“Harry Potter” Films
January 15, 2012 10 Comments
Here I will argue that the first two Harry Potter movies were the best ones in the series in many ways; they were the most faithful to J.K. Rowling’s original stories, the cast choices could not have been any better there; and the movies had very logical and structured narratives. All these things are barely touched upon in later Harry Potter movies.
‘Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone’
‘Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone’ hit cinemas in 2001 and became a blockbuster virtually overnight. The movie is a great adaptation of the first Harry Potter book. The film stays true to the book, and the cast choice is simply perfect. Specifically, Richard Harris, playing Albus Dumbledore, is a true likeness of the great wizard. Harris passed away shortly after the U.S. premiere of the second Harry Potter movie, and his replacement, Michael Gambon, is a far cry from the true Albus Dumbledore. It undoubtedly helped that Chris Columbus (‘Home Alone’ (1990)), the director, repeatedly checked with Rowling minor details of the story and the setting, so that the film was indeed perfect. This practice should have been followed in later movies as well. Todd McCarthy compared this film to ‘Gone with the Wind’ (1939), saying that ‘The script is faithful, the actors are just right, the sets, costumes, make-up and effects match and sometimes exceed anything one could imagine.’ I could not agree more with this statement. Only insignificant and minor events and characters, such as Peeves, the poltergeist, were deleted during the film editing process. In that vein, and taking account of the film’s amazing soundtrack, ‘Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone’ becomes a flawless piece of cinematography, and surely, one of the best Rowling’s book adaptations.
‘Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets’
‘Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets’ (2002) was also directed by Chris Columbus. Like the first movie, this second one is also very faithful to the book and has seemingly perfect cast. Although both Jude Law and Hugh Grant were considered to play Gilderoy Lockhart, it is a relief that Kenneth Branagh landed the role, because he is so good in it. It is unsettling to see Frank Dillane playing young Tom Riddle in ‘Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince’. He is nothing like young Tom Riddle, who Rowling portrays to be a tall, “very handsome”, “charming”, “likeable” and “persuasive” young man. By far the best young Tom Riddle is in ‘Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets’. Christian Coulson landed the role even though he was 23 at the time of the audition instead of the desired age 15-17. Christian Coulson is so great in this role and fits the image of young Tom Riddle so perfectly that he should have definitely remained to play young Tom Riddle in later films (or at the least, it should have been someone resembling him).
‘Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban’
‘Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban’ (2004) is worse than the previous two Harry Potter films in a number of respects. Here, we have a different director – Alfonso Cuaron (Y Tu Mama Tambien (2001)). Although the film could not have stayed much faithful to the story because of the third book’s length (it is longer than the two previous books), the film still faults in a way it represents the Harry Potter world. The important details are missed, and most scenes appear very rushed aka quantity over quality approach employed (though the portrayal of the Divination classes are exemplary and the use of humour is great). Although Gary Oldman and David Thewlis are brilliant in their respective roles of Sirius Black and Remus Lupin, Michael Gambon as Albus Dumbledore is a disappointment, as is the depiction of a Dementor.
‘Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire’
I consider the fourth Harry Potter movie ‘Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire’ (2005) to be the worst in the series. The film is a total disaster. Directed by Mike Newell (‘Four Weddings and a Funeral’ (1994), ‘Mona Lisa Smile’ (2003)), this fourth Harry Potter film irreversibly spoilt the most exciting of Rowling’s stories. Although the book includes lengthy, interesting and exciting depictions of the Quidditch World Cup and the Triwizard Tournament, the film hardly makes any decent attempt to portray either of these two events as they so deserve. The fourth book was the longest so far in the series, and there were time constraints employed, but even so if the production team did not see a problem in splitting the seventh book into the two different movie, I do not see any reason why it should have been a problem here. In fact, splitting the fourth Harry Potter book and making a two-part movie seems to be the most natural course of action. In that way, the movie would have stayed true to the story, and not modify a substantial part of the book’s content, and delete half of other, to make a viable plot. In fact, watching the forth movie is like watching a different version of the Harry Potter story, written, not by J.K. Rowling, but by a completely different person. In that vein, few real fans of the Harry Potter books could really appreciate this forth film.
Apart from the original cast, as well as Alastair Moody and Rita Skitter, the casting choice leaves much to be desires in ‘Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire’, and the biggest problem is Victor Krum and Fleur Delacour combined. In the book both give impression to be “handsome” and successful young people, and yet they are not really so in the movie: film’s Fleur Delacour is pretty enough (although the book presents her to be of a divine beauty and grace), but appears unconfident, and film’s Victor Krum will not be signing up as a male model any time soon. My only explanation for such a cast is that the producers did not want to “overshadow” the main cast, especially Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) and Cho Chang (Katie Leung), and to a lesser extent Ginny Weasley (Bonnie Wright).
‘Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix’
The fifth Harry Potter film titled ‘Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix’ (2007) was much better than the fourth movie, but maybe largely because the director had changed yet again. This time it was David Yates. As the IMDB states, David Yates initially shot a three hour-film and then had to cut out many bits because the film was forty five minutes-too long. In that way, maybe it would have been a better decision to make a two parts-movie, then to intentionally spoil the narrative of such an interesting and engaging story. This Harry Potter film is notable for not portraying Quidditch at all, and this is a real shame. On a positive side, however, one of the movie’s highlights is Imelda Staunton in the role of Dolores Umbridge, who gives an excellent performance.
‘Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince’
This forth Harry Potter film was also directed by David Yates. Overall, the film is good, but not flawless. One major criticism here is that the colour of the film is too dark. The film is not a colourful pallet and maybe this largely resonates with Voldermort’s return to power. The choice of the cast also remains poor: Albus Dumbledore, young Tom Riddle, Ginny Weasley, to name just a few.
‘Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I &II’
The answer why ‘Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part I & II’ (2010/11) are so good, and are considered by many to be the best in the series is not because the movies had superior special effects, but because the producers, for the first time here, had the time to tell the story as it unfolds in the book. Both parts do not rush it, and dwell on characters’ emotional states and thought processes, as well as incorporate sporadic sit-com bits. As the producers had plenty of screen time to play with, the film’s script stays faithful to the book. However, the last two Harry Potter films still suffer from the same problems plaguing previous movies, including the casting and focusing on the “wrong” episodes and details in the book. Helena Bonham Carter is overly enthusiastic in her role of Bellatrix Lestrange, making the latter appear too dramatic to the point of ridiculous, and Bonnie Wright’s Ginny Weasley is unlikely to win any beauty contests soon even though the book’s Ginny is portrayed as very beautiful.
Overall, it is only too clear that ‘Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone’ and ‘Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets’ were the only Harry Potter films that truly conveyed the spirit and atmosphere of the Harry Potter world, staying very faithful to the original stories. Both films managed to depict Hogwarts’s daily activities, and all the magical atmosphere, with an uncanny precision. Unlike other movies in the series, in the first two films, Hogwarts became almost a film character, having its own unique personality. Even taking into account time constraints when producing later films, it cannot be denied that the first two films were “just right” and “spot-on” regarding everything, from cast choices, setting and music to adaptation of great many details mentioned in the novels. Sadly, this exemplary work was not repeated in relation to the later films, which can only now brag about their use of special effects and action sequences.