Alfonso Cuarón, director of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, had said that he would be "tempted" to return to direct. īefore David Yates was officially chosen to direct the film, others had expressed an interest in the job. Horn it allowed "an extra hour and a half to celebrate what this franchise has been and do justice to all the words and ideas in the amazing story." Heyman described the workings behind the split: " Deathly Hallows is so rich, the story so dense and there is so much that is resolved that, after discussing it with Rowling, we came to the conclusion that two parts were needed." Due to the WGA strike, Kloves was not able to start work on the script until it ended. David Yates, director of Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince returned to direct and Steve Kloves wrote the screenplay.
additionally confirmed that the film would be split into two, to do justice to the book. The idea to split the films had been around since the middle of 2007, but only really came into serious consideration after producer David Heyman was able to talk to writer Steve Kloves when the 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike ended and Heyman had Rowling's approval. Production of the two films occurred concurrently, and treated as if it were one film. The first part was released on November 19, 2010, with the second following in July 2011. Rowling.ĭavid Yates, who directed the preceding two films, directed both parts, with Steve Kloves returning to script. might order up a reboot and do it all again.Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 is the first instalment of a two-part film based on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows by J. I sure hope he gets a good sendoff in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 - or, who knows, Warner Bros. He looks like a flesh reptile and declaims like Captain Hook, if the crocodile had bitten off his nose instead of his hand. Ralph Fiennes' Voldemort provides the scares.
The series is a British-actor tent pole, too. for subsidizing their low-paying stage work. Helena Bonham Carter shakes her fright wig, Brendan Gleeson models his eye patch. The rest of the actors are practically extras: It's like a Royal Shakespeare Company Halloween party. Voldemort's allies are "purebloods" obsessed with rooting out both nonmagical Muggles and mongrel "mudbloods." The film's feel is paranoid and post-apocalyptic, and it's no wonder the central trio's well of affectionate banter has run dry. In common with her fellow Brits Tolkien and Orwell, Rowling is haunted by harbingers of fascism - in this case, race-based fascism.
The Harry Potter Wiki says they're objects "in which a Dark wizard or witch has hidden a fragment of his or her soul for the purpose of attaining immortality." You need to know that, since the whole movie is about the dark wizard Voldemort's nasty hordes chasing Harry and his friends Hermione and Ron as they try to find and destroy various horcruxes.Īnd it's a vivid reminder that for all the enchanted-kingdom imagery of Rowling's first books, her real subject is deadly serious. For instance, I needed a refresher course in "horcruxes." Wander in without having seen another Potter film, and you won't have the faintest idea what's going on. The movie has no satisfying finish - but to be fair, it has no satisfying beginning, either.
I'm surprised they didn't split the second part in two, and the second part of that in two, and on into infinity. Rowling's seventh and last book into two films. got antsy about losing its so-called "tent poles" - multi-part properties that prop up the studio - and decided to split J.K. There's nothing wrong with the two-and-a-half-hour Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 that couldn't be solved if this weren't, in fact, Part 1 - if the saga ended here instead of stopping at the climax and saying, in effect, "See you in 2011, suckers."īut two years ago, Warner Bros.