, but wasn't. changed in the movie and lUna's dad is left hanging. Godrick's Hollow. What a mess. No invisibility cloak, no plaque at Harry's home, no statute of parents, no Voldemort just missing Harry and Hermione. Would have added 2 minutes to movie.last minute last minute last minute wakacje 2011 last minute last minute egipt egipt

      Alert a moderator

    • ilikescifi

      Nov 27th 2010, 10:16

      I'm not a Harry Potter fan but this reviewer has got some serious mental issues. Hey, I'm really sorry your'e suffering from depression, I mean this sincerely, but this review is more about YOU than the film and I only bothered to read past the first couple of sentences to see if you would continue this audacity. Stop punishing the franchise for releasing episodic films, it's obviously made to be viewed as a whole and it is refreshing to see a fantasy world so thoroughly explored as opposed to the barrage of schitzoid reboots and gimmicks we have been subjected to in the last few years. True, Watson is the star and she worked hard to maintain the focus of the latter half of the film without the exciting ensemble in the riveting first half of the film. The scenery was a beautiful and added scope and perspective, something this reviewer sorely needs. Please Total Film, a bit of editing! Sarcastic and witty is entertaining, but cynicism and derision is just sad.

      Alert a moderator

    • HarrietPotter

      Dec 18th 2010, 12:28

      4

      I really would like someone to check this man's head to see if it's screwed on all the way. What were you thinking? Your review is as pointless as your use of wordy and 'clever' adjectives. Please think about the audience next time you decide to 'bless' us with your wisdom of all things filmy (I can be sarcastic, too)! Anyway, back to the film. I am probably one of the biggest Potter fans anyone could meet.. But that's just the books. I take a harsh but fair opinion of every one of these films because I want them to atleast live up to 50% of what I have come to expect them to be like. And, I must say, for the first time in ages, this one ALMOST does that. Probably my favourite after Philosopher's Stone (for the pure love and magic which went into making it so close to the book), I liked the acting more than ever, the cinematography, and even the story line. My favourite chapter from ANY of the Potter books is The Silver Doe when Ron comes along to save the day and stab the horcux. A scene which doesn't technically involve Hermione's character (just a spirit version of her), I thought Grint and Radcliffe did it real justice. Speaking of Hermione, however, my favourite bit of the film: The Tale of the Three Brothers. That almost shadow-puppet-like animation was simply mind blowing and I don't think I have ever heard a monologue delivered as passionately and brilliantly as Emma Watson when reading that story. The only flaw was, as I'm afraid to say you did point out, that it did feel quite empty. I fully support the decision to turn this into two films as it makes the TRUE Potter fans happy, not you people who don't give a damn about it. I just think it could have been a little shorter. Even I was getting fidgety by the end (which did turn out to be another fantastic part with Dobby's death (yes, it made both me and my friend bawl with tears)). In all, I just hope that in a few months' time, I can come back and give Deathly Hallows Part 2 a 5 star review..

      Alert a moderator

    • Bajaringan

      Jan 28th 2011, 7:29

      Obviously, that's a very well written, keep up great work. Baja ringan

      Alert a moderator

    • johnhungry100

      Feb 19th 2011, 6:43

      I have just joined car rental italy and i like the concept uhr kraft watches. i think its really helpful for the one who want to know about this ulysse nardin watch.

      Alert a moderator

    • Arnald

      Feb 25th 2011, 4:52

      The real estate businesses in Mexico and Central America are different from the way that they are conducted in the United States. Some similarities include a variety of legal indianapolis mortgage loans formalities (with professionals such as cheap jacob & co watches real estate agents generally employed to assist the buyer); taxes need to be paid (but typically less than those in U.S.); legal paperwork will ensure title; and a neutral party such as a title company will handle documentation and money to make the smooth exchange between the parties. Increasingly, U.S. title 312-50 companies are doing work for U.S. buyers in Mexico and Central America. Prices are often much cheaper than most areas 70-293 of the U.S., but in many locations, prices of houses and lots are as expensive as the U.S., one example being Mexico City. U.S. banks have begun to give home loans for properties in Mexico, but, so far, not for other Latin American countries.

      Alert a moderator

    • chalmy

      Apr 12th 2011, 8:38

      4

      I was going to have a go at the reviewer here for numerous reasons but they have already been mentioned consistently by the previous posters which should give TOTALFILM a wake up call when it comes to who gets to write these reviews. One of the biggest and most anticipated films at the end of a hugely successful, and i have to say, enjoyable franchises reduced to a sarcastic ramble. I have just joined TOTALFILM and have read two reviews so far, this one, and the "5 star" review of the ridiculously overrated "monsters". Keep it up TOTALFILM and i may be signing off before i even have the chance to sign in again.............................

      Alert a moderator

Most Popular