Brilliantly written. If anything, “Deathly Hallows” should be considered the most glaring example of how unspectacular the Potter films (and books) really are.

BTW, I gather from the title and article, that you think “Empire Strikes Back” is better than the film version of “The Two Towers”? Even the extended addition?

O.k. we get it. You don’t like HP and you especially don’t like DHI. You REALLY REALLY don’t like it. Got it. Why the need to beat it to death? I think all 3 stories are good or even great in their own right without being compared to the others. I am not sure any of them deserve this much ink and I say that as someone who has seen all of the movies, some of them more than once. This much ink and space used to compare 3 movies so as thoroughly discredit one seems to me a little overkill.

They should have had Josh Whedon(Buffy/Angel/ Firefly/Serenity) do the screenplay/directing.

Just what I was thinking, Ann.

@Benchwarmer: ESB is a nearly perfect film. TTT is an extraordinary film, but one with non-trivial flaws. As a Tolkien fan, the most glaring issues for me are the partial un-nobling of too many noble characters: Faramir, Theoden, the Ents, as well as the over-use of Gimli as comic relief. 
 
@Ann and Sabine: My opinion of DH1 was sufficiently discharged by my review; I saw no need to add to it, until people began suggesting that ESB (and TTT) were somehow useful reference points for exploring the merits of DH1. It’s because of my love of ESB (and TTT) that I’ve gone on at such length here.
 
If you feel I’ve been unfair to DH1, why don’t you share what you DO like about it, especially what you feel it DOES add to the franchise, if anything? Point out the flaws in my reasoning, or show me what I missed. That would be much more interesting and helpful to me than just objecting that I went on for too long about why DH1 is no ESB. Cheers!

P.S. Ann, I don’t think it’s fair to say I don’t like HP. Every HP film to date has gotten a positive review from me (B, 3 stars out of four). Until now.

Agreed on the points about The Two Towers, but if you’re talking un-nobling, don’t forget one of the most egregious points: Elrond. (Granted, he’s allowed a little redemption in TTT before he—like so much of Jackson’s handling of the characters—goes completely off the rails in RotK.)

Harry Potter:

Seven film series? Come on! What other good series had seven films? The pretension is obvious.

And this films are about kids and teen romance. Simply not grand or heroic no matter how you slice it.

HP is a clever and diverting literary jaunt, but classic only by our modern, Disney-fied standards. The nobility and the Judy Blume-like relevance just do not mesh.

DH1 suffers the most, in my opinion, from being half of a story, and half of a book.  Most of the ambitious set-pieces and heroic derring-dos get pushed into the second half of the film, whereas DH1 gets saddled with all of the necessary plot set-up, as well as the part of the book that’s designed to emphasize the total hopelessness of our hero’s situation and the total dominance of the enemy—all leading up to the point where we get revived, figure out what’s going on, and get into things hardcore. 

Unfortunately, I think the filmmakers got a little too into this section of the book and its insular atmosphere of desolate despair, and not enough into actually setting up the situation of the world at large.  I think a number of scenes at Hogwarts, showing Snape as headmaster and the new state of the school under the Death Eater’s rule would have had a lot more emotional impact than seeing the same thing at the Ministry of Magic (which we’ve only seen since the fifth film, as opposed to Hogwarts which has always been a symbol of innocence and magic). 

In addition, they also cut out one of the most effective passages in the book, where our heroes, stuck in the middle of nowhere, hear a broadcast from like-minded Anti-Voldemort people (Fred and George in fact) telling what’s going on in the world, speculating on Voldemort’s and Harry’s locations, and exhorting people to keep up the good fight.  In the book, this scene is something of a watershed moment, the first time that Harry and co have gotten a real connection with the outside world and the life they’d led before all this happened, and inspires them to keep fighting.  It would also provide a helpful break from the monotony and despair; but the filmmakers, alas, decided to cut it out. 

And this ‘hunt’ isn’t very much of a hunt at all, as the filmmakers also cut out most of the scenes of them actively searching for Horcruxes, after the first one practically falls into their lap. Doing this would have added some more energy and ‘direction’ to things as well.  And the plot and character meaning of these sequences, in which Harry becomes slowly obsessed with acquiring the Deathly Hallows (as something that will allow him to master death and so overcome Voldemort at last), leaving off the hunt for the Horcruxes, is also cut completely, leaving these scenes more meandering about than anything else.

