Funeral wreaths at the ready, for Harry Potter is bowing out. The record-breaking film series, adapted with a stentorian reverence from the JK Rowling bestsellers, totters towards the exit door at the end of a nine-year, seven-picture marathon, as its total running time nudges 20 hours and its inhabitants age before our eyes. 
 
 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 Production year: 2010 Countries: Rest of the world, UK Cert (UK): 12A Runtime: 146 mins Directors: David Yates Cast: Alan Rickman, Dame Maggie Smith, Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Helena Bonham Carter, Jason Isaacs, Michael Gambon, Ralph Fiennes, Rupert Grint, Tom Felton More on this film 
 
 It's going, going, almost gone, and yet its long goodbye comes in two separate instalments: a prolonged death rattle that begins with tonight's London premiere of part one, and won't conclude until the release of part two in July 2011. Only then can the wake begin. 
 
 "How can they tell?" quipped Dorothy Parker when told of the death of Calvin Coolidge, and it's tempting to ask a similar question about this, the boy wizard's last hurrah. It's not so much that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows feels at times largely indistinguishable from the six outings preceding it, nor even that part one offers so little in the way of resolution(part two will surely take care of that). It's simply that it's hard to mourn the demise of a franchise that was never more than half-alive to begin with. 
 
 Does it move; does it breathe? Were it not for the fact that the world has watched Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint grow up on screen, we might as well have spent the past decade locked up inside a waxwork museum.Part one sees Harry (Radcliffe) attempting to variously evade and defeat the dark lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes): the same mission as it ever was. The big difference this time around is that Hogwarts is now a memory and the school's absence forces our three young castaways to pursue their quest against a Wagnerian backdrop of damp forests and windswept coastlines. 
 
 This, it transpires, proves too onerous a task for Ron (Grint), who wimps out for a time and leaves Harry and Hermione (Watson) to go it alone. They cling to each other for comfort as the sexual tension sparks and gutters between them, much as it did for Frodo and Sam on the road to Mordor. Sometimes an illuminated deer will trot over to show them something important. 
 
 On other occasions, Hermione will pluck an arcane connection from some forgotten bit of wizarding lore, prompting Harry to widen his eyes and claim that she's brilliant. In this way the plot shunts ever onward in search of closure. 
 
 Deathly Hallows looks great, in the way that a show home looks great. Director David Yates has arranged the furniture to perfection. He has laid on the fireworks (I particularly liked The Tale of the Three Brothers, rendered as a shadow-play) and filled the interior with a rich array of celebrity guests, so that the likes of Bill Nighy, Rhys Ifans, Imelda Staunton and Helena Bonham Carter flit between the scenes with the satisfied air of jobbing actors who have been offered walk on roles at the world's most expensive fancy dress ball. 
 
 Elsewhere, purists may like to note that Ron gets to perform his signature move of scuttling backwards on his hands and heels while simultaneously gawping at some off-screen monster. Practice, after all, makes perfect and he's been doing this a while. 
 
 How will it end and what comes next? There's no doubt the Potter spin-offs have been a reliable cash dispenser for Warner Bros, and no denying that they are deeply loved by the legions of fans that flock to see them. What remains to be seen is how they fare once the final credits roll; how they will stand up 10, 20 or 30 years down the line. Try as I might, I can't shake the suspicion that these films are too obviously built for purpose and too lacking in wit, warmth and humanity to survive much beyond the moment. 
 
 So farewell Harry Potter, the literary marvel who became a closed book at the movies. You endured and you prospered. You took up space and leave no trace. After all this time and all these films, it is as though we never really knew you at all. ||||| For those keeping track of such things, yes, Harry Potter sports chin stubble in "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1." Also, Ron Weasley is far more broad in the shoulders than many will remember, and Hermione Granger more willowy than the wee know-it-all we met six films ago in "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." 
 
 But those quaint details that have been cataloged with a near-religious fervor with each successive "Harry Potter" film during the past nine years -- first spell, first kiss, first showdown with the evil Lord You-Know-Who -- hardly seem significant anymore. Harry and his pals have left all of that, and all such schoolkid concerns, behind. 
 
 In fact, they even have left Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry behind. The soaring arches and grand staircases of their enchanted academy don't make so much as a cameo appearance in "Deathly Hallows." 
 
 It's all been traded for darker, deadlier concerns, and a darker, deadlier tone that matches the ominous title of this, the engrossing penultimate adventure in the frenzy-creating, record-setting wizarding series based on J.K. Rowling's books. In fact, this intense and emotional chapter -- part thrill ride, part pensive allegory on the pains of growing up -- might be the darkest yet. 
 
 It certainly is the most epic, in both look and feel, and -- though not flawless -- the best of the franchise to date, a satisfying, appetite-whetting setup for the series finale, set to open in theaters on July 15. 
 
