Welcome Back, Potter

Reviews of all of the Harry Potter films. Some good, some bad, and don’t forget the mediocre.

Review 1

Harry Potter and the Nodding-Off Viewer

We’re not in front of a green screen right now. At all.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (Columbus, 2001)

Chris Columbus’ “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” is a very boring movie. It recites nearly every step of J.K. Rowling’s novel but fails to convey a spirit of its own, or any spirit at all. Discovering that you’re a wizard should be an exhilarating experience, presumably. But under Columbus’ passive direction, young Harry’s adventures consist of characters taking their mark and spouting line after tedious line of exposition, talking about exciting things that never seem to happen. The film offers no thrills, despite having ample ammunition from Rowling involving a troll attack, a giant chess board with murderous pieces and a perilous Quidditch match that marries rugby, baseball and soccer hundreds of feet above the ground. Everything plays out in a padded and pedestrian manner, as if the storyboarder was told to behave himself or else. To make matters worse, leads Daniel Radcliff, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson rarely seem comfortable with the material except when the script calls for them to make a funny face. They’re either too wooden or they’re shouting their emotions to the rafters. At least the three have a natural chemistry with one another, which I suspect is why they were chosen. The film’s saving grace is probably the supporting cast, including the likes of Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith and Richard Harris. They aren’t given much to do, but they’re better at making the whys and wherefores sound natural. Oh, and the sets are nice. Altogether, this chapter of the Harry Potter saga is stuffy, overlong and shares the same immaturity as its titular hero.

Grade: D

____

Review 2

Harry Potter and the Of Course! Phoenix Tears Have Healing Powers!

I’ll take this tunnel and travel farther up the plot’s ass.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (Columbus, 2002)

Why is this still so boring? Unshackled from the introductions and foundations of the mythology, director Chris Columbus’ second Harry Potter film should be a much lighter, more heedless journey than the previous entry. However, it feels just as lethargic as part one, if not more so. Sure, the kids are a bit better this time around, and the more believable adult characters extend their screen time. The effects and sets are more impressive as well, and they class up the third act when the kids are attacked by hordes of spiders and Harry must face a massive snake in the caverns below Hogwarts. But mostly, everything is just as dull. People stand and talk at each other instead of with one another, explaining magic as if it was a math equation and sucking the wonder out of every moment. Most of the blame must fall on Columbus, who has no idea how to handle an adequate adaptation from writer Steve Kloves other than to have everyone do line readings with pointy hats on. He only improves as a filmmaker when revisiting the Quidditch match, which is more exhilarating than the glorified game of Pong he filmed last time. The five-minute set piece also mercifully leaves the plot behind for a few moments (while still working in service of it), which is more than can be said for the other 2 hours and 30 minutes. These movies need to reassess what made the books so popular in the first place. Something tells me it wasn’t the dry informationals about the history of Slytherin House — but rather the excitement of wondering if, just around the next corner, we’d confront what is slithering.

Grade: D+

____

Review 3

Harry Potter and the Mischief Managed

Don’t play with that. You’ll go blind.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (Cuarón, 2004)

“Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” is an example of great direction elevating requisite material. The movie was written by screenwriter Steve Kloves, the same scribe behind the first two movies. Again, the script is serviceable, and it could make either a fun adventure or a mausoleum of dead-eyed moments, depending on its director. Thankfully, Chris Columbus has been replaced by helmer Alfonso Cuarón, director of the excellent films “Y Tu Mamá También” and “Children of Men.” Under Cuarón’s guidance, the world of Harry Potter is filled with life and charm and odd little moments that make it more convincing than the first two films, despite a more incredulous narrative boasting cloaked reapers, werewolves and time travel. He also imbues the story with boundless energy, even during scenes when characters are obliged to discuss backstory and little else. Watch the scene taking place in a pub in Diagon Alley where Arthur Weasley explains the threat of Sirius Black to Harry. It’s all done in one shot, with Weasley moving Harry behind pillars to shield their conversation from the merriment at a nearby table. Floating pitchers levitate nearby refilling cups, images run rabid on the Daily Prophet newspaper, and in the shadows of the foreground, we see the screaming image of Black on a wanted poster, a face Harry can’t seem to avoid. Look at all Cuarón does with a simple expository scene. Columbus undoubtedly would have shot one actor explaining stuff and the other reacting, and then cut back and forth frantically to keep us from dozing off.