Until finally, the death of Dobby (who died, in the book, because Harry’s obsession led them to get captured) convinces him to trust Dumbledore and not attempt to ‘master death’ in such a fashion, and he makes a conscious choice to let Voldemort have the Elder Wand, while he himself begins to plan the next heist of the horcrux.  In the movie, though, most of this character stuff is cut out, and Harry just wanders around without doing much at all; and the death of Dobby just leads him to react again with grief, and make no important choice whatsoever, while the actual film ends with Voldemort’s triumph, without the character significance that this scene possesses in the book (Harry has already figured out where it is, could have gotten there before him, but has chosen not to out of trust for Dumbledore and in sorrow for his mistakes) totally absent.

In addition, the death of Dobby has a LOT more emotional impact in the books than in the films, as Dobby has appeared in the 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 6th films in some form, as a recurring character who helps out Harry when in need, and is endearing and ‘good’ in a way that few other characters have been.  His coming to the rescue suddenly out of nowhere, when all hope has been lost, standing up to his former masters (the Malfoys) as a free elf, and then dieing a sacrificial death for Harry and his friends, is without a death the most emotional and touching death in any of the HP books, and the only one where I actually got choked up hardcore reading it.

In the films, though, like you’ve pointed out, he’s just a somewhat annoying character who appears only in the 2nd film as a nuisance and obstacle for Harry, then pops up 5 films later, appears in a few scenes, and promptly conks it.  Much of the impact of his death is lost; though if you’ve read the books, too, most of this impact would have come through anyway, because of what you know about the character otherwise.  This explains, I think, the vastly diverging reactions between hp fans and critics in this regard.

Don’t get me wrong, I still enjoyed the film; but I think it could have been done much, much better, and the cuts and changes from the book are done in such a way that, while most of the details are intact, the meaning and character significance behind them is cut out, leaving a film that appears meandering and convolving to people who don’t already know that significance.

However, I expect most film critics (and myself as well) will enjoy the second film much more, as it has two massive set piece action sequences, real heroism on the part of both main characters and recurring ones,  a return to Hogwarts and a summing up of the entire series, and a character-driven confrontation and set of actions that should be much more emotionally-powerful and involving. Watched together, the first half will look much better, I think.

As a basic set-up to the second part, I think it will turn out to work quite well; as a stand-alone film, perhaps not so much.

Ann and Sabine:

I’d rather have this blog post and the tiny bit of space it uses (it must be, what, less than 5 megabytes in a Word file? Surely not more than 10.) than the gigabytes worth of objectionable content found elsewhere on the ‘net.

Also, Steven raises good points about the differences between the three films being discussed. Nothing in this article reads to me like “beating it to death”, nor even as an attempt to “discredit” Deathly Hallows 1. It reads like a straightforward compare-and-contrast that (with minor editing) could just as easily have been written by someone who enjoyed HP7A much more than Steven did.

By the way, Steven, I enjoy reading your thoughts about movies. Part of the reason for that is the thoroughness and attention to detail that goes into your thinking process (qualities which I find are seldom found for free on the internet). So, thanks.

@Captain Peabody: Excellent comments, very helpful to hear at length from a reader of the books capable of judicious comparison/contrast.
 
@Tyler: Thanks!

Steven, really appreciated this review.  I’m still ambivalent about whether or not to share these movies with my kids so I don’t see it as TMI at all. 

On a side note, I was startled by your use of the expression “shot its wad”.  I realize that its origins go back farther than the current slang meaning, but I’m fairly certain that most people don’t know that.  Just as we generally avoid using the word “gay” because its newer usage makes it problematic (& its original use now sounds somewhat archaic as a result), I think it would be prudent to avoid using that idiomatic phrase as most people are going to associate it with its modern meaning & the risk of scandal just isn’t worth it, IMVHO.  God bless!

@Grace: Thanks for your comments. Regarding “shooting one’s wad,” I don’t see that phrase as a lost cause yet. For many people, especially firearms-savvy people, the original sense remains primary; and I’m naive/stubborn/idealistic enough to believe that most of my readers will take it the right way. Anyway, I’m reluctant to give it up without a good alternative! Any suggestions?

