Lots of young people have grown up with Harry Potter, and this winter brought the first part of the final film- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Have you been to see it? If not, then maybe you should leave this lesson until you have, because there might be some spoilers!
Lesson by Caroline Devane
Cram - to fit in as much as possible.
Penultimate - the one before the last.
Erasing - deleting
Decoy- a distraction
Vulnerable - exposed to the possibility of being hurt, emotionally or physically.
Reluctance - not wanting to do something.
Adrenaline - a physical response to fear or excitement.
The end is nigh, but the _1_ Harry Potter adventure is a highly creative and lively affair, if lacking the genuinely scary moments it requires, says David Gritten.
Let it be said straight away that the seventh film in the Harry Potter series, by now a predictably reliable brand, achieves precisely what it sets out to do, laying the groundwork for next year’s final episode in this decade-long franchise.
Even better news is that the shooting style in the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 is more dynamic and visceral than in the past three outings, providing a much-needed jolt of _2_, in the same way the third (and best) Potter film, The Prisoner of Azkaban, stepped up a few gears from its blander predecessors. Directing his third Harry Potter episode, David Yates offers his most creative, thoughtful work to date.
But is it my imagination, or is every one of these films marketed approvingly as darker than those preceding it? Deathly Hallows: Part 1 certainly is, and its first line, spoken by Bill Nighy as the Minister of Magic, confirms as much: “These are dark times, there’s no denying.”
By this, he means the evil Voldemort plans to ambush and kill Harry Potter, and has summoned the Death Eaters to finalise the details. Harry and his pals Hermione and Ron must flee for their lives. Yet in truth, Part 1 is only mildly scary.
Still, its premise makes for a bright start. There’s a striking early scene with Hermione (Emma Watson) waving a wand at her parents, thus _3_. herself from their memories. And Harry’s flight to a safe house is enabled by a _4_scheme involving the mutation of his security detail into six Harry lookalikes – a conceit that becomes amusing when seven Daniel Radcliffes appear on screen.
J.K Rowling’s plot hands the film another gift: it transfers the trio from the stifling environment of Hogwart’s to a bigger, broader world. Watching Harry, Hermione and Ron (Rupert Grint) on Shaftesbury Avenue, in the Dartford Tunnel, on cliff tops and deserted beaches makes them more insecure and _5_, recalling the children they were in the first films.
Screenwriter Steve Kloves seems determined to _6_ in as much detail from Rowling’s works as he can; and while his _7_ to dump subplots and minor characters may appease more zealous readers, it disfigures the film. There’s too much information, yet paradoxically it feels padded out.
And so, the end is near – though not as near as all that. There’s still Part 2 to go, and it seems to be a contractual obligation that all Harry Potter films must run to about 150 minutes – a Hollywood notion of supersizing that equates length with value and quality.
This is a review from the well known U.K. newspaper, The Telegraph. Can you complete the gaps in the article with the correct words?
To read the full review go to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/harry-potter/8143803/Harry-Potter-and-the-Deathly-Hallows-film-review.html
