There's something terribly wrong with the infrastructure of the wizard world, it seems. If memory serves, He Who Must Not Be Named^TM (Lord Voldemort) has been "coming back" since, like, the second installment of the Harry Potter series. Major, well-respected wizards all seem to agree on this; every so often, a person is murdered by HWMNBN^TM; frequently a terrifying skull-shaped cloud will loom in the sky - but the Ministry of Magic and the newspaper are constantly scoffing about how ludicrous the prospect of his return is.

But never mind. As the Harry Potter series progresses, a couple things make themselves evident: 1) Attending Hogwarts is basically a tacit invitation to be mind-f***ed for seven years and 2) Potter author J.K. Rowling had no long-term, cohesive plans for the series. As the series matures and gets crazy dark, I find that I don't care quite as much about J.K. Rowling's amateurish writing. But I wouldn't get caught dead at Hogwarts (unless I was actually murdered by Lord Voldemort).

For those who haven't been following the series, no explanation will suffice for the plot of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1. Having seen all of the films, even I have a hard time following the innumerable intricacies, new complications and dropped plot points that have accumulated over seven films.

As near as I can understand, Lord Voldemort and his merry band of Deatheaters (still funny, no matter how much they try to make it scary!) have overthrown Hogwarts, murdered headmaster and beard-wearer Professor Dumbledore, and are now setting their sights on the Ministry of Magic (the wizarding world's government) and the eventual ethnic cleansing of muggles (non-wizards).

Meanwhile, our heroes, Harry Potter, Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger (Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson, respectively), travel along the countryside under cover of an invisible tent in search of horcruxes, which are magical talismans that have been imbued with little bits of Voldemort's soul. Only after they've found these horcruxes will they be able to defeat the (snort) Deatheaters.

As stupendously ridiculous as all of this is, Deathly Hallows does a nice job of remaining tense, at times frightening, fairly funny and even touching, as it relates to the changing relationships between Harry, Ron and Hermione. No Harry Potter film is ever perfect (such mood swings might go unnoticed in an 800-page book, but onscreen they can be jarring). The sixth installment came the closest to perfection, but Deathly Hallows holds its ground well, and may go down as the second-best movie in the series.

Rupert Grint, Emma Watson and Tom Felton (as Harry's rival, Draco Malfoy, now impressively lanky and imposing) have blossomed over the years into fine, capable actors. Daniel Radcliffe, meanwhile, hasn't quite kept pace. It was quite a gamble to cast these actors at such young ages, not knowing how the passing of time would affect them. As a child, of course Radcliffe was the right choice for Harry Potter. But now, and especially with each new film featuring even more veteran British acting greats, Radcliffe is having a hard time matching up.

You may make these observations while watching Deathly Hallows, but it probably won't detract from your enjoyment of what is a very entertaining film. The silliness and inconsistencies, I think, eventually become part of the fun. You may want to assault a studio executive, though, when that "Part 1" bit rears its ugly head. - Three and a half stars