With the exception of Alfonso Cuaron's elegant third installment, the Harry Potter films have been a mixed affair at best. Character development and entire revelatory subplots are routinely sacrificed for the sake of pace, a fate that most book-to-film adaptations can't seem to avoid. In Potter's case, however, the filmmakers have gone one step further, eliminating key plot points and significantly stripping down the painstaking attention to detail that made author J.K. Rowling's books such a joy to read--which is a shame since, without that same sense of realism, all the talk of wizards, muggles, house-elves and horcruxes can seem a bit silly, really. Thankfully, the man behind this latest installment has more in common with Azkaban's Cuaron than with the series' first director, Christopher Columbus, which means that, despite its flaws, the final product still amounts to more than Home Alone with Magic. In adherence to the series' darkening chain of events, the tone is sufficiently grim, and director David Yates--showing more confidence here than in his previous Potter efforts, Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince--establishes the mounting tension early on. These are, after all, “dark times,” as the audience is informed in the film's opening scene, and, as a result, all the comforts of the previous episodes--a cozy Hogwarts setting, classroom hijinks, and adolescent Yule Ball romances--are largely absent. Although, truth be told, we're all better off without that last one. The main problem with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part One--or HP7 if you're that type of geek--is also what makes it a difficult film to review: With both parts of Deathly Hallows shot back-to-back, this installment doesn't particularly work as a stand-alone film, and it wasn't meant to. It's only half of the story, and the boring half at that. It's an extended cliffhanger to the last climactic showdown that's still, unfortunately, eight months away. So, the real question is, does it leave a strong enough impression that you won't need to refresh your memory for next July's war of the (wizarding) worlds? The answer, sadly, is no. The reason is that, for a film in which not much happens, there's quite a lot to keep track of. Harry, Ron, and Hermione have skipped out on their final year at Hogwarts--now overrun by the new, Nazi-like Ministry of Magic--and have gone on the run in order to locate and destroy the seven Horcruxes--lost items containing shards of Voldermort's soul--that will eventually allow them to vanquish the Dark Lord once and for all. Along the way, they learn of the Deathly Hallows--another set of objects key to their survival. Elder wands, cursed jewelry, stolen swords--it seems there's always something for the young wizards to find and/or destroy. With this amount of macguffinery going on, there's barely any space for the characters to fully exist, or for proper storytelling as opposed to endless exposition--especially frustrating given that those were supposedly the exact reasons behind the producers' decision to split the film into two parts (never mind the fact that two cinematic--and subsequent DVD--releases are sure to bring in roughly double the profit). Unfortunately, even devoted fans might find it hard to stay invested in this film's convoluted storyline, while newcomers to the series will find it completely incoherent, and would probably be better off avoiding it altogether. Which makes sense, given that this is the sixth sequel and penultimate chapter in a decade-old storyline. As a director, Yates's strength is in creating and sustaining an effective sense of tension--even if he tends to rely too heavily on Lord of the Rings-style corruption-via-cursed-accessory dramatics. Overall, there is a genuine sense of dread, equally reflected in the main trio's increasingly pale and bedraggled appearance. However, this is heavily countered by the uneven and, at times, turgid pace. For a film in which so much is supposed to happen, and where a lot of the action feels rushed, it's still brutally slow. The film is at its worst, though, when it deviates from its source material. In a rare reversal, the story's first action sequence actually works better in the book than it does on screen, with director Yates unnecessarily staging the curse-dodging chase scene on a busy highway, complete with Men In Black-style driving-on-the-roof-of-a-tunnel excessiveness. And the less said about the weirdly awkward Harry and Hermione dance scene, the better. (What's the point of having Nick Cave playing from an enchanted piece of glass, when Rowling went to the trouble of creating wizard “rock” bands, mentioned occasionally throughout the series of books?) As usual, the best thing about the Harry Potter films, hands down, is Alan Rickman's consistently brilliant performance as the greasy, indecipherable Severus Snape. Even though his role in this installment is unforgivably relegated to four out of 146 minutes, they still serve as the highlight of the film. A single shot of his silent, steely sneer more than makes up for the sometimes-jarring inadequacies of the younger, and less experienced cast members. Other than the principal trio, a few villains, and the always irritating Dobby, the remaining cast members don't really get much attention, or the opportunity to leave any sort of lasting impression, which is a disappointment since we need to care about them when they start dying in the next film. For some people, it's the journey that counts, not the destination. The final verdict may have to wait until next summer, but for the time being, Deathly Hallows: Part One is one long journey that, towards its end, doesn't feel any closer to its final destination.
