You nailed it with these two sentences:
Maybe if you’re immersed in the franchise, it all makes perfect sense. ... A movie that doesn’t work better than this for a casual, reasonably informed viewer is a failure, in my book.

In this series, the books ARE better than the movies. I’m hesitant to see the final two movies because I know they’re going to butcher the story and I liked the angst and action just fine as I envisioned it while reading. I do appreciate your comments about what Hermione does to her parents - her parents are never introduced in the books, so it seems odd to me that they would film a scene with them for this movie. 

And the “double agent” was a HUGE shock when reading the book for the first time. Brilliantly written.

It might help if you bothered to read the book.

“I admit I’ve never been a real Harry-head, only a dabbler. I read the first three books but bogged down somewhere in the fourth…”

First of all, it’s the duty of a movie to be watchable to people who haven’t read the book.  Otherwise, it’s not a well-made movie.

Now, to the explanations:

-The Death Eaters are able to attack the Burrow because the Ministry of Magic has just fallen, and the spells that were set to protect Harry were dependent on the support of the Ministry.

-In the book, Hermione takes her parents’ memory of her away and convinces them they are completely different people and that they want to move to Australia.  This is done “off screen” and she only relates the story to Ron and Harry.  She does this to prevent the Death Eaters from finding and killing them or using them as leverage against her once they realize she’s gone off with Harry on his mission.  She does this without their permission, figuring she will reverse the spell if they win, or they will live on blissfully ignorant if she dies.  Is this right?  No, of course not.  But she truly believed the only alternative is their death.  (Why they couldn’t just go into hiding like the Dursleys, I don’t know…maybe they wouldn’t have been willing?)

-As for the “double agent” giving Voldemort the info on the escape, I’m getting into spoiler territory.  This is actually explained at the very end of the book via a familiar flash-back device, and therefore may be addressed in the last movie.  He was flat-out ordered to give Voldemort the information by portrait-Dumbledore, who he had sworn to obey, because Voldemort was becoming suspicious of him and he needed to solidify his standing as a Death Eater.  When he accidentally hit George’s ear, he was actually aiming at another Death Eater who was about to take out George.

If you think what Hermione did to her parents was a moral problem, wait to you find out the truth behind Dumbledore’s death.  For me, that’s the biggest black mark on the series.  (I still love the books, though.)

Most of the complaints wouldn’t be helped by reading the book—they almost all come from the book (although Hermione’s mindwipe of her parents is offscreen and at least explained as a protective measure), save perhaps ratcheting up the romantic tension a bit.

  As for the double agent, I think his behavior makes a bit more sense if you assume he’s snapped after all these years. :) (His treatment of Harry in the previous works is explicable, but what about Hermione and Neville?)

“It might help if you bothered to read the book.”

 
Might help what? The filmmaker’s job is to make a movie. The movie should stand on its own. That’s a goal the six preceding films more or less achieved, at least to a greater degree than this one.

First of all, it’s the duty of a movie to be watchable to people who haven’t read the book.  Otherwise, it’s not a well-made movie.
Now, to the explanations:
-The Death Eaters are able to attack the Burrow because the Ministry of Magic has just fallen, and the spells that were set to protect Harry were dependent on the support of the Ministry.
-In the book, Hermione takes her parents’ memory of her away and convinces them they are completely different people and that they want to move to Australia.  This is done “off screen” and she only relates the story to Ron and Harry.  She does this to prevent the Death Eaters from finding and killing them or using them as leverage against her once they realize she’s gone off with Harry on his mission.  She does this without their permission, figuring she will reverse the spell if they win, or they will live on blissfully ignorant if she dies.  Is this right?  No, of course not.  But she truly believed the only alternative is their death.  (Why they couldn’t just go into hiding like the Dursleys, I don’t know…maybe they wouldn’t have been willing?)
-As for the “double agent” giving Voldemort the info on the escape, I’m getting into spoiler territory.  This is actually explained at the very end of the book via a familiar flash-back device, and therefore may be addressed in the last movie.  He was flat-out ordered to give Voldemort the information by portrait-Dumbledore, who he had sworn to obey, because Voldemort was becoming suspicious of him and he needed to solidify his standing as a Death Eater.  When he accidentally hit George’s ear, he was actually aiming at another Death Eater who was about to take out George.
If you think what Hermione did to her parents was a moral problem, wait to you find out the truth behind Dumbledore’s death.  For me, that’s the biggest black mark on the series.  (I still love the books, though.)

“It might help if you bothered to read the book.”

Why? What if I just want to go see a movie?

Seriously. Why should one have to read a book in order to enjoy a movie? Why make the movie at all if the book is necessary to enjoy it? Why not just read the book and leave it at that?

DD: Thanks, the Ministry of Magic thing at least makes sense. If the movie had explained that, I would have accepted it. Hermione’s actions are another story—not only was it wrong, it was a greater violation than rape, in my view. I’m thinking Double-agent’s obedience to reflection-Dumbledore makes sense only if the whole Dumbledore / double-agent plan is viable both pragmatically and morally, which you may be intimating it isn’t. If not, then it just compounds the problem.

I think the accepted term is simply “Potterfan”. “Pott-head”, however, is one of your typical strokes of brilliance.
 
Anyway. As a moderate “Harry-head” (read all the books, some many times, but not seen all the movies, and didn’t like all the ones I saw - #4 was simply awful, no matter what anyone says), I think your review sounds uncomfortably plausible. I’ll still see it, but I don’t expect too much. I think there’s a good chance Part 2 will be better, if they can improve on Rowling’s (for some reason) very awkward writing in the climax.
 
Incidentally, your argument that a movie must work for a “casual, reasonably informed viewer” is too broad as stated. Some movies, such as The Passion of the Christ, are justified in making heavier demands on the viewer’s background than this. It’s a question of artistic and thematic level.