I compared DH 1 to “Empire” in the sense that there is a growing sense of urgency and danger in the story.  To me, the book series really kicked in when Cedric Diggory was killed at the end of Book 4.  The possibility of character deaths kept growing through the subsequent books and reached its peak in Deathly Hallows.  DH1 conveyed that pretty well.  I can’t say I particularly liked any of the previous Potter films because I thought they paled in comparison to the books, maybe because the story felt rushed.  To me, they could use extended edition DVD’s.  DH1 has been called slow but that’s what I like about it.  It takes its time with Rowling’s story and 3 main characters who we’ll likely never see again after DH2 opens.  The fact remains that, at the end of the movie, the fanboy in me was completely engaged and impressed.  Not “Zoinks! Vader is Luke’s father!” impressed, but still impressed.

Good heavens, you just said “shot its wad.” 
At first I thought it was just me but then I saw Grace noticed it as well. :-)  However, I can sympathize with your desire to continue to use phrases that have assumed, er, different meanings over the years.  For instance, I’m sad that the word “gay” seems to have completely lost all connotations with the word “happy.”  Makes it very difficult to sing “When Johnny Comes Marching Home” with kids around, let me tell you.
I agree with this article that DH1 is in no way on par with the epic grandeur and ingenuity of ESB or TTT.  I did enjoy DH1 and was especially impressed with how well it portrayed the strong atmosphere of danger and fear that came with Voldemort’s being in power.  But I do think that it will be recognized as a better film once its other half is in theaters.

DH PT1 isnt the series ESB, to me that is the real penultimate installment Half-Blood Prince, that one includs most ofthe 12 you mention including being he funniest one while also being the darkest to that point in the series

DH PT1 is just one half of the LAST IN THE SERIES, its just split into two because of time restrictions. It doesnt have a BIG EMOTIONAL CLIMAX becuase its cut out to be released in PART 2, most of the problems this one has will bet fixed in 8 months. This two movies are just ONE story arc that should be appreciated together, DH was never supposed to be a two-parter, and this movie suffers from it because it doesnt have a beggining, middle and END; it just has MIDDLE

trying to downplay this series accomplishments its like being blind, its out there for everyone to see, i mean:

11 Years, 8 movies, 4 directors (including MASTER ALfonso Cuaron), sutained or even growing commercial success, a very favorable critical approval (check rotten tomatoes, the lowest a HP has gotten is a 78% and highest 90%, in a 8 film series thats CRAZY) and last but not least THE SAME CAST throughout the whole series, we got to see the them grow into their roles since they were little kids, thats never happened before EVER

im not hating SW (original trilogy) at all but what im saying HP has nothing to envy from any ohter fantasy franchise

as for LOTR, i find those movies boring and cold, i felt no emotion from the characters at all, it was just a big SFX bore-fest for me; but i still appreciate their undeniable accomplisments, and think they deserve all oscars theyve got, just not my cup of tea

hope you rewatch this one the day before Part 2 comes out, if yo dont its ok too no-one is obliged to like something they dont

To be sure, this and the previous movies omitted many things from the books that are important. However, the main thing they should have done to make it better was not to follow the book more slavishly. That would be a bit more adequte, but overall it would be the same dull movie, just (even) longer. The problem was that the movie had no heart. It transferred the skeleton of the plot of the book to the screen, and left it there, a skeleton.
 
If more of the emotional and thematic structure of the book had been there, the result would have been a more original cinematic work, not less. That’s because it is impossible for such things to take exactly the same form in a movie that they do in a book, and so they would have had to be adapted and put into a form that expresses the meaning of the book in the filmmakers’ minds. That’s called interpretation, and it is vital for an adaptation.
 
For example, one of the most important threads in the book, which is almost wholly missing from the movie, is Harry’s agonizing over whether Dumbledore can be trusted as new information about his past comes in, his tortured insistence on finding the “truth” which he is sure is out there somewhere and his devouring fear of what the truth will be. In the book, for a sub-example, crucial and devastating revelations come in when Harry and Hermione read a chapter of Rita Skeeter’s book. It would obviously be impractical to present the whole text of this chapter in the movie. It would be necessary to accomplish the same effect through dialogue, invented incidents, visual effects, etc. - in other words, things that are part of the technique of filmmaking.
 
That’s what makes the Lord of the Rings movies a success - they express the filmmakers’ artistic vision. Trying to express Tolkien’s would have been futile, since his was already expressed, as well as it could be, through the book. What we saw was not Tolkien, but their interpretation of Tolkien, just as what we see in The Passion of the Christ is not the gospel, but Mel Gibson’s interpretation of the gospel. (This is just another way of saying what SDG said in calling it an “interpretive commentary”. Even when they made stupid mistakes that showed that their interpretation was lacking in understanding and depth, at least they had an interpretation, and so the work had life.
 
