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