I’m depressed now. There have been some things that have bugged me about all of the movies in the franchise to date (they’re rushed, the characters don’t relate to each other in any way that is recognizably human) and it sounds like Part 7, Part 1 is the worst offender thus far.

How many days until “Tron: Legacy” comes out?

Greydanus is an AWSOME wizard name, dude!

Anyways, love your reviews and intellectual honesty.

No way I’m keeping my daughters away from seeing this film, but It’s my fault since I decided to let them read the books. I thought I would explain the problematic parts (or, why they are problematic to Catholics). Little did I know how much work that would be!

When discussing the books or the movies we now more often find ourselves discussing what was left out of the movies or what the movies got wrong. Parts that we would say, “well it’s dissappointing that they left THAT out because now they can’t do this in the next one”. But that’s the way movies from books go. What’s disappointing is when they change something you think is important (like Elves at Helms Deep) or insert something that is unnecesary (like nude Hermione and Harry).

What I noticed in the books was the building anger and confusion. Whereas I was excited about “what’s gonna happen next” I was also increasingly bothered by the angst. How like a addiction is that? Sounds like this movie mimics the book in that.

Both movie and books are bad as they promote magic, which is more or less demonism.

Pachy, thanks for your thoughtful comments.
 

“Incidentally, your argument that a movie must work for a “casual, reasonably informed viewer” is too broad as stated. Some movies, such as The Passion of the Christ, are justified in making heavier demands on the viewer’s background than this. It’s a question of artistic and thematic level. “

 
Heh. I specifically thought of that counter-example as I wrote that sentence. Of course you’re right that the sentence as written carries a few implicit caveats. To make them explicit, here’s how I see it.
 
All art is intertextual. To watch any movie or read any book presupposes some sort of background cultural knowledge, some familiarity with convention and existing tropes. With respect to The Passion—or The Life of Brian, say—it’s important to note that the Gospel story isn’t just source material: it’s part of the DNA of Western civilization. And The Passion isn’t just an adaptation—it’s an interpretive commentary within a particular theological tradition. It’s not like Gibson demands that you be familiar with Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich or anything.
 
In the case of a pop movie adaptation of a pop fantasy novel, obviously you need to understand how a fantasy movie “works” and so forth, but given a straightforward adaptation (as opposed to a subversive rewrite like Life of Brian) it’s reasonable to expect the film to be reasonably self-sufficient with respect to source material. We aren’t talking about transmedia storytelling, here, in which book, film and other venues are all interdependent and come together to tell a single story.
 
Beyond that, I suggest that there is a basic sense in which The Passion could be viewed sui generis, by someone with no detailed understanding of the Gospel, and on a fundamental poetic level the film would hold together. I don’t think that’s the case with Deathly Hallows: Part 1.

I agree - Hermione brainwashing her parents is inexcusable (she also sends them to Australia). She’s acting like a Death Eater, the worse thing is Ron’s and Harry’s non-reaction. In JKR’s world, it’s ok if you do wrong things, as long as you’re a Gryffindor. Like Harry using a Dark curse in HBP.

The films, like the books, suffer from too much ‘predestination’ and prophecies. Since the beginning we know who the bad guys are - even if they’re just 11 years old - and they never change, they do not evolve. The double agent you mention is one of the putative villains, therefore JKR portrays him as one-dimensional. If the books got darker as the story progressed, Rowling’s portrayal of the characters remained as inflexible as ever.

And Harry is indeed too passive for a hero.

Serge, I will have to disagree with you on some parts.  Wrong actions are not ok if you are a Gryffindor in HP.  When Harry uses the dark curse in HBP he is punished for it and he accepts it completely because he knows he did something very wrong.  Hermione’s actions are not right either but what JK Rowling is also showing that in a war situation, etc the “good” guys also do wrong and evil things.  No one is completely innocent in war and she demonstrates that in the book.  I don’t agree that there is too much predestination since a common theme in the entire series is that it is the choices we make matter the most not what family we are from, etc. I also don’t believe that Harry is a passive hero.  If you have read the last book completely you would know that.  I will see the last two movies but I admit that I don’t like the movies as well as I like the books.  The movies fail to capture some of the themes and tones of the books and it shows in particular with GOF, OOTP, HBP, and probably these last two.

On a tangent, another element/flaw that shows up in Deathly Hallows (at least the book): Rowling is heavily hitting the theme that the Adults Can’t Help. I think this is part of the reason why certain characters get offscreen deaths or actions that are dubiously in-character.

What nonsense.  I’ve read all seven books.  Harry Potter is garbage—a series with a flawed hero, a ridiculous premise, and an extremely distorted and evil conception of human nature (dividing the soul into pieces???).  It is not worth reading or seeing.  I, to my everlasting regret, exposed my children to this “harmless” fantasy with book #1.  Now I wish I had never seen the books and burned them.  I intend to have a bonfire of the entire set this winter in my fire place.  In no way should this movie or this series be recommended by any Catholic movie critic.  This review (and previous ones) demonstrate how much we’ve been corrupted by popular culture.

wow. you should read the books it’ll all make sense.

JK Rowling`s books about Harry Potter have gotten their status by the talent Rowling has for storytelling. Her distinct humour and respect for the audience have made the books to what they are. I feel the movies have been far to lacking. They have been rushed, and although many factors to get good results have been there (a very good casting etc), something of Rowlings world is missing. From the reviews I have read so far this seem to be the case with this film too. As for the things you mention: the books describe the difference in safety/defence of the sites the character visit, so this should be possible to convey in the movie too. Hermione`s actions towards her parents is described as a sacrifice on her part, but it seems a rash decison for such a clever character.

Beyond that, I suggest that there is a basic sense in which The Passion could be viewed sui generis, by someone with no detailed understanding of the Gospel, and on a fundamental poetic level the film would hold together. I don’t think that’s the case with Deathly Hallows: Part 1.

