Directed by: David Yates
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint
Rating: PG-13

Emma Watson and Daniel Radcliffe star in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. (Courtesy photo)

One of the first things I realized when I started writing movie reviews in August was that I would inevitably review the latest installment in the Harry Potter saga. And, luckily for all the fans that flock to theaters in their wizard costumes, this isn't the last segment in the story, since Warner Bros. decided to split the final book of the series into two movies. I am of the camp that views this as a cheap move to bring in a few hundred million extra dollars, but who am I to complain? They're fun movies to watch.

Part 1 of the final episode follows the three main characters as they seek to destroy Lord Voldemort's horcruxes, pieces of his soul contained within items of personal significance. Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson) have no specific plan in mind, but they get lucky a few times and manage to figure out a general path to follow. Besides fighting off Death Eaters and "snatchers" and the overzealous Ministry of Magic, the three must also keep their personal feelings under control, a task which becomes increasingly difficult, given that they are teenagers. Then they learn of the Deathly Hallows, the three items needed for one to be able to cheat death. Their mission shifts focus to finding those items, but as soon as we learn that, we find out that Voldemort is right on their tail. Will they manage to find the Deathly Hallows and defeat the Dark Lord once and for all? Stay tuned for Part 2 to find out!

The movie plays out like some sort of horror-action-suspense hybrid that happens to use magic as its medium. Director David Yates, who directed the previous two Harry Potter movies, has once again created a dark world for these characters to roam. Visually, the movie is immensely pleasing, just as the other movies in the series have had increasingly impressive special effects. However, I feel about Harry Potter the same way I feel about sci-fi thrillers like Avatar: no amount of special effects can forgive a boring or clichéd script. And while Steve Kloves' screenplay, based on J.K. Rowling's novel, isn't bad, it's a rehashing of everything that happened in the book—including details that are less than necessary. Of course, that might be partly due to the decision to expand the book into two movies.

The endless Harry Potter movie experience seems to be taking a toll on the actors, though. How many times will Daniel Radcliffe be forced to stand breathing heavily, his mouth slightly agape and his chest thrust out as he watches something intense happen? How many times will Emma Watson be forced to pout as the others wonder what's bothering her? How many times will Rupert Grint have to say things like "Blimey!" or "Bloody 'ell!" For whatever reason, the acting in the Harry Potter movies has never even been questioned—it's never been overtly lauded, but it's always just been accepted as the vehicle for feeding us magic. They aren't bad actors, generally, although I will say that their handling of sexual tension as they get older can be awkward and embarrassing to watch.

What reviewers and critics and any discerning moviegoers should realize is that, no matter how good or bad the Harry Potter movies are, it won't matter. Even if the movies were terrible—even if the camerawork was crummy, even if viewers left theaters underwhelmed, even if the young actors had become Lindsay Lohan rehab types—there would and always will be millions of people flocking to the theaters, in their costumes and Gryffindor scarves and Slytherin T-shirts. Thankfully, the movies are entertaining, and I expect to see a very similar final movie in July. Just don't give it to me in "mind-blowing" 3D and I'll be happy.

Danny Eisenberg is a 2010 graduate of the Bromfield School and is currently a student at the University of Pennsylvania.