The Deathly Hallows movie, by contrast - where TLOTR had rich, compelling visual incarnations of the places Tolkien described, HP7a takes place in a world that looks humdrum and generic almost everywhere. Where TLOTR built intricate structures to express the themes of the book - love, death, power, etc. - in a way suitable to a movie, HP7a puts the basic events of the book on the screen, and can’t be bothered with anything that would have required the filmmakers to do some hard work and real thinking to express the book’s spirit. It doesn’t even matter, for purposes of this discussion, that TLOTR movies misunderstood much of what Tolkien was saying (for example, failing to understand that for Tolkien, death is a gift, not a curse). They fulfilled the first, minimal requirement for a work of art: they tried.
 
In my opinion, the best moments in HP7a were where the movie did something that the book didn’t make it do - i.e., the delightful little dance scene and the animation during the Deathly Hallows story. But these are just touches of cleverness. They help, especially the latter, but they don’t make the movie into anything that was worth the time to make. The movie creates the impression of having been made for the money and not for love of the work. The people who are saying “You just don’t get it because you haven’t read the books” are expressing a stronger indictment of the movie than anything SDG said. If the movie had been made out of love, like a real work of art, it could spread that love to those who don’t already have it. But it wasn’t, so it can’t.

Hi Steven - I shouldn’t have jumped in with a quick comment when I knew I would not have the time to truly engage. I generally find your reviews very helpful and informative. However, the phrase that several readers have mentioned is unpleasantly crass and had me thinking your remarks were overkill. While we don’t have a musket, I am firearm savvy enough to have inherited my dad’s reloading equipment (which we do still use for loading rifle bullets and shotgun shells) and to know that the venison from this year’s first kill is rapidly being depleted from the freezer! Yet that phrase, while having it’s primary meaning linked to wasting a musket shot, can’t be used without bringing to mind it’s more widely perceived definition.

I’m finding this HP movie to appeal more to the people who have enjoyed the books rather than the movies alone. Maybe we like having a little inside track, as you seem to enjoy with your phraseology. :-)

I wasn’t going to mention it, but I’m not a big fan of that particular phrase either. How about “blown its cash? (the informal definition from thefreedictionary.com)? It sounds dull, I know, but I couldn’t think of anything better.

“Blown its cash” isn’t just dull, it lacks idiomatic force. Nobody talks that way. And I still can’t think of another good way of saying the same thing.
 
Nevertheless, I now have four votes (it was only two before Sabine, not “several”!) telling me that my sense that “blowing one’s wad” isn’t a lost battle is mistaken, that the phrase is too far gone. I’m loath to believe it—I don’t think of the corrupted sense by default, and I’m sure I’m not the only one—but in the absence of any affirming votes I may have to concede that I’m in a too-small minority. :-(

Sorry for saying several when at that time it was only two but it was also not “blowing one’s wad” in the article.

SDG, for what it’s worth, I don’t “think of the corrupted sense by default,” at least not before reading this thread. :)

Pachyderminator: Bless you. I feel affirmed. :-)
 
And to the rest of you: See what you’ve done? Tainted an innocent mind with your own dirty thoughts. ;-D

Is it me or does the Wikipedia photo of Julian Assange make him look a little like Lucius Malfoy?

“Shot its wad” doesn’t have dirty connotations to me, although I can see how it could.

SDG, I think the most common alternative is “run out of steam”, although that doesn’t have exactly the same meaning, it’s similar.

I have to say when I read “shot its wad” I had to do a double take and I was like, “Did he just say that?” At first I didn’t know what to think and then I finally realized, “Ah, he’s human.” He’s not a machine that writes reviews and articles and essays and all of that. Just with that phrase alone he conveyed the feeling I first felt when I heard of DH being compared to ESP: frustration.