I appreciate this line of thinking and, generally speaking, I think it’s sound. 

At the same time, I also believe that there can come a point when there are too many intricacies to a multi-part story to reasonably expect one installment of it to be able to stand on its own.  It’s one thing to have a sequel which picks up where a former story left off.  In that case, you can generally tell a story that stands well on its own. 

It’s another thing altogether to tell a story which is the continuation of a previous installment.  This is not at all to say that one can’t make an effort to produce a story that stands on its own.  However, it’s not nearly so easy.  By the time that you’re at part 7 of a 7 part story, then it can become almost impossible to tell a tale that stands entirely on its own. 

Some attempts have been successful: Return of the Jedi works just as well on its own as it does as part II of the Empire Strikes Back.  The Third Matrix film, on the other hand, makes absolutely no sense apart from the second.  Is this a detriment to the film?  In some ways, perhaps yes.  At the same time, it often just depends on the story you have to tell.  Sometimes, its a long story that needs to be split up. 

Of course, here we’re not really dealing with that. We’re dealing with making a movie stand on its own apart from a the book its based on, not how well this 7th Harry Potter flick stands without the support of the first 6 films.  As far as that goes, it may well be a failure, with filmmakers who relied too heavily on the book adding the missing details. 

Of course, I can cut them some slack.  You don’t want to end up with the characters spending the entire movie telling you what’s going on rather than showing you.  Then you end up with an expository dialog fest like that which ruined the first half of Inception.  On the other hand, you do sometimes need to explain what’s going on. 

The only point I’d actually go so far as to disagree with you on, Mr. Greydanus, is in that this is only the first half of a two-part story, and so some of the events you’re seeing will be explained later, such as the explanation for why the “Double-Agent” did something which seems so stupid at first.  There are a lot of secrets and whatnot to be revealed in part 2, and so it would be wiser to judge some of that type of stuff based on the entire story, rather than just the first part.

Of course, that brings up whether or not it was wise to tell a single, coherent story over two films.  But that’s another question.

Nice review.

I got to screen the film at my work so I count myself a little lucky that I got to see Potter before most people.

I think your “mythology-bound” criticism is fair. The Deathly Hallows book is a little bit like the Lost finale. It’s so concerned with creating a neat finish that it loses a bit of the magic that made it wonderful. My personal hope is that since the most tedious elements of the book have been dealt with, the long stretches traveling in the woods in particular, the final film can deliver something a bit more satisfying.

It’s funny you mention Stephanie Meyer. There were a few moments that I felt like Harry Potter had acquired a bit of the Twilight taint. Luckily, those moments faded. The trio’s infiltration of the Ministry was my favorite part. Mostly because older actors got to play out the mannerism of the Potter trio. Fake Harry Potter was incredible. Seriously, watch the way he walks… he’s got Dan Radcliffe pegged. Also, Helena Bonham Carter was truly amazing.

Reading your review of the film reminds me again why I hated the book so much.  It was, in my mind, as depressing as it was disappointing; as plotless as it was pointless—a completely unsatisfying and at times overtly contrived, desparate attempt on the part of the author to tame and to tidy up a mythology over which she never any control.

All I know is that my students are all going to the midnight showing and tomorrow is the day before a week of vacation. Thank you, Harry Potter, you’ll have wasted a day of my life.

Rachel - I disagree. Harry is not punished at all for casting Sectumsempra in HBP, neither were the Marauders chastised for almost killing Snape in their time - which might explain some of his bitterness. The truth is, if you’re a Gryffindor at Hogwarts, you’ve got it made.

JKR abhors discrimination, but she substitutes the muggle/pureblood caste system for one of her own, where Gryffindor is the embodiment of good and Slytherin is evil - since the very beginning with the Sorting Hat deciding the fate of 11 years old. What can be more predestined than that?

Hermione simply brainwashes her parents. Yes, she might protect them but she takes away their free will and makes their choices. If a Slytherin had done that, JKR would have presented that act as the ultimate evil.

And Harry ultimately prevails over Voldemort by playing possum :) I like the books, a lot. But a lot of the assumptions underlying the series need to be examined.

I don’t think I’ll see this movie… thanks for the review.

*SPOILERS laced within*

Mike, your post mirrors the way I feel, to some degree. I always felt that the book (indeed, the last two books, to some degree) strained too hard for importance and thematic depth by:

-grafting a contrived, “epic” power-object mythology onto a series that never needed one (sure, there were evil diaries, talking hats, and magic swords…but these were utilized in a more original manner, whereas the Horcruxes are derivative of Tolkien)

-utilizing multiple arbitrary, almost randomly-chosen main character deaths in order to widen the depth and shock value of the good versus evil struggle (when Rowling literally starts picking off individuals on both sides of the fight during the final chapters of HP7, it feels like she simply pulled character names out of a hat in order to decide who would bite the dust).

-wrapping things up with a painfully explicit coda that clumsily spells out the main character’s ultimate destinations

Great comments from nearly everyone so far. Serge, excellent analysis. First rate.
 
P.S. For those who’ve raised the subject, please see my essay on the morality of magic in fiction.

Hey, what about the argument that Harry Potter promotes the interest of witchcraft and the occult?  Does that still hold?

If I want “witchcraft” I’ll watch re-runs of Bewitched.

I will not be watching this movie just like the others.  And I never read one single word in any of the books.

**WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD**

Serge—Actually, Harry does get a string of detentions from Snape for using that spell in HBP, and it’s arguably self-defense and carelessness.
However, the point remains from the fact that people are tossing Unforgivables about willy-nilly in DH.

(As for Snape and the Marauders, we don’t know that they _weren’t_ chastised. The idea that they got away with it seems to be largely fanon, and influenced by Snape’s memory in Book 5—a memory that really doesn’t fit all that well in some respects.)