Cuarón fares just as well with the rest of the movie. Not only does he maintain an even pace by injecting momentum into talkier sections, he also gives the film an identity by mining the story for subtext. Cuarón has said he was inspired to make the film after watching Francois Truffaut’s breezy masterpiece “The 400 Blows,” which is about a kid acting out in his struggle to deal with the frustrations of adolescence. “Azkaban” is roughly the same story with more trappings. Appropriately, Cuarón begins the film with a scene showing Harry breaking the rules by testing spells outside of Hogwarts. It’s simple, effective and truthful — what kid sent home for the summer with a wand would be able to resist magicking a pillar of light or two? It’s also overtly sexual (he handles it under the sheets), a theme which builds throughout the rest of the movie. The kids are teenagers now, after all. Why should the franchise be afraid of this kind of honesty? Especially when wands are so phallic.

Most of the scenes are gangbusters, including a sequence where the students learn to defend themselves from a creature that assumes the shape of whatever they fear the most and one where Harry rides a flying beast, a sequence which Cuarón lets play out for several minutes, well, because flying is actually really awesome, despite what Columbus would have you think. The real showstopper, however, is the third act, where the students learn the truth about Black (a bedlam Garry Oldman) and witness a terrific exchange with Snape (Alan Rickman, milking each syllable for perversion and animosity) and Remus Lupin (David Thewlis). Then, they embark on a time travel mission that revisits their earlier adventures, where Cuarón handles the doubled action masterfully and John William’s staccato themes compliment the urgency. The whole sequence builds to a climax of light — a nice payoff for Harry’s fumblings in the first scene and another call to his burgeoning sexuality — as the audience sees the full-bodied Patronus charm for the first time. It is a beautiful moment, both furious and graceful, that proves just how dynamic these movies can be.

I need a cigarette.

Grade: A

____

Review 4

Harry Potter and the Blimey, Did the Most Powerful Dark Wizard Ever Plot His Return While I Was on a Date?

A study hall is no place for people not dating.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Newell, 2005)

“Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” is the first entry in the series to feel distinctly British. This is fitting, as its director, Mike Newell, is the first Englishman at the helm of the franchise. He opts to largely subvert the magic daring-do and instead emphasize the bustling activity of the social scene at Hogwarts, morphing it from a rudimentary school of magic to a chaotic boarding school. The sense of humor is potent this time around, teeming with British slang and dry asides. Social tensions also rise and fall on native grumbles (“You’re a right foul git!”), but this in itself is a bit of comedy too.

There are, incidentally, three or four grandly staged action set pieces, but between these beats one can scarcely tell this is a fantasy. Radcliffe, Grint and Watson have grown into their roles, for better or worse, and their characters seem like real people, if not by the skill of the filmmakers then at least by the passage of time. In Newell’s telling, they seem bored with mastering the uncanny, and instead push and shove and yell and grow their hair out and dread asking fellow students to the dance. While the believability of their adolescence helps ground more fantastical elements (Harry faces off against a fully grown dragon, and guess who wins), the meanderings also rob the film’s plot of some much-needed immediacy. By the end — and it is quite a grave ending — the audience may feel awash in the film’s schizophrenia. It wants to talk, prod and joke, and then dazzle with action while running the gauntlet on the overarching mystery. Finally, it wants its audience to bask in the splendorous horror of the risen Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes, with effeminate gestures and startling mood swings), back from spiritual limbo and really pissed off. The film also kills one of its supporting characters, but since he barely was one, it’s confounding that the movie relies on this as the crux of its emotional payoff. Newell’s shoehorning of a didactic eulogy taints the palate even more. The entire journey feels too rushed and discombobulated, and viewers don’t have time to fathom the implications of any of it until Hermoine, in the final moments of the film, awkwardly asks, “Everything’s going to change now, isn’t it?” Harry replies, “Yes,” blankly, probably while thinking about getting a haircut.

Grade: C

____

Review 5

Harry Potter and the Darkity Darkness

One light bulb; that’s all we’re asking for.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (Yates, 2007)

Those worried that the inconsistent tone of “Goblet of Fire” would bleed over to the rest of the series can put those fears to rest under the blue, grim hues of “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix,” a film determined to prove that the franchise is no longer interested in child’s play. Dark times are ahead for the wizarding world following the return of Voldemort, and the focused direction of David Yates (a resident Brit who helms each chapter henceforth) presses the matter with freaky close-ups of a snarling Ralph Fiennes and washed-out shots of Daniel Radcliffe brooding about. The tone is a little overdone — the students are allowed to laugh only once or twice, and even those moments are used as leverage in Harry’s lame mind battle with Voldemort — but the lugubrious “Phoenix” at least knows what