The book series is one of the most successful of all time, and it helped define a generation. It would only make sense, then, that a film series would follow. Warner Brothers purchased the rights for just over a million dollars and continues to find a gold mine in return.
The first film opened back in the holiday season of 2001, when the stars were only between 11 and 12 years old. They were all newcomers to films, no-names at the time-now they're some of the wealthiest actors in the business and recognized world wide for their roles. The films have seen changes in directors and occasionally writers, and some are miles better than others. Which ones did I think float and which ones sank in my opinion? Read on to find out!
The first movie adaptation brought about a lot of excitement-how would Hogwarts look? Would they get the casting right? For the most part, it didn't disappoint. The three 3 leads (Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint) played their parts well, and the rest of the casting was equally as spot on. The effects were great and Hogwarts turned out to be charming and adventurous.
The problem lied in the writing and Chris Columbus' direction-the screenplay seemed to be word for word from the book, and it felt like there was no real distinction between the book and the movie. As counter-intuitive as it sounds, making a movie that is based on a book the exact same thing can be boring and a waste of a film. Still, it was very exciting to see the series finally come to the big screen.
The 2nd film in the series is already darker, dealing with themes of a shattered soul, lingering evil, and possession. It featured the first frightening "villain", the enormous Basilisk, a gigantic snake that would turn people to stone. Unfortunately, Chris Columbus' direction once again made the film a stale direct copy of the book. Rather than explore the visuals that could come with a secret passageway, a deadly snake, and important flashbacks that gave us our first look at Tom Riddle A.K.A. Lord Voldemort, he tried far too hard to make the film almost exactly like the book. The result was a waste of talent and story. Though it did it's job in telling the next story, it could've been much, much better.
The third book in the series is certainly the one that put the saga on a darker, more mature path. So thank God Alfonso Cuaron took over Chris Columbus' job and actually made the film reflect that! The third movie saw a sharp turn in the look and feel of the series. The whole thing was created in shades of grays and blues, giving it a tense and unease feeling that complimented the story incredibly well. Naturally, irritating hardcore fans cried out "There's no clock tower like that at Hogwarts!" Who gives a s**t?! Finally, I felt engaged in a Harry Potter film that covered everything important but took some good creative liberties with the look and feel. In my mind, POA is the best film of the series.
The film that is generally the most liked amongst fans is also the one that saw the return of Lord Voldermort, taking the series into an even darker direction. It had a lot of things going well for it-the tri-wizard tournament, the introduction of wizards from other schools, and the first real feeling of teenage love and the awkwardness that comes along with it. The casting of Cedric Diggory and Fleur Delacour were well done and only added to the reputation of the casting decisions for the series as a whole. Still, there was a good amount that was cut (I admit, necessarily) that I really enjoyed in the book (such as the Sphinx's riddle and the maze in general). Overall though, the good outweighed the bad.
Alas, the worst book was also the worst movie. Like the book, it involved an angsty Harry who was a bit of a douchebag towards his friends. This actually could've been done well, but there was a lot that was either rushed through entirely too quickly or passed over completely. Hell, they opted to completely skip the Department of Mysteries, which was hands down one of the best (if not the best) parts of the book. Really?! In addition, Sirius Black's death was completely unemotional and fleeting. I'm not sure who thought slow-motion and no sound would be effective, but it wasn't-and actually, it came off in a very goofy way that ruined one of the most emotional moments of the entire series.
The 6th story in the series took the darkest turn yet, following the return of Lord Voldemort and the start of a war between good and evil. Half Blood Prince also featured the death of one of the most important and beloved characters in the series, someone almost every person thought could never die. The film version works well with this, but it also adds a refreshing element that is actually done well-what it's like to be a teenager. The way it portrayed relationships, both romantic and friendships, allowed the characters to be empathized with by those who had experienced the same thing, even if it wasn't in a school of witchcraft and wizardry. Because of this, the film worked as both the next step in a changing saga as well as a sort of "study" of what it's like to be a teenager.
Part I of the final chapter and long epic finally arrived just last week, and the buzz was strong. Deathly Hallows is a Harry Potter that is mostly without Hogwarts, awkward teen relationships, the classic trio getting in trouble, etc. It's a dark look at war and all that comes with it-the schisms, the violence, the loss. Each of the three main leads have grown a lot since the first movie, and as such, have become pretty incredible actors. They've filled the roles so well we can't imagine anyone else in them. You leave the film feeling a little emotionally drained, and hardly able to wait another 8 months to see the grand finale. As a result, you can tell that Harry Potter is not a series for just children-it's an epic saga that's for everyone.
 |
| In Deathly Hallows, things get dark... |
Posts
6 comments:
I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with you on many counts here.