I read the last book and saw DH1 and I have to say I wasn’t impressed with the film, and I’ve figured out why. I’ve never been a fan of most contemporary fiction and their dialogue-heavy prose. “It’s a page-turner!” they say. Of course, if all you’re reading is people talking then you’re going to be turning many pages per minute. On book, dialogue works better than on film, for on book one is able to take their time and visualize in their minds exactly what the characters are talking about; it’s more of a secondary narrative. On film, it’s just talking, usually at a rapid pace, and the person is listening as if they were at party, not very good at mingling and standing there with a warm beer in their had listening to other people’s conversations. It doesn’t have the same dramatic effect as being able to visualize the words that are coming out of the character’s mouth. In film (show don’t tell; something Rowling is not great at) is very important and there was very little of it in DH1. So, because Rowling did spend a lot of book space with dialogue in the first part of DH, she failed to create dynamic settings or “cool freaking scenes,” to be more human. It was as if she put the kids in a room and let them talk until they ran out of steam. This might work okay in a book format, but when you translate it onto the screen, all you have is the equivalent of a high school reunion with a lot of people talking and the observer not really caring too much for their petty conversations. I was sitting there going, “Talk, talk, talk, when is Luke going to go into the cave and see Darth Vader.” BTW, a VERY dramatic scene in ESB. (Show don’t tell.”

Hi Steven,

Intrigued by your comment that ESB is a “nearly perfect film.”  I would be interested in your take on any of the following:

1.  Criteria for judging perfect films, e.g. the expectations of genre, if some genres are more capable than others.

2.  Why you think Lucas still doesn’t “get” that Kirschner’s direction was the best thing going for the ESB and, ultimately, for the franchise.  Also, in that vein, who you would have pegged to direct the three prequels.

Thanks,

MB

You could go back further in history, to the crossbow: “Shot its bolt.”

Or you could just give in to the Troper and use “jumped the shark.”

See, “jumping the shark” is not only gimmicky, it implies a glaring moment of maximum over-the-topness heralding the beginning of the end. The phrase did cross my mind during composition, but I don’t think HP has necessarily jumped any sharks. I just think it’s spent itself. (I’m not sure why I don’t like “run out of steam” here ... I just don’t.)
 
“Shooting one’s bolt,” on the other hand, shows some promise. It’s an actual idiom, if an unusual one, and seems to have very nearly the same force as “shooting one’s wad,” without the corrupted connotations. Hm.
 
Hm hm hm. “Shot its bolt.” “You’ve shot your bolt.” “Shyamalan shot his bolt a long time ago.” That could work.

I think the Harry Potter books were wonderful. I think the movies stink, as adaptations (and often, as movies). The only thing that bugs me is when people use the movies to damn the books. You’re free the criticize the series, but do it on the merits of the actual books.

“Shooting one’s bolt,”  “shooting one’s wad,”  “run out of steam”, etc.
What about “finished his race”?

Hank: Nope.

I’m starting to think I should stay home and make my own popcorn, save the $20 bucks and have a Star Wars marathon… LOL

RIP Irvin Kershner….

FYI - the phrase “jumped the shark” comes from that terrible episode of the 70’s sitcom, “Happy Days”, when Fonzie jumps a shark tank with his motorcycle, a la Evel Knievel. 

Really, really bad TV.

I think the main topic that was not addressed here was that the movies need to be differentiated from the books.

Deathly Hallows Part 1 is not a Harry Potter book! It’s simply called Deathly Hallows!

Warner Bros wants to milk their cash cow one last time so they’ve split one act of the story into two. And the argument that they split it “to honor story time to include more of the story” doesn’t hold any water at all because if they had wanted to honor the details of the story, they would have split Order of the Phoenix and possibly even Goblet of Fire.

As far as the books go, Order of the Phoenix is the “Empire Strikes Back” of the series, the darker coming of age chapter where Harry loses his Obi Wan (Sirius Black) and the dark forces declare war on the heroes.

Unfortunately after the first few movies, the Harry Potter movie franchise dropped the ball and for some reason director David Yates kept being invited back to direct, even though he lacked the magic that Chris Columbus brought to it, the adult realism that Alfonso Cuaron brought, or the romance and teen angst that Mike Newell brought.

I’m guessing Yates brings them in under budget or something cos why else wouldn’t they have brought in a new director again? I’m telling you, WB’s cash cow.

@Christine,

Regarding “jumping the shark” there’s a movement among people under 30 (who never watched happy days) to refer to the same phenomenon as “nuking the fridge” referring to the ridiculousness that was the last Indiana Jones film.