As for discrimination, I think it’s there, but it’s slightly more nuanced that Gryffindor/Slytherin, given the examples of Peter Pettigrew, Regulus Black, and to a lesser extent Horace Slughorn. Instead, the attitude seems to be that the outcasts, the marginalized and the discriminated-against are almost entirely virtuous, and the elite, the powerful and the traditional are almost entirely corrupt, ineffectual, and/or wicked. (Remind me: Outside of the questionable example of Augusta Longbottom, do we ever see any positively portrayed adult purebloods who aren’t in some fashion outcasts or renegades?)

@serge: While Harry is not shown as punished for using sectumsempra in the film, he spends every weekend till the end of term in detention with Snape in the book. Also, James regretted his decision to trick Snape and stopped him from entering the Whomping Willow. It is never mentioned whether anyone other than Snape, the Marauders, and Dumbledore ever knew what happened;or whether Dumbledore found out then or later.
Also, remember:
-Pettigrew was a Gryffindor
-Slughorn and Double-agent were Slytherin. Slughorn may seem like a buffoon now, but he should be getting a crowning moment of awesome in Part 2, if they adapt it faithfully.

Also(semi-unrelated), consider the aspects of each house:
Gryffindor: Courage, Valor
Ravenclaw: Cleverness, Wisdom
Hufflepuff: Patience, Humility
Slythering: Ambition, Cunning

now consider how those aspects can be twisted:
fallen Gryffindor:Valor becomes pride, leading to a wish to resolve all conflicts through power=Boromir
fallen Ravenclaw:Wisdom drops to mere cleverness used to further selfish ends=Lockhart
fallen Hufflepuff:Humility degrades undervaluing what one can do, leading to dereliction of duty=Radagast the Brown
fallen Slytherin:Ambition discards morality and keeps growing=Voldemort, Saruman, Sauron, Death Eaters, etc.

Makes sense that most world-domination type bad guys would come from the house that takes all the ambitious kids.

Well, bummer. . . here I’ve lined up DVDs of the first 6 movies to watch in a marathon next week before heading off to my local theater to see the 7th.  Now I find out it might not be worth the money.  Just kidding.

Seriously, it’s been my life’s experience that movies made from books are almost always disappointing.  Other than “Passion of the Christ” and “The Nativity Story,” I’ve yet to see a movie that was as good as the book upon which it was based.

So maybe instead of doing a Harry Potter movie marathon, I’ll finally crack open my son’s set of Harry Potter books.

Serge,

Excellent, excellent comments!  More to talk about with my kids.

As for the books, my kids LOVE them and have read each of them several times.  However, I can appreciate parents who wish their children had never started on the series.  I will often hide the books in my closet when I think they simply need to engage other literature and activities.  Their fascination has faded considerably with time.

As for this movie, I’m not surprised with Steven’s review and based on the past films, it seems about right for this particular franchise.  It seems like the producers first chose the actors for Harry, Ron and Hermione based on physical characteristics and then were forced to continue with these actors due to their popularity (could you imagine the outrage over replacing them half-way through the series?).  While I think they’ve grown, somewhat, in acting ability, they never seem to rise above whiny(Ron), detached(Harry) and petulant/peevish (Hermione).  Granted, they only have the script to work with and they have been full of weaknesses.

I am thankful for the talented adult actors in the series.  Snape is, hands down, the most provocative character and Alan Rickman embodies him well.  My husband and I both find Michael Gambon’s Dumbledore to be completely devoid of any warmth or avuncular concern first established by Richard Harris’s interpretation.  That’s too bad, because it’s hard to see why Harry is so moved by Dumbledore’s death and feels so compelled to embark on this journey.  Dumbledore in HP4 (the movie) was AWFUL! 

Well, I could write a whole essay, but wanted to say thanks to Steven for a thoughtful review and for the comments of everyone here.

I saw the film last night—okay, technically today—at midnight with my friends.  I enjoyed it (about as much as you can with a film this dark), and thought it followed the book reasonably well.  One thing my friends and I had discussed was whether the film would manage to be exciting/absorbing when so much of the action takes place with just the three main characters out in the wilderness.  I personally felt that they managed to make it more interesting than it could have been, mainly because of the strength of the young actors’ performances (I strongly disagree that they are wooden or lacking in chemistry).
There were a few things that I had issues with:  one would be the animated segment, which while beautifully done seemed odd within a Potter film.  Not to mention that the style of the characters was weirdly stick-like.  Another thing is the “zip me up” scene in the beginning with Ginny and Harry.  Really?  Did the zipper really need to plunge all the way down her back?  And would she really not be wearing a bra underneath?  Needlessly provocative.  Lastly, there is the ridiculously sexualized vision of two characters kissing in the nude.  Rowling never wrote such a thing.
One thing I’ve always appreciated about the Potter universe is the clear divide between good and evil.  All quibbles about the reality of witchcraft and its presentation in Rowling’s books aside, good is the side we definitely are rooting for, while evil is unquestionably evil and repulsive in every way.  For many of these fantasy epics, the “evil” side isn’t always taken too seriously by the fans.  For instance, plenty of Star Wars fans have fun with dressing up as Darth Vader or stormtroopers.  But I don’t know any truly sincere Harry Potter fans who would want to dress as Lord Voldemort.

