Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows

Marcus Joseph · November 18, 2010

I really enjoyed the wide scoping landscapes that delivered so much real detail and the whole style of the film felt really well handled. As far as the film itself goes, I felt a bit shorthanded in terms of the two parts, but it certainly featured a lot of plot, maybe too much at times.

K Borowski · November 18, 2010

Umm, doesn't this film not premiere until 19 Nov. in the United States?

Ari Davidson · November 19, 2010

Kyle,

19th is the word on the street. I cannot speak for Marcus however I saw it at local theater in East Hanover NJ at 2130 last night.

Marcus,

I agree the landscapes were stunning and enormous, which I especially liked since in the rest of the films we're somewhat stuck in the school or other interiors. Also I really enjoyed how much and how well shadows and under exposure played in the film. My only problem with this film (as with the last one) the DI was very apparent most of the time and often felt overdone.

Marcus Joseph · November 20, 2010

I completely agree with the DI part, there were certain sequences that felt too cold and washed out, I felt at points they could have done without such heavy grading.

It was interesting to find on IMDb that Bruno Delbonnel didn't return out of fear of repeating himself. I wouldn't know whether or not it's true, but he must have something worth while in the pipeline.

Umm, doesn't this film not premiere until 19 Nov. in the United States?

I thought it says somewhere that I'm from Australia? I saw it two nights ago, I didn't think we'd get any releases earlier than you guys.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Marcus Joseph

K Borowski · November 20, 2010

No, it doesn't say. My apologies for assuming the 19th was the earliest.

Maybe they're giving the Commonwealth countries preference on this one? ;-)

Jay Young · November 23, 2010

This was one of the better Harry Potter films I had seen. Were it but for two things, it would have made my list for this year:

I can not abide shaky cam. It has become the bane of my existence. People are starting to use shaky cam for anything and everything. It seemed to me that they gave the camera operator a Mitchell BFC and told him to hold it on his shoulder. Action scenes could be a little less intense, one really can't SEE what's going on. If some force like an explosion would actually move the camera in real life, shake it... when two people are sitting still in a room, do not shake the damn camera.

Also, some of the choice shots selected by the editor it seems make certain scenes look planed. To me it looked as if they only used coverage footage and no A-reel.

Over all, I would watch it again.

Marcus Joseph · December 3, 2010

I agree with the shaky cam, it can get unnecessarily excessive.

Thomas James · December 4, 2010

I thought Harry Potter is taboo because it involves witchcraft.

Jonathan Bowerbank · December 8, 2010

I dunno, I found the film quite painful for the majority. Sure, it's darker than previous films, but not an improvement in any way. Most of the performances were poorly executed with humdrum blocking and story pacing. Putting the films in 2 parts really left them open to spend A LOT of time showing people doing nothing, so I was quite bored during certain portions of the film. It has a lot of great moments, it just seemed when there wasn't a story aspect to pinpoint, the director decided to try and feebly copy "The Road", only by wasting our time with cheesily written exposition and Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys style mystery solving.

Cinematography's great, as with all the Potter films. Serra's a great choice. A part of me wishes Terry Gilliam had directed it. If you watch it again, there are a lot of Gilliam-esque elements.

Phil Connolly · December 8, 2010

Cinematography's great, as with all the Potter films. Serra's a great choice. A part of me wishes Terry Gilliam had directed it. If you watch it again, there are a lot of Gilliam-esque elements.

The Brazil references in the ministry of magic sequence were quite fun