 "Can we start the countdown to July now?" a teenage fan asked her friend as the closing credits rolled after an advance screening Monday night at the AMC Palace 20 Elmwood. 
 
 After indulging in the obligatory, heart-happy first few bars of John Williams' now-iconic "Hedwig's Theme" -- a snatch of music that stands to be among the franchise's most lasting legacies -- things get sinister quickly in "Deathly Hallows." In the first 10 minutes alone, there are growled threats, there is torture, there is murder. There is consumption by a giant snake. 
 
 Anyone following along since 2001's "Sorcerer's Stone" won't be terribly surprised by that tonal shift. The series has gotten darker and darker ever since Alfonso Cuaron's third chapter, "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban," as young Harry has moved inexorably toward the ultimate showdown with his Nazi-like nemesis, Lord Voldemort. 
 
 And anyone not following along since then? Well, chances are they're going to feel a bit lost in the woods for much of "Deathly Hallows." First, many of the multitude of characters crammed into the films, populated by what seems like every British actor alive, will feel like mere sketches to the uninitiated. What's more, the now-intricate plot will seem muddled as well. 
 
 The quick synopsis: After six years of learning the fine points of magic at Hogwarts -- and six years of escaping murderous plots of the determined, power-hungry Voldemort -- Harry and his good-wizard allies have decided to go on the offensive. 
 
 To get rid of him -- and his wizard-supremacist plans for world domination -- once and for all, they must find and destroy six enchanted objects, each of which contains a portion of Voldemort's dark, hate-filled soul. Naturally, that's way easier said than done. It's so hard, in fact, that they need two movies to accomplish the task. 
 
 Though there are stretches (one in particular, right smack in the middle) where director David Yates allows his film to become weighted down, and slowed down, by its own sense of self-importance, it mostly is well-crafted stuff, built on expert visual effects and art direction -- a hallmark of the series -- and accompanied by gorgeous cinematography. 
 
 In fact, Yates probably is the best thing to happen to the franchise since Chris Columbus established its stunning visual vocabulary in 2001. With "Deathly Hallows: Part 1," his third time at the helm, Yates becomes the longest-tenured director in the series. (Columbus directed two episodes. Cuaron and "Goblet of Fire" helmer Mike Newell did the honors once each.) That continuity of vision has paid off, as the franchise steadily has escalated in quality and depth with each chapter since Yates' inaugural outing in 2007's "Order of the Phoenix." 
 
 Maybe the best thing that can be said about "Deathly Hallows: Part 1" is that although it's one of those dreaded "to-be-continued" movies -- one that ends with a cliffhanger -- it won't leave audiences feeling cheated. Rather it totally satisfies, while also leaving fans eager for "Part 2." 
 
 Now, that is some pretty powerful magic. 
 
 ______________ 
 
 HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 1 
 
 3.5 stars, out of 4 
 
 Snapshot: The seventh film in the fantasy franchise -- the first of two films based on the last book in J.K. Rowling's wizarding series -- sees Harry and friends on a quest to destroy a collection of far-flung enchanted objects and, in so doing, defeat the evil Lord Voldemort once and for all. 
 
 What works: Boasting a rich look and an engrossing storyline, it's the rare "to-be-continued" film that doesn't leave its audience feeling cheated. 
 
 What doesn't: The movie gets bogged down by its own sense of self-importance about midway through. Also, those uninitiated with the story to this point will have a difficult time parachuting in without a visit to Blockbuster or Wikipedia. 
 
 Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Ralph Fiennes, Bonnie Wright, Alan Rickman, Helena Bonham Carter, Tom Felton, Timothy Spall. Director: David Yates. Rating: PG-13, for some sequences of intense action violence, frightening images and brief sensuality. Running time: 2 hours 26 minutes. Where: See movie listings. 
 
 Movie trailer: 'Harry Potter and the Deatly Hallows: Part 1'
– American audiences have to wait another week, but the second-last installment of the Harry Potter movies premiered in London tonight. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I sets up the grand finale, which isn't out until July 2011. Not that reviews will mean a whit to devoted fans, but two early ones out of Britain are of the love-it/hate it variety: It's the "scariest" Potter film by far, writes Anita Singh in the Telegraph. "This is also the installment that takes us deepest into the emotions of the central trio" and includes "scenes of real poignancy." Details like self-filling champagne flutes are a "delight" as usual, and the special effects are "terrific." She can't wait for next July. Xan Brooks in the Guardian is not a fan. Yeah, "it looks great, in the way that a show home looks great," he writes. But it lacks soul. "It's not so much that (it) feels at times largely indistinguishable from the six outings preceding it, nor even that part one offers so little in the way of resolution. It's simply that it's hard to mourn the demise of a franchise that was never more than half-alive to begin with." The Potter films won't stand the test of time because they "are too obviously built for purpose and too lacking in wit, warmth and humanity to survive much beyond the moment."