I will disagree with both Rachel and serge.  Harry gets off (when he does, after all, in every book/movie he gets in trouble for breaking the rules) not because he is Gryffindor, but because he is Harry.  Think about the different professors whom he befriended, each let him go not because he was Gryffindor, but because he was Harry, the Chosen One, the Boy Who Lived.  While we may not like the moral implications of this for our children, get over it.  It happens every day in schools, when teacher’s pets, star athletes, or stellar scholars get breaks that others don’t.
As for predestination, while I can see serge’s point, book 2 really helps illuminate that Harry chose not to be in Slytherin: the Hat saw the skills, drive, and such that Harry possessed, which would fit in either Slytherin or Gryffindor.  One could argue that because Harry was uninfluenced by the magical community the choice was ultimately his, whereas Malfoy and Ron had been shaped by their families into preconceived notions as to where they should be.
In truth, I half expected a review like this.  While the previous six films were entertaining each in their own right, together, they tell a disjointed tale.  Unlike LOTR or even Narnia, there is no single vision behind the telling.  For each film there is a different director and producer, so that means that each film has a different feel, and a different latent story is being told (be it teenage angst, teenage love, what have you).  The effect is that the cohesion you find in the books is lost in the films.

Has anyone taken into consideration the warnings from those who see this whole Harry Potter series as a bad choice for us as catholics, especially, for children? Witchcraft, magic spells, sorcery, since when did these things turn into wholesome entertainment?  From my own opinion as a mother and grandmother, this is a bad tree that can never produce good fruit.  I will do my homework and post the websites for reviews and opinions that clearly point out the detrimental side of this kind of entertainment.

Has anyone taken into consideration the warnings, from those in education, literary arts and even the church, who are knowledgable about demonic influence in our modern culture, that this whole Harry Potter series is not a good choice for entertainment, precisely because it promotes and glorifies the dark arts?  Evil is presented as a good force to fight evil.  Lord of the Rings, Narnia do not do that. Especially, as catholics, we need to teach our children that evil cannot be used to defeat evil.  Wizardry, witchcraft, spells, sorcery are evil and cannot be portrayed as producing good.  As a mother and grandmother, I see this whole HP series as a bad tree that cannot produce good fruit. It seems as if HP, etc. have produced a cult-like following.  Not good!  The information needed to point out these dangers of HP, Twilight, Golden Compass and the like, can easily be found on the web, esp. catholic author Michael O’Brien and Steve Wood.

Just wanted to say the nude lip lock was not in the books.  I’m wondering if the Scripture made it into the movies (I rather doubt it).

I agree you ought to be able to enjoy a movie without reading the books. This series, by this point, is so complex it’s understandable if the adaptation failed her. The first half of this book was not paced well (though I enjoyed it anyway).

Yes, the good characters do some bad things, but at least in the book, the bad things are never called good. Only one character succeeds in the end, and then only after… well, you’ll have to see. I *hope* film two gets this right.

As far as tearing the soul, I found that a very good analogy to mortal sin. Caused some discussion among my children and I, that did. But I suspect it comes across better in the books.

I’m a Catholic teen who’s never read any of the books or seen any of the movies.  My mom justthis past week had a change of heart about them, thinking now was the right time to check out the movies, and follow up with the books if we wanted.  So we watched the first six movies in a week-long marathon, before attending the midnight show.  We both enjoyed the movie and are really looking forward to reading the books and seeing part two.  It was very easy to read the wikipedia plot summaries before and/or after each of the movies in order to compensate for never having read a single page of the series. It seems unrealistic to think any one movie could possibly please both someone who’s never read a page of the books, and somebody who’s read thousands of pages.  (Also, I find it odd that you gave this movie as high ratings as you did, that is a C, since you ultimately called the movie a failure and had almost nothing positive to say about it.  Often enough your reviews leave me confused, when you give a low rating and then have mostly positive commentary, but this one is confusing in the opposite direction.)

To me, the salient moral failure of the series is Harry’s use of crucio (a curse which inflicts excruciating pain and serves no other purpose) on Bellatrix in the final battle. THAT is completely glossed over and never mentioned again. In fact, Harry calls attention to the fact that he now has the hatred in his heart to summon up to be able to inflict that kind of anguish on her. He GLOATS about it. Last time he couldn’t do it to her, but now he can. It’s presented, thematically, as a victory, that he now has the seething, roiling inner hatred and will to harm necessary to cast Crucio (yes, it comes from the Latin root for “crucify”).

There’s far more moral danger in this ends justify the means utilitarianism, and willful giving over of the heart to hatred and vengeance, than in any magic. I’m not worried about a child becoming a wizard; I am worried about my child becoming a moral relativist or becoming a vindictive person.

That was the worst part of the whole series IMO.

Nerina, you are spot-on regarding the quality of Rickman in his role as Snape and the utter disappointment manifest in Gambon’s charmless attempt to replace Harris as Dumbledore.  I was excited and compelled by the books up through Half-Blood Prince, but found the finale an abject failure in nearly every respect.  (Most notably, instead of completing the story and playing within the rules already established, it launched into a whole new universe of contrivances invented to solve problems Rowling seemed unable to answer based on the preceding volumes.)  As for the films, however, in my mind they have been going downhill since the very first installment.  Losing Harris after Chamber of Secrets represented an insurmountable challenge to the directors, it seems, but the increasing thematic darkness and even the color palettes employed have robbed me of any fascination I once had for the world of Hogwart’s.

Honesty, I was surprised to see such acceptance of the Harry Potter stories here.

While reading the comments, I came upon the link to “Harry Potter vs. Gandolph,” and found it to be very well written.  Thank you for the detail and honesty in the article.

For myself, my children grew up on “Chronicals of Narnia,” and we LOVE the Lord of the Rings. As for Harry Potter books, we skipped over them thinking “too many dark elements, too much concern from many Catholic and Christian sources, too many REALLY GREAT books out there to read instead.”  I’m still glad we did.

It should be noted that Hermione’s memory charm on her parents is not permanent (at least in the books it’s not). She intends to lift the charm if she survives the war, and if she doesn’t then they will be spared the grief of losing their daughter. I don’t think it was the right thing to do, I just think it’s an important distinction.

My biggest beef with the movie was its pacing. As Steven writes above, there was way to much sitting around and brooding that added little, if anything, to what we know about the characters.

