babble » blogs » Strollerderby
Strollerderby
Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Review: This Movie Is Not For Kids
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1., is an awesome movie. Rush right out and see it. Now. At an Imax theater if you possibly can. But leave your kids at home.
I saw it last night, and I think my date and I were the only people in the theater over 15. Partly I was eager to see it: I’m a shameless fan of the books and the films. But partly I was on a scouting mission to find out if this was a film my kids would enjoy.
I had my answer less than 5 minutes in. I’d barely finished blinking back tears as my familiar heroes said painful good-byes to their families, when the scene shifted to Voledmort holding court over the Death Eaters in his creepy lair.
Far from the cartoonish evil of comic-book supervillainy, Voldemort was real bad. And real scary. Ralph Fiennes brought the character to life in a way that chilled even a hardened movie buff like myself. Also, the actress suspeneded in mid-air over Voledemort’s dining room table, tears and stage blood smeared on her face as the bad guys tortured her, was a little too good at her job.
The scene scared and engaged me as if I were a little kid, totally sucked into it and feeling as awful as the characters do. Which is to say, I think the kids and I will watch a rerun of Harry Potter and The Sorcerer’s Stone on DVD, and they can enjoy this movie when they’re a bit older.
Except my 17-year-old stepson, who I’ll take to see it at the IMAX theater this week. He’s a great excuse to go see it again.
The Boston Globe review nails what makes this movie so awesome: it’s a brave, unusual take on an adolescent action film. The special effects were as awesome as you’d expect from a Harry Potter movie, and the sweeping outdoor sets were breathtaking on the big screen. But I left the theater talking about how Polyjuice Potion reflects adolescent themes of identity and loss, trying on different faces and finding out what you can get away with, what will hurt you, and ultimately who you are. That’s partly ’cause I’m a lit geek, but also because the movie wasn’t shy about going into heavy themes instead of surfing along the surface of action shots.
It’s tempting to be annoyed with Warner Brothers for making movie adaptations of popular kids’ books that are so clearly inappropriate for kids (we’ve skipped all of them since the third). But that’s how the books go: the kids grow up, and so do the stories. These films are such a great homage to the stories they’re telling, I can’t help but love them.
That makes for great entertainment, but it means the right age for each one shifts upward. The teenagers in the audience with me are the lucky ones who grew up with these books. They’ve been just the right age to enjoy Harry Potter all along because they’re the same age as the characters. That’s pretty cool.
For my younger kids, though, these final film installments will have to wait. Especially this one, which ends – as it had to, stopping in the middle of the book – on a dark note. The heroes are licking their wounds and burying their dead, while Voldemort celebrates his triumph. It’s like the Empire Strikes Back moment of the series.
Which is to say, I’ll be waiting on the edge of my seat for the next one, with it’s final victorious end.
Photo: screen shot from Deathly Hallows
Go Back To Strollerderby
0 Comments
[...] See the article here: Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Review: New Harry Potter … [...]
DAILYNEWSONLINE.INFO » Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Review: New Harry Potter … commented on Nov 20 10 at 6:52 pmloloa commented on Nov 20 10 at 2:16 pmI definetly agree. Im 14 and the #1 fan of harry potter. It was really scary. Definetly scarier than the first 6 films.
Dragonman commented on Nov 20 10 at 2:36 pmNot to argue, but it should be scarier and would be scarier because the kids who grew up with it would get older as the stories do. I personally have not seen it but I will tommorrow and I hope that it is more grown-up than the first film, or else the whole series would just be happy-go-lucky which it isn’t.
Joy commented on Nov 20 10 at 2:41 pmI’m no longer in my teens, early 20s actually, but I’ve loved the books since I was 9. I felt out of place at the movies too, with everyone being a teen or younger. I am glad they didn’t make this into a kids movie. With my age I, it really feels I have grown with every book and movie. Thank you for your review. It was enjoyable to read, mainly from someone that knows the books as well.
monzo commented on Nov 20 10 at 2:42 pmhow bad is it in a scale of 1 to 10?
monzo commented on Nov 20 10 at 2:44 pmCause i heard it was not for kids 13 and under
JohnBenussi commented on Nov 20 10 at 2:46 pmComments
I’m a huge fan of the series…
This movie was a huge disappointment from nearly start to finish.(1) Harry never had a relationship with his family.