Well, I always enjoy your HP reviews because I’m a fan of the book who always looks forward to the new movie and leaves disappointed. Your reviews bring my expectations back to reality.  At the same time, each movie has less of a chance for redemption in my eyes because of the many holes that they dug long ago. One of your criticisms which has stuck with me for years because it is so glaringly true is their decision to make Ron the Comic Relief and Hermione the Know-It-All. I agree with all of Captain Peabody’s points.

I remember being on the edge of my seat when Fonzie jumped the shark so I’ve always thought the negative connotation was a little unfair.  I was also on the edge of my seat when Bobby and Cindy got lost in the Grand Canyon on The Brady Bunch so maybe it just says something about me.

My first time reading one of your articles and the “shot the wad” statement was startling. I had to check comments to see where it came from.  It honestly tainted the rest of the article for me. Sorry, but I think you have a bevvy of choices to choose from.

Blessings,
Kelly M.

Although I generally agree with the article, I have to take issue with two of the characterizations.  First, I think that there *is* “earned poignancy” in Hermione’s “obliviate”—she’s voluntarily given up her parents for the sake of their safety.  Given the whole “mudblood” controversy and its prominence, we’ve seen that’s she’s been forced to take the same step that other, less courageous folk have: disavowal of her roots in the face of violence from Valdamort and his henchmen.

Also, I think that there’s an emotional climax, too—the final scene deftly plays Harry and his friends against Valdamort: on the one hand, eschewing magic in favor of friendship and honoring a person’s remains; on the other, Valdamort disdains the integrity of the grave, only for the sake of stealing a magical artifact.  A fitting climax, indeed!

There is no comparison between the books and the movies, if you had read the books you would be even more disappointed in the movies than if you had not. And anyone trying to compare empire strikes back to any movie (especially one made recently) is just bantha fodder. Empire was released in 1980 and is still one of the most visually astounding movies to date, not to mention one of the greatest scripts to ever be written.

Larry: Hermione didn’t courageously “disavow” her roots. She stole her parents’ parenthood without their knowledge or consent, a horrifying violation of their personal dignity and freedom worse than rape. What father or mother worthy of the name would choose “safety” over the love of their child in their heart? What loving parent would take it as a sign of love that a child would make that choice for them? I would rather face the worst terrorism of hell itself with my love for my childen in my heart than enjoy safety and security in the delusion that I had never fathered a child. What could Voldemort do that would be worse than what Hermione did?

Steven, I just wanted to say that I agree with your position on Hermione’s actions.  Unfortunately, it would seem that you and I are the only two people on Earth who feel this way.  Whenever I’ve tried to discuss this on message boards, *everyone* says Hermione did what was best.  I even pointed out that in the Babylon 5 episode “Passing Through Gethsemane”, the deletion of someone’s personality was used as a punishment for a *serial killer*; they just said “Different series, different rules.”

Once again, I agree that Hermione’s actions were horrifying and wrong.  Good luck trying to get anyone else to.  :)

Whenever I’ve tried to discuss this on message boards, *everyone* says Hermione did what was best.  I even pointed out that in the Babylon 5 episode “Passing Through Gethsemane”, the deletion of someone’s personality was used as a punishment for a *serial killer*; they just said “Different series, different rules.”

 
Gghhkk. I HATE RELATIVISM!!
 
Actually, though, the purpose of Hermione’s action was not just to protect her parents, but also to protect Harry and his mission by preventing Voldemort from extracting vital information from Hermione’s parents. This doesn’t justify Hermione’s action, but it adds a further layer of difficulty to her decision.

I initially read the books to see if I wanted my kids to read them or not and found them to be engaging and quite enjoyable, though the fascination with magic has always been problematic.  As the books progressed and, yes, became darker, I could see that Rowling was probing the nature of evil in a world framed by Christian culture without addressing the issue of God.  However, she did focus on love. 

The movies have been helpful to me by filing in with the color and texture of British culture in ways that I simply couldn’t on my own.  And several of them gave us some really great moments.  “The Order of the Phoenix” movie gave us the most marvelous scene of all when Harry, being tormented mercilessly by V, says that he fells sorry for him because V will never share friendship, never know love.  Wow, did they ever hit the weakness of evil there, bull’s eye.

Rowling’s standard plot device is to set up misdirection in the trio’s mind, build to the climax, and resolve it by settling their confusion.

The book for this movie does this as well, but the movie adaptation is leaving most of this out in the first part.  Will they be building all of it into the second part?  There is a lot of story line around Snape that could have been woven into this which could have given a different feel to this section.

