Excellent but underrated film

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

The cast can't pass for teenagers anymore (though they've been pushing it for a while now, and to say that's the least believable part of the series is a testament to its stellar world building) so it's lucky that the 'school-kid' aspect of the story is the least prevalent so far, with the action taking place entirely outside of Hogwarts. 'Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)' starts off strong but comes screeching to a halt right after an enthralling sneaky section set inside the ministry of magic, stopping for around an hour with almost nothing happening in terms of plot or character, and it's this section that drags the film down to be perhaps the least successful in the series, tied only with the first. That's not to say its bad, though - far from it. It's just a different beast with a slower pace and something different to offer. 7/10

Said Voldemort to Lucius Malfoy. A very double minded line right there, makes me chuckle everytime. Seriously though, I mean, this seems to be a serious movie, right? It's just so hard to take it seriously, because you don't feel any danger and for that don't really care about the characters either. Deathly Hallows should be the grand finale of Harry Potter saga, but manages mostly to bore you with its endless running sequences that seem go nowhere. Every now and then Harry and co stop on their tracks and speculate things, just because the plot requires so. Even the rivalry between Harry and Ron was written poorly and was not believable, although nice idea.Best aspects of the movie are cinematography and acting, which for the most part is pretty good. Worst is Voldemort, who is also the biggest problem here. He's a jester, not an evil wizard that raises terror. You don't fear him, because his dialogue, manners and whole appearance are silly. He looks like a fragile cancer patient who is asking for blood from his nonexistent nose by acting like an idiot. Why won't someone just punch him in the face and be done with it. He's no Sauron or Lord Sidious or anyone who has intelligence and true might to challenge the world. He just flattens the whole saga and makes Harry's ordeal meaningless.Early scene where Hermione erased her muggle parents' memories of her was quite effective. But I think the magic also affacted me, because it's hard to recollect any other scenes or moments that made an impression. At least Deathly Hallows part 1 is better than part 2, which was horrible and "short" for a Potter movie, just waste of space.

After about "Prisoner Of Azkaban" (movie #3), I felt that the movies based on books 4-6 really just didn't do the novels their true justice (especially the "Order of the Phoenix" and "Half-Blood Prince" films). By that point, the books were long past the simpler tales of "Sorcerer's Stone" and "Chamber of Secrets", and as a result they inevitably glossed over so many key parts of the series. Fortunately, the movie producers realized that such an approach just would not work for the magnitude of the final Potter installment, and thus the project was split in half. The best choice that could have possibly been made, IMHO.For a basic plot summary, "Deathly Hallows 1" sees Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermoine (Emma Watson) searching for Voldemort's (Ralph Fiennes) remaining Horcruxes. While the Ministry of Magic and Hogwarts fall pretty much completely under Death Eater control, the trio learn about the Deathly Hallows and the endgame for Voldemort's master plan begins to take shape.There is no lag in this film whatsoever. It starts off with a bang and never looks back (just like the book). Yet, it is not just an "action extravaganza" like I perceived "Order of the Phoenix" to be. It is also filled with nuanced character performances, humor, and a sense of gravitas (provided by director David Yates) that makes the whole experience very well-rounded.Until recently, I really wasn't a fan of the "part one", "part two" concept of filmmaking. However, after seeing the success of this film (and the more recent "Hobbit" trilogy), I now am wondering if perhaps this is the way that books should be parlayed into movies all the time. A film like this allows for many more of J.K. Rowling's little nuances to show up instead of things feeling rushed and glossing over a good many plot points. Had, for example, "Order of the Phoenix" been done this way, I think I would have liked it a great deal more.

The ending is closer and the movies are worse. Still they are trying to make an action film out of Harry Potter, but what's worse is how the filmmakers clearly don't know what to cut. There is such a long time of... nothing. They do nothing. There's some dialogue but it's not always entirely insightful. And there's the weird dance scene and all that. Yes, those scenes how Harry, Ron and Hermione were on the run for a really long time, but that's really frustrating for the audience. How about you cut that and make this film shorter - or better yet - include some things that were in the books but were barely mentioned in the movie.I also don't like the point where they cut the movie in two. I've checked so many times what is the half point of the book, and I think they should've cut the movie around there - where that chapter ends at least. But I guess they wanted to stuff the Deathly Hallows into this movie. Best part of the whole movie is the Tale of the three brothers. It's visually more stunning than anything we've seen in Harry Potter movies. It's so awesome it seems completely out of place in this movie. It's still of course an interesting piece of lore, and a nice way to take a break from the events in the movie. Everything went downhill after Prisoner of Azkaban. I've been wondering why I don't like Harry Potter so much anymore, but this seems to be the reason. None of the later movies were good.