Big Picture Big Sound

On Hallow'd Ground

Most films have only one "MacGuffin" (the thing the characters are after). You know, like the Maltese Falcon or the lost Ark or the mysterious suitcase in "Pulp Fiction". J.K. Rowling's final Harry Potter book, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows", has no fewer than ten of them. Yes, I know, there was a lot of pressure on Ms. Rowling to complete the story of everyone's favorite boy wizard. But, ten? Sure enough, that final book - while a worthy and appropriately dark finale to the series - gets bogged down in piles of exposition around the titular trio of "Hallows", not to mention the seven Horcruxes (Horcruci?) containing pieces of Voldemort's soul. Likewise the film adaptation, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1", which tackles only the first half of the finale, suffers from similar obstacles.

The Harry Potter films, up until this point, have been a miraculous franchise. The first two, like the books upon which they are based, are children's fare. Appropriately, they were directed by Chris Columbus. But from the third film (2004's "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban") onward, the series - like the books - has become ever more mature, serious and downright dark. The succession of directors has led to David Yates, who has helmed the series since the fifth entry, 2007's "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix". Unthinkably, the writer behind all but "Phoenix" has been the same, Steve Kloves. Once "Deathly Hallows: Part 2" is released, Mr. Kloves deserves a vacation. He has done masterful work; the films are reverent without being precious - and play well on their own terms.

Until now, that is. Like the second installment of "Back to the Future" or "The Matrix", "Hallows Part 1" doesn't stand as its own film. It ends, more or less, with a "To Be Continued..." After the blackout, I all but expected to hear, "On the next Harry Potter...".

The film, like the book, finds Harry, Ron and Hermione in hiding, holed up in various wooded glens, fleeing the "Death Eaters" (Voldemort's evil minions). They are on the trail of the third Horcrux, the locket from the end of the sixth film. Meanwhile, Voldemort is searching for a special wand that might help him destroy Harry. Harry is, understandably, very upset; he feels too many people have died for his safety. Hermione, ever the plucky heroine, is loyal to her friend, but feels her burgeoning relationship with Ron in jeopardy. Ron, for his part, just feels like a third wheel. So, the film is a lot of searching, regrouping, and, frankly, moping about.

Like the book, there is a ton of exposition - told with as much inventiveness as possible (including a fine animated sequence defining the "Hallows"). The one true action sequence is an early, airborne mess of a battle with the Death Eaters which Mr. Yates oddly blunders.

At the center, the actors continue to improve with age, but this time the script lets them down. There's just too much of it - too much returning to the woods, too much introspection, too many tears. Gone is the elegant storytelling of the previous films. Instead, the material has been preserved, almost in its entirety, at the expense of pacing.

As a result, "Hallows Part 1" defies reviewing. For the non-Potterphile, it'll be a tremendous waste of time. For a Potter-fiend, it'll be 146 minutes of pure joy. For those in the middle, look, the Harry Potter franchise is one of the best ever put to film, bar none. That's not an opinion; try finding another series of similar quality, quantity and consistency. The closest you'll come will be "The Lord of the Rings" (though "Toy Story" ranks a close second). If you remember the final forty minutes of the "Rings" odyssey, it consisted of no fewer than six different finales - all punctuated by fade-outs, all possibly their own ending. But we forgave Peter Jackson because, frankly, he'd earned it. So I'll reserve judgment until "Hallows Part 2" is released. And, if history is any indication, the finale of this series should be, well, magical.