Ella Fitzgerald: Midnight Sun
No Sunday Night Journal this week

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1

I don't suppose anyone who is at all interested needs my encouragement to go see this, but if you're undecided: it's really good. My wife and two of our adult children went to see it last night, and we all liked it, including Clare, who grew up with the books and loved them. I really enjoyed it--more than I did the book, actually, which seemed rather unfocused to me. Perhaps I'll change my view of the book if I ever read it again, which I may not. But I'd go see the movie again right now if it were convenient. It's very well-crafted and as usual well-acted, and quite moving. I'm just sorry that Part 2 isn't coming out till July.


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

WRT the book being unfocused, I know this isn't what you are talking about, but I found it rather distracting to be in the middle of searching for the horcruxes and then having to start worrying about the hallows, too. I liked the way they told the story of the three brothers, though.

There's an article here: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2007/09/harry-potter-and-the-christian

by Mark Shea in which he discusses the way that he thinks Rowling is trying to present Dumbledore in the last two books. It's an interesting theory. Whether or not it's accurate, I don't know.


I saw it this afternoon. It is rather good, but I did think that anybody who hadn't read the book might perhaps have trouble following.

Well, that's funny because I was thinking the opposite, although I have thought that about several of the others. Of course, there's no way that you could understand this movie if you weren't familiar with the others, but I thought that this story was pretty clear.


Not having read the book but having followed the story up to the point that the film starts would perhaps also work. But anybody coming to it cold wouldn't have a clue what was happening.

Oh, well I think it's been that way for the last several, don't you. They just aren't stand-alone films.


I saw the last one, and bits and pieces of several others when they're on the TV. I don't think I've actually sat down and watched any of the first 5 through. So I suppose I don't really think of the films as a series.

I imagine the film-makers decided early on that it would be folly to try to pack enough backstory into each movie to make it intelligible to someone who hadn't seen the previous ones. I think one who had seen all the movies but not read any of the books would do ok--although there would be a lot missing, he would know the essentials. Actually I'm almost in that position because my memory for these books is terrible. I don't know why, but they just don't make the impression on me that they do on other (most?) people. It's been that way since book 1.

Well, that's why we have to watch all the movies every time a new one comes out. Bill read all the books before we watched the movies. I remember the characters and a vague plot outline, but forget many of the events.


Actually, Janet, re your 12:09 comment, that is a good example of the diffuseness. It's like there are suddenly two quests in operation at once. Clare suggested that the 7th book suffered from insufficient editing because Rowling was late delivering it. With the amount of publicity etc. involved, moving the deadline would have been a pretty big deal. I think maybe it had already been moved once?...

I should wait till later to read that article.

Well, I saw it last night and I think this is the best part from out of all Harry Potter series..What do you think ?

It worries me a little when the threads start talking to themselves.


Sometimes we do that when no one else is talking to us.

I'd be interested in learning exactly how blog threads watch movies.

I do agree that it is the best.


The comments to this entry are closed.