I looked up a couple of scenes that intrigued me, the dark Harry and Hermione that appear before Ron and Hermione’s spell to keep her parents safe, in the book and found the film is faithful to both.

I don’t think it’s fair to attack Hermione in the choice she made in changing her parents memories. Here’s a bit of that as it appears in the book:

” ‘... That’s to make it more difficult for Voldemort to track them down and interrogate them about me - or you, because unfortunately, I’ve told them quite a bit about you [i.e. Harry]. / Assuming I survive our hunt for the Horcruxes, I’ll find Mum and Dad and lift the enchantment. If I don’t - well, I think I’ve cast a good enough charm to keep them safe and happy. Wendell and Monica Wilkins don’t know that they’ve got a daughter, you see.’ / Hermione’s eyes were swimming with tears again. Ron got back off the bed, put his arm around her once more, and frowned at Harry as though reproaching him for lack of tact.”

Hardly the behavior of someone who doesn’t care about her parents.

The argument that Harry’s protectors could do with the Hermione’s parents what they did with the Dursleys presumes that the same love exists between Harry and the Dursleys as exists between Hermione and her parents. Anyone who’s read the books or seen the movies knows that that isn’t the case. Furthermore, given the attacks against magic and non-magic folks as the story opens, it’s pretty clear that no amount of security will keep people safe when the villains have them in their sites.

In a way, the book’s depiction of Hermione’s action to keep her parents out of harms way is better than the film’s since the movie leaves these two people with a bunch of blank photos and no idea why that’s the case. “Honey, why is there a picture of an empty room on the mantle?”

Steven writes, “Robbing parents of parenthood? Did anyone realize how horrific this is?” I disagree with this view of that scene. What I see is an act of a desperate teen, who deeply loves her parents, but who also knows the road she’s traveling threatens their lives. She’s making the best choice she felt available to her. And it certainly isn’t as if she’s happy about it.

If you’re going to point to “Great Books” as an alternative and if you’re going to claim serious moral problems with Hermione’s memory spell, then how do you read Romeo and Juliet?  Juliet fakes her own suicide, not telling her parents who really think she’s dead, and then goes ahead and offs herself anyway.  Now, that’s seriously morally problematic.  Or is there a double standard here?  And I read R&J in high school, just like I did HP.  I was 14 years old as a HS freshman and Juliet was 14; Hermione is an older teen in this story. 

The point is if you’re going to cry moral outrage over Hermione, then you really can’t read Shakespeare.

With the exception of the first installment, I have come at these movies having read the books first.  I’ve always thought that they must be hard to follow for those who hadn’t read the books, because to me they moved so fast and jumped over so much of the development and explanation in the book.  I was surprised to read this review’s statement that this is the worst one yet for the non-reader, because to me this is the best to date.  Finally I felt like I wasn’t being rushed through the story.  Call it milking the franchise if you like, but I’m grateful for the pacing of Deathly Hallows Part 1.  I wish the others had this luxury.  Oh, and for Elmtree, yes the scripture did make it in, at least one of the references anyway “The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.”

I don’t think a “casual, reasonably informed viewer” is actually the target audience of this film.  I think the target audience is “people who have read Harry Potter,” which (based on informal observations at several local Midwestern Catholic high schools and colleges) encompasses virtually 100% of the 13 - 30 demographic anyway.  (Its box office will reflect that lucrative fact.)  They don’t *need* to reach out to non-fans, because the Harry Potter story is better-known to this generation than the Gospel.  If “casual, reasonably informed viewers” are able to figure the franchise out, follow along, and enjoy themselves, so much the better, but the movies—especially the later ones—obviously do not care whether the casual movie-goer is able to follow along, and just as obviously don’t need to.

Given the incredible amount of *stuff* that is going on in these last several books, I’m satisfied with that.  One might say, “But it would have only taken one extra line to explain that the defense of the Burrow was reliant on the Ministry of Magic!”, but if one tried to add “one extra line” to the movie to explain *all* the minor background details, HP7-I would have been four hours long on its own.  I’m sorry you didn’t enjoy it, Mr. Greydanus, but it was quite a good film for its target audience.

Haven’t yet seen the movie.  I am trepidatious.  I’ve read the books, although my poor memory will pretty much ensure that I will have trouble following what’s going on, as I did with the last movie.

Something that has been discussed around the dinner table is how JKR will work into the last movie, critical characters who were not in any of the other movies.  I think Peeves falls into that category.  Again, it came up but I can’t remember the names.

Read the books, and they maybe you will get a clue.

It doesn’t matter how much Hermione cares about her parents and cries about them. There were plenty of guards at Auschwitz who felt bad about what they were doing. What matters is whether you act morally, not whether or not you salve your conscience by dramatizing your tough moral decision with tears.

Hermione didn’t treat her own parents like adults with free will. She enslaved them to do her will and stole a large part of their selfhood. That’s low.

Yeah, as much as I love the Potter universe, I can understand where the reviewer is coming from. The past movies have at least tried to be coherent, but now that it’s at the end, Kloves and Yates and company seem to have realized they can do anything.

Although one minor point: I do think Rowling realized how horrific it was for Hermione to erase her memory from her parents. The books get pretty nasty.

Personally, this movie made me mad. All the wit, charm, and fun of the books was scrubbed away, and replaced with Harry Potter: Twilight Edition. It felt like the worst Twilight knock-off I have ever seen. Some problems.
1. All the suggestive, romantic stuff they randomly added, in an attempt to cash in on the Twilight craze. Except Twilight has Taylor Lautner and his bajillion ab muscles, and HP has the rather puny Dan Radcliffe. And the make-out scene involving the Horcrux was completely unneccessary.
2. How come, if Ron is poor, he can affford to wear the latest threads.
3. All the good actors, (the Hogwarts Teachers), are gone.
4. No memorable moments.
5. Who is the freaky, effeminate, emo death eater who takes a fancy to Hermoine at the very end of the movie.
6. It had no humor except when…
7. SPOILER ALERT!!! A certain magical creature dies at the end. It was like killing off Jar-Jar Binks. The best part of the movie.
8. Way too much dead time. Why spend two minutes on angst-ridden stares when it could be spent on plot or an action sequence. And why have that pointless five minutes of dancing to some depressing indie-rock song. Couldn’t it at least be “You Really Got Me” by the Kinks?
I will neglect to elaborate on the fact that all the main characters are impossible to sympathize with, that Bellatrix Lestrange’s vampire-bite torture at the end was disturbing, and that the entire movie seemed like a feature length attempt to show that Emma Watson was hip enough to wear skinny jeans.