While DH1 should stand on it’s own, it simply doesn’t.  We’re left hanging with nothing resolved.  So in the end I’ll be seeing the DVD’s of DH1 & DH2 together and then make my final judgment.

Regarding Hermione erasing her parents memory: People seem to be judging her actions from the POV of a mature adult parent.  But Hermione is a scared teenager, so in context, her actions are plausible.  I’m not saying they’re right, but they are understandable.

Tony: I’m not judging Hermione as a person. I’m judging what I see as the film’s lack of moral perspective on her actions. I see nothing here to indicate that the viewer is meant to be horrified by her actions, rather than seeing them as a tragic but noble act of necessity.

At the risk of taking this discussion to a whole new level of geekiness, would Ben Kenobi forcing the stormtroopers to think “These are not the droids you’re looking for” also be morally questionable since he’s negating their free will and self-awareness temporarily to achieve a positive end?

@Tony: Ha ha ha! I love taking the discussion to a whole new level of geekiness!
 
I propose that the answer is no, Kenobi does not violate the stormtroopers’ human dignity.
 
First, making the stormtroopers believe that these aren’t the droids they’re looking for isn’t fundamentally different from simply deceiving them by lying to them. I know Thomistic moral theology holds that lying is always wrong, but I doubt this. Tactical lying to circumvent an enemy who is in the wrong for a just cause can be morally defended in various ways.
 
Also, note Kenobi’s comment that Jedi mind tricks only work on the “weak minded.” This may suggest that mind tricks are only effective when there is not a deliberate act of will, i.e., an authentic human act. Subverting the stormtroopers’ wills only at a knee-jerk, thoughtless level of behavior does not engage their moral personhood and thus does not violate their human dignity. If the stormtroopers’ wills were deliberately engaged in such a way that the mind trick would be a violation of their free will, the mind trick wouldn’t work.
 
Third, if evidence from the prequel trilogy is permitted, stormtroopers are clones who have been genetically tampered with to be more docile and less questioning of authority. This may indicate that they are not moral agents at all. If so, manipulating their perceptions may be more like reprogramming a computer to elicit the desired behavior than forcing the free will of a moral agent. (Whether they are moral agents capable of authentic human acts is of course completely distinct from whether they are moral persons possessed of rights and human dignity. For instance, a six-month-old is a moral person possessed of rights and human dignity, but not a moral agent capable of authentic human acts.)
 
How’s that for a whole new level of geekiness? :)

I’m impressed, Steven!  You have displayed a level of geekiness that spans film and theology.  You may be the Catholic Yoda of your generation…or at least Qui Gon:-)

Ha! Jimmy is Yoda. No contest. I’ll be happy to be Luke Skywalker!

About the Jedi mind trick: It’s obvious, as Stephen pointed out, that a Stormtrooper’s mind cannot simply be altered at will by a Jedi. If it could, I don’t think the Jedi would ever have fallen, but, when the troopers turned on them, simply turned them right back on Sidious.

Nice topic Tony,
Steve, your Third argument was the one I was gonna go for, well put!

I think you misunderstood when people say its like “Empire” they aren’t saying that it’s living up to “Empire” they are saying that it’s structured like it e.g. The series has now got a film that’s dark, has no beginning or ending,very character focused and is left on a big cliffhangar. I have to disagree with you on somethings though, there are lots of new locations in the movie most notably the Malfoy’s house and Luna’s tree based house and lot’s of glimpses of new locations since they are on the run. The death of Dobby was a big thing though, maybe since we only see him for, as you said, 2 or three scenes in the film, but we are all familiar of what good he has done in the past Harry Potter movie, Chamber of Secrets e.g. risking his life to warn Harry about the new dangers. Well for humor there’s lot’s of it, Ron kissing that guys wife, the multiple Harrys, George walking in on Harry and Ginny kissing and Dobby and Kreacher’s brief moment of slapstick there are also some random moments of humour aswell. There are lot’s of new characters aswell, Charlie, Luna’s Dad, and new villains controlling the ministry and also the snatchers. But last and not least, a dark and kinda frightening moment in the film would have to be Bellatrix Lastrange torturing Hermione by engraving the word “Mudblood” on her arm. there are slight romances in the film but they are “very slight”. WOW, I didn’t think I’d actually be on this subject for long so sorry if I got a bit carried anyway just thought I’d let you know what I thought.