November 19th, 2010
05:21 PM ET
The seventh installment of the “Harry Potter” franchise is one of the most anticipated movies of the decade, and, as predicted, Radcliffe and the gang have racked up quite a few rave reviews.
“You don't make $5.7 billion in theatrical revenue, however, by being cavalier about your source material and the watchword for the ‘Potter’ series in general, and this film in particular, is making the audience feel like it's in safe hands,” Los Angeles Times Film Critic Kenneth Turan writes.
“Sure, there are some rearranging and compressing of scenes and facts, but the two-and-a-half hour runtime for half a book allows screenwriter Steve Kloves and director David Yates the space to faithfully retell a really good story.”
Richard Corliss of Time says, “the ‘Potter’ film adaptations, after a subpar start in late 2001, have grown in richness and power until, in aggregate, they stand close to the summit of multipart movies - more sprawling if less artistically ambitious than ‘The Lord of the Rings,’ more consistently intelligent though less original than the six ‘Star Wars films.’ ”
But not everyone is pleased with “Deathly Hallows – Part 1.” Brian X. Chen of Wired.com writes:
“The latest Harry Potter film is more emo and character-driven than its predecessors, but it didn’t need to be chopped into two movies.”
He adds: “Served on its own, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 isn’t gratifying, and it probably would have been better digested as a three-hour epic.”
Are you seeing “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1” this weekend? Do you think the film needed to be split into two parts?
About this blog
Our daily cheat-sheet for breaking celebrity news, Hollywood buzz and your pop-culture obsessions.