After about "Prisoner Of Azkaban" (movie #3), I felt that the movies based on books 4-6 really just didn't do the novels their true justice (especially the "Order of the Phoenix" and "Half-Blood Prince" films). By that point, the books were long past the simpler tales of "Sorcerer's Stone" and "Chamber of Secrets", and as a result they inevitably glossed over so many key parts of the series. Fortunately, the movie producers realized that such an approach just would not work for the magnitude of the final Potter installment, and thus the project was split in half. The best choice that could have possibly been made, IMHO.

For a basic plot summary, "Deathly Hallows 1" sees Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermoine (Emma Watson) searching for Voldemort's (Ralph Fiennes) remaining Horcruxes. While the Ministry of Magic and Hogwarts fall pretty much completely under Death Eater control, the trio learn about the Deathly Hallows and the endgame for Voldemort's master plan begins to take shape.

There is no lag in this film whatsoever. It starts off with a bang and never looks back (just like the book). Yet, it is not just an "action extravaganza" like I perceived "Order of the Phoenix" to be. It is also filled with nuanced character performances, humor, and a sense of gravitas (provided by director David Yates) that makes the whole experience very well-rounded.

Until recently, I really wasn't a fan of the "part one", "part two" concept of filmmaking. However, after seeing the success of this film (and the more recent "Hobbit" trilogy), I now am wondering if perhaps this is the way that books should be parlayed into movies all the time. A film like this allows for many more of J.K. Rowling's little nuances to show up instead of things feeling rushed and glossing over a good many plot points. Had, for example, "Order of the Phoenix" been done this way, I think I would have liked it a great deal more.