I think your review had several problems. When criticizing the confusion of the movie (which is a valid criticism), you almost nitpick aspects of the story that absolutely cannot be explained in a movie in a very good way. What stands out to me is noticing how the Death Eaters broke into the tent at the wedding, and the double-agent criticism. While it’s true that the movie doesn’t explain how the bad guys were able to crash the wedding the way they did despite protective spells, I don’t think it would’ve been very entertaining to have a character go into lengthy explanations about how the falling of the Ministry of Magic made it so that if these protective forces were ever broken, no officials would be able to come and rescue anyone from the bad guys, so they really didn’t have anything to worry about when they crashed the wedding. This was detail that most people didn’t notice, or if they did they just shrugged and went on with the movie. I think generally non Harry-heads should be maybe watch the movie and understand that small details like this are going to go over their heads a bit. (I do think, though, that the movie shouldn’t be too confusing and that larger storylines like the Deathly Hallows should be explained, as they were in this movie).

As for the double-agent, it seems like you wanted a full explanation a little early. The movies haven’t even revealed that this character is really a good guy, how can you expect them to explain the complexity of his actions? (In the book they describe in detail how this character gave just enough information to Voldemort in order to stay undetected, but kept back vital information to keep Harry safe). For someone who merely dabbles in Harry Potter, you seemed to expect a little much from the adapters.

As for your criticisms on the morality of these character’s actions, I think you have strange expectations for your heroes. Most heroes are flawed, and make decisions that an audience can disagree with. Hermione’s mind-wiping was a great scene showing the anguish that Hermione had to go through to protect her parents. Was this the right decision? Maybe not, but you can disagree and see this as how far a person will go to protect their parents. You even denounce Harry’s action of leaving the group by himself, devaluing their protection, when this kind of attitude is specifically looked at as a flaw in the books and within that very scene of the movie.

Just speaking of morality of Harry Potter in general, which some of the comments seem to question, Harry Potter uses fictionalized magic (not occult magic) to tell a story about good vs. evil, and has very Christian themes. There’s a scene in the last book where the souls of dead characters come and support Harry in his darkest hour that very much reminded me of the way saints, despite their death, help us in our dark times. This is very much an offshoot of Narnia, Lord of the Rings and other fantasies that use what is clearly fairy-tale like magic through flawed characters that learn lessons about kindness, friendship, and the true nature of death.

Oh, and on predestination vs. free will, that is like the entire theme of the second book, should probably read the last chapter of that one where Rowling clearly makes a judgment against predestination.

Just a few responses to some readers’ comments:
 

Stella wrote: “The point is if you’re going to cry moral outrage over Hermione, then you really can’t read Shakespeare.”

 
I think the relevant question is: What is the reader of Shakespeare meant to make of Juliet’s actions, and what is the reader of Rowling (or the viewer of this film) meant to think of Hermione’s actions? Someone suggested that Rowling knew Hermione’s actions were deplorable. I can’t speak to that (I understand the event takes place “offscreen” in the book), but in the film I think it comes across as a tragic but loving thing to do. Romeo and Juliet can very plausibly be read, at least in part, as a cautionary tale: This is what not to do when you’re in love.
 

Bill wrote: “Oh, and for Elmtree, yes the scripture did make it in, at least one of the references anyway ‘The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.’”

 
Most observers I’ve seen say it’s not there. Anyway, I didn’t see it.
 

Jim Henley wrote: “They don’t *need* to reach out to non-fans, because the Harry Potter story is better-known to this generation than the Gospel.’”

 
In terms of box-office power, you are undoubtedly correct, but I bet that many viewers will share the confusion that I and other critics felt with this installment. Also, five years from now, when the whole series is available in Blu-ray and DVD box sets, will this installment get as much play as others in the series? I doubt it.
 
@Brendan: As regards the double-agent issue, you may be right—it may be unfair of me to want to complain at this stage that his actions make no sense. However, as regards the attack on the wedding, I insist that the movie has an obligation to make sense on this point. The whole point of the first sequence was to get Harry to the Burrow because it’s supposed to be so safe there. Then, like five minutes later, he’s getting attacked at the Burrow. That wants an onscreen explanation.

Most observers I’ve seen say it’s not there. Anyway, I didn’t see it.

 
It’s all but impossible to notice if you don’t know where to look for it, but the words do appear on the screen. (I didn’t actually see them watching the movie, but there was a shot exactly like the one in the trailer, so it should be safe to assume they were there.)
 

Also, five years from now, when the whole series is available in Blu-ray and DVD box sets, will this installment get as much play as others in the series? I doubt it.

 
I think that’s probably not true, because then as now the viewers will mostly be people who are fans of the books, and will thus not be affected by your “confusion”. This last installment will be valued as an essential part of the story they already know. Nobody watches the Harry Potter movies to see an artistic interpretation of the story (which would need to have its own coherence). I wrote a long post on this subject for your other HP combox, but the software seems to have decided I’m a spammer or something, so it didn’t get through.

I agree with the sentiment that the movies are really made for people who have read the books.  It may not please those who are determining its meits as a movie, but it is what it is.  It is a bit of catch-22- either make the movies to appeal to everyone and anger the rabid Potter-fans who’ve read the books over and over and upside down; or stay as true to the books as possible with a very limited amount of time and leave the non-HP-readers a bit in a fog (while still angering the rabid Potter-fans because this-or-that detail was omitted or changed).  The first two movies were the best in terms of sticking to all points of the plot in a way that could make sense to all, but that is because they are also the shortest books of the series.

The HP movies are just not perfect movies.  But, as pieces made to give readers a visual of the story they love, they are nice.  But as far as enjoying the story, I will always recommend the books over the movies.  To me the movies are like the goodie bag you get at the end of the best kid birthday party you’ve ever been to.

“I didn’t actually see them watching the movie, but there was a shot exactly like the one in the trailer, so it should be safe to assume they were there.”

 
That is not a safe assumption. I have heard from a number of people who say that it is in the trailer but not in the finished film, which is common enough to be entirely plausible. I’ll get back to you on this.

I don’t know if anyone said this yet (I read almost every entry) but JKR needed to be edited. The books get to a peek in awesomeness and then get less and less successful as you go because with her popularity they didn’t edit her enough. I don’t know if no one had the nerve or they just didn’t care but book 4 was the peek of proper material and editing.

Anyone who was sick of Harry being at the world cup raise your hand. I am a harry head or whatever else you want to call me and have been from the beginning. I worked at a bookstore when book 3 came out and we stayed open till midnight and dressed up. I loved the story and loved most of the books but could have done without a few hundred pages in the last two.

Steve Wood, of Family Life Center International, who was involved in New Age, cult and occult movements before his conversion to Christianity, writes on his website, (http://www.familylifecenter.net), that “exposing children to the enchanted world of Harry Potter is playing with fire from hell. Some, likely thousands will get burned.  Just look at Harry Potter online bookstore webpages.  Harry Potter is just one entry point into a world where fascination with wickedness creates an addiction that perverts the innocent mind and obscures what is good.”  He attended training by law enforcement officials about youth invonvement in Satanism and the occult and assisted in investigations of occult-related crimes. Also, Rome’s Chief Exorcist, Father Gabriel Amorth, who is President of the International Association of Exorcists, stated that behind Harry Potter hides the signature of the king of darkness, the devil. He noted that the books attempt to make a false distinction between black and white magic, when in fact, the distinction “does not exist, because magic is always a turn to the devil.”  Further info can be obtained from the webpage listed above.

Patricia,
Thank you for posting that.  There were several very good articles listed on the drop down.

Father Amorth is not “Rome’s Chief Exorcist” (no such office exists). He co-founded the International Association of Exorcists, and is honorary president, not acting president. As an exorcist he seems to have exercised dubious judgment (e.g., performing an average of nine exorcisms every day, including Sundays, for nine years or more) and has voiced dubious opinions (e.g., “I am convinced that the Nazis were all possessed by the devil”). I am not aware that he has any qualifications whatsoever for evaluating children’s literature or family films.

Thank you, Steve, for the correction on the title “Rome’s Chief Exorcist”.  It is being used in connection with Father Amorth, obviously, mistakenly.  I wonder why you would say Father “seems to have exercised dubious judgment(e.g., performing an average of nine exorcisms everyday, including Sundays, for nine years or more)?  Is that too many? I am far from an expert on exorcism, exorcists or Father Amorth.  In regards to Father’s opinion (e.g. “I am convinced that the Nazis were all possessed by the devil”), maybe Father was referring to the top Nazis, the movers and shakers of the Reich. This could quite possibly be the case for them.  I, too, am not aware that Father has any qualifications for evaluating children’s literature or family films.  Maybe I shouldn’t have referenced Father in regard to the blog on HP books and films.  I thought going for the top would be convincing to some and helpful to others. I think I would trust his opinion.  I don’t want to top Father, but Pope Benedict had some warning statements in regards to children’s faith formation and Harry Potter, I think in 2005(?) Because this is such a serious issue, i.e. the occult reaching into the children’s world, I feel it is important to consider the opinions of those who do not view this series favorably.  I did my homework and stuck with my instincts. It’s Harry, not you Steve, that I disagree with. Look forward to your columns.

In The finished film, you can see the words “The Last Enemy That Shall Be Destroyed Is Death” on the gravestone of Harry’s Parents, although the scene is dark and it’s hard to see. Just to clear things up.

I read and loved the Potter books. They are the very best of Children’s literature, far above Chronicles of Narnia, in my opinion.

This makes objectively reviewing or reading reviews of these movies impossible. I’m sorry you didn’t like the movie. I loved it, but my enjoyment might have been more a result of the books than the movie itself.

It is good to see what someone who hasn’t read the books thought of the movie.

I do remember Denerstein, the former Rocky Mountain News movie reviewer, and his review of Fellowship of the Ring. He had never read the book, and gave the movie a “C” because “it didn’t end with anything exciting. The fellowship is just wandering through a field and the credits roll.”

It’s always interesting for me to read reviews from people who haven’t read the books. It’s a different perspective, and often reveals flaws that those, like me, who are totally absorbed in the mythology, completely miss.

Thank you.

Actually, the term I’ve seen most often is “Potterhead”, so you weren’t far off.

I agree with nearly all of your criticisms, except for the first.  Of all the films, the one I found most confusing (having not read the books) and liked the least, was Half-Blood Prince.  I’ve only seen it once so far, but I remember feeling that the plot was very disjointed.  By contrast, the narrative flow of Deathly Hallows is continuous and straightforward—run from the Death Eaters, run from the Death Eaters again, find the horcrux, figure out how to destroy it, find the object needed to destroy it, and finally destroy it.  Then get caught by the Death Eaters, escape from the Death Eaters, The End.

Also, although I was very conscious of its length while watching it, I never felt bored.  It just felt like watching a riveting miniseries in one sitting.