(2) We never (previously) met Hermionie’s parents…
The great empathic music is what conveys the emotion, barely her tears.(3) This film omits the core fundamentals of the Deathly Hallows…
-Voldemort while seemingly evil beyond repair doesn’t get enough screen time in this film. In fact, much cinematic filabustering
was horribly apparent with the long winded Horcrux searches…
-Snape, was THE biggest loose end that didn’t even begin
to reveal much to the viewer, who, while used to love Snape, loves
to hate him much much more -and even then his screen presence was
not barely noticeable.
-We never got to know Charity Burbage…her death wasn’t
meaningful as it was evil and heartless.I think I should have directed the movie
because the word DIRECTION is anything but exemplified
in this lost film of 2 hours and 30 mins of evading
a superior cinematic experience (I paid for the IMAX version)
-Genny Weasley didn’t have enough screen time to reaffirm
the love relationship between her and Harry…A kiss wasn’t good enough.
-The horribly lack of chemistry between Ron and Hermione
seaps out of all facets of a HUGE character flaw emanating from
both of them.
-Dobby shows up and when he suffers his setback…
we don’t get the impact we should have because of his
lack of screen presence before.
-Lastly when Voldemort finds what he was looking for it was
just too easy to do so.Casting is very important and I’m sorry to say
this movie was nothing special.
Ashley commented on Nov 20 10 at 3:22 pmComments@JohnBenussi:
The majority of the problems you raised do not stem from the movie, but rather from the book. You cannot complain that certain characters did not get enough screen time when they weren’t in many parts of the book. For example, in the case of Charity Burbage, the point is that the death is evil and heartless. It is a scene meant to show Voldemort’s personality. As for “Genny” (Ginny, mind you), she constitutes all of 5 pages in the book; perhaps you should suggest J.K. Rowling to develop her relationship with Harry more? Or wait, didn’t that already occur in the 6th book?
The plot of the book/series revolves around Harry, Hermione, and Ron, and that is exactly what the movie does too. You cannot expect David Yates to add extraneous scenes in so as to build relationships with all minor characters. If you complained about a two and a half hour movie, I can only imagine what that three hour plus movie would do to you.Although the movies will never be nearly as good as the books for me, I found this to be definitely the best so far. I would agree that there are flaws in the casting, but the actors have gotten better as they have matured. I think that this movie followed the book much closer than the past movies have, as well.
Alex commented on Nov 20 10 at 3:26 pmIf you like Harry Potter go see it. It is not scary unless you’re ridiculously easily scared. it’s a great movie, almost exactly like the book, and the best edition to the story of harry potter so far. It is, however, very sad.
Jemb commented on Nov 20 10 at 3:44 pmComments It was another HP movie. It did its job: lots of special effects for people who knew the story already. I enjoy watching them but always feel a gap; Rowling records Harry’s thoughts in the novels, but the films have lost that totally (along with her deeper satire on themes such as racism, groupthinking, and the institutions of British society). Also, waves of giggles erupted at the now grown-up actors’ unintentional funnies, e.g. Hermione’s ‘Get it off, Harry!’ and then ‘It’s only small – about ten inches’. That’s teens for you!
Elisa commented on Nov 20 10 at 3:50 pmAfter seeing a friend of mine on facebook saying it was ok i expected the movie to be that way. but wow. it totally changed my mind around when i watched it. you really just have to watch the previous movies to get really into it and all the jokes. I loved it. <3
John commented on Nov 20 10 at 4:18 pmComments
I haven’t seen the movie yet. I am looking at reviews.
But I would think that someone that writes on a parenting site would know the difference between “they’re”, “There” and “Their”.specifically the line;
“can enjoy this movie when their a bit older.”
George commented on Nov 20 10 at 5:05 pmI agree with John B. If there was ever “cinematic filabustering” this movie is its example. Save your money and wait until it comes out on DVD; that way you can fast forward and save a lot of time and not miss a thing.
Sierra Black commented on Nov 20 10 at 5:43 pm@John: thanks for catching that typo, I’ve fixed it. Don’t know what we’d do without our crack squad of amateur copy editors!
Marj commented on Nov 21 10 at 12:58 pmActually we did meet the Grangers before. They were in book (and film) two. They accompanied Hermione to get her schoolbooks where they offended the sensibilities of anti-Muggle Lucius Malfoy, resulting in a physical fight between Lucius and Arthur Weasley. Also in the book, Ms Babbage is introduced to the reader at the time of her death. They later speak of her, but none of the main characters knew her.
Lisa commented on Nov 21 10 at 5:23 pmThe 7th book wasn’t terribly appropriate for kids either. Actually 5-7 were a little too much for anyone under 12 in my mind.
Linda, the original one commented on Nov 21 10 at 10:54 pmI couldn’t have kept my 10 year old away from this movie. He’s read all the books a dozen times or more and was thrilled to go. It was the same with all the other movies (which obviously came out when he was younger). I can’t see keeping children over the age of 8 or so away from this movie if they’ve read the books.
KM commented on Nov 22 10 at 2:34 pmIt wouldn’t do the books justice if they purposefully toned them down just so today’s five year-olds can see it in theaters. The original “generation” of readers grew up with the books, and it would be unfair (as well as inaccurate) to make the films any less dark than J.K. Rowling’s original stories were. I think the Harry Potter crew owed it to the readers, and it encourages fans to actually READ the stories instead of just watching all of the films in succession. The time it takes kids to work through the stories not only aids in their understanding of the complex logic and themes but insures that they pace it properly.
Harry Potter Fan Girl A commented on Nov 23 10 at 10:28 pmI’m 13, and even I thought it was a little scary. I know that everyone my age can handle it, but anyone under should wait until their parents have seen it. If the kid’s sensitive and gets scared easily, this is not the movie for them, but I loved it.
JohnBenussi commented on Nov 25 10 at 2:46 amComments@Ashley, are you certain you’ve read the books?
(1)In the film: Ginny (mind me) kisses Harry at her brother’s wedding.
(2)In the book: Ginny’s gift to Harry on his 17th B-day was the kiss.Ron intuitively knew something had gone on between then as we walked in on them, which prompted Ron to confront Harry about the fact that
Harry had ended his relationship with Ginny (meaning they were both dating) which was NEVER revealed in either film current/previous.(3)What you do NOT seem to grasp is the obviousness of how you even
said it yourself, “didn’t that already occur in the 6th book?”
while IT did not occur in ANY film (more to the point: film 6)(4) Victor Crum was also at the wedding (in the book) but
NOT at in the movie which would further add the chemistry spark
between Ron and Hermione as Victor flirts with her in front of Ron.These scenes would have taken only minutes to convey on screen, yet
were entirely omitted, not to mention they rewrote the book
with the cinematic reinterpretation of several aforementioned scenarios which thoroughly debunk your assertions herein.What you also don’t seem to grasp is the lack of continuity
the lead characters exemplify. The true magical nature of the
Harry Potter series seemed to have died with Richard Harris and
musical cinematic genius John Williams, yet I still persevered and hoped the focus of exemplary acting/better direction would manifest
thereafter…I’m not a hater because I love the series.
They could have been better….much better.
Linda, the original one commented on Nov 25 10 at 5:28 amPfffftttt. Richard Harris was a terible Dumbledore. He was much to frail. Awful casting, that!
Add your take:
Note: Babble is a supportive, diverse community. We encourage a range of opinions,
but any unduly hostile comments will be removed.
Comments are delayed up to 15 minutes
Lori Garcia 
Joslyn Gray 
Amber Doty 
Julianna Miner 
Monica Bielanko 
Sierra Black 
Meredith Carroll 
Carolyn Castiglia 
Sunny Chanel 
Madeline Holler 
Rebecca Odes 
Danielle Smith 
Danielle Sullivan 
Katherine Stone 
The Walt Disney Company supports Babble as a platform dedicated to honest, engaged, informed, intelligent and open conversation about parenting. However, the opinions expressed on this site are those of individual parents/writers and do not reflect the views of Disney. In addition, content provided on this site is for entertainment or informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice, diagnosis, treatment, or safety advice.
0