November 23, 2010 at 8:02 AMYou say that Chris Colombus' direction of the first two films made it seem like they were copies of the book and with no originality. Well, I (along with countless others) consider them the best Harry Potter films yet. There wasn't much to experiment with anyways. The length of the books is short, and they kept the movie(which at the time was made with children in mind,who were going crazy over potter) true to the book. Tell me what would you have changed in those two films. The young actors carries the movies with surprising ease, the flow was continuous. The score was undeniably brilliant.
Yes, POA was a change for better, maybe. But I wouldn't change 1 and 2 for anything. They were, in one, simple word, beautiful.
OOtP the movie was definitely the worst of the lot, especially for someone who has never read the books, but the book is definitely NOT the worst. You say that Harry was a douche. Well, I doubt you will ever be able to read good fiction if you want all your protagonists to always behave like a 'good guy'. Read the bloody book again, think about why he was acting like he was, try to put yourself in his position, then you would have an understanding of the character on which you are so casually passing judgement.
In fact, you seem to think that making a sub-plot like teenage romance the major part of the movie(HBP) instead of the actual plot-line, like horcruxes, and Snape, and the half-blood prince itself, was a good thing. It was not. Study of what its like to be a teenager? Dude, at least come up with a good excuse if you're praising the movie. I admit it was good for laughs, and I enjoyed watching it, but considering from story stand-point, the movie sucked big-time.
Finally, your DH pt.1, you haven't actually given your opinion, just written what everybody, including the cast themselves, are talking about in interviews on every other channel.
Do your research, and make good arguments if you are criticizing a movie.
All that apart, if you're still a Harry Potter fan, I hope you enjoyed the ride :)
Well, thanks for commenting haha. The thing that I'm trying to say over this entire retrospective actually covers a lot of your questions/criticisms. My point is that a film series that is adapting a book should not be a carbon copy of the book itself-hence, why I thought the first two could've been much better, and why the 3rd and 6th films were some of the better ones because they included the key points while exploring some other things. Half Blood Prince did mention the horcruxes, etc. as important, did it not?
November 23, 2010 at 10:22 AMIn terms of the first two films, I couldn't agree more that the actors were fantastic and the score brilliant. But again, I felt like I was merely reading the book again instead of watching a movie. And again, you can tell the story and the get important points in there and explore the world itself better. I think The Chamber of Secrets could have been handled visually much much better than the the first. It was darker and more intense in story, yet looked and felt the exact same as the first film.
I'm not sure what you mean by "do your research"...that sounds like a sentence you want to throw out...what research did I have left to do?! And those are plenty good arguments, you just don't seem to agree with them.
Still though, thanks for reading and commenting!
Also, I admit calling Harry a douche in OOTP was a bit hyperbolic. But again, the film didn't handle his angst that well in terms of writing, so those who haven't read the series did kind of see him as that...
November 23, 2010 at 10:26 AMSorry Manish, but Chamber of Secrets had serious flaws made only more evident by its faithful adaptation by Colombus - who had every opportunity to invent and turn it into a good movie, and failed.
November 23, 2010 at 1:51 PMIn general, your problems with Dylan's arguments don't hold much water because you're saying he should forgive things that were bad in the movies because they were just as bad in the books (that is EXACTLY what you just said about Order of the Phoenix). I'm sorry that you hated HBP for glossing over the actual mystery of the Half Blood Prince, but maybe you're the one that needs to revisit the books. Frankly, that particular mystery was ridiculously boring in that book - if you wanted a faithful adaptation of it, you would've gotten an extra hour of loose scenes where characters are just finding and talking about artifacts and books. Riveting for a suspense novel, boring for a film.
I completely agree with manish - the first 2 films were the best of the film franchise, in terms of quality. I frankly don't understand why some are so eager for change in the story when it is on screen. after all it was story of Harry within the books with whom everyone fell in love, and if those books weren't so successful the movies wouldn't have been made!
November 23, 2010 at 10:29 PMa lot of the things altered and excluded by the directors after Columbus may have been subtle enough to be overlooked by them but were by no means unimportant. those changes and exclusions undermined characters' potential and depths. not to mention deflated numerous clever plot points! i understand they obviously don't have time to put in every significant detail - but that does not mean they can change just anything assuming they have an insight into the future of the storyline and characters.
Harry Potter fans, most of them in any case, will always prefer the books over the movies because by distancing the later films from the books they gradually lost the original richness and intricacy of Harry Potter, preferring to 'Hollywoodise' it rather than portray the real magic on the screen.
What it boils down to is that in my mind, the films should at least somewhat put a new spin on the book. If they were the exact same thing, why should I waste $10 to "see" the book when I can sit at home, read it, and picture it in my head?
November 23, 2010 at 11:46 PMThe bottom line is, film is a VISUAL medium and it allows for some liberties. Anything else is basically a waste of time, money, etc.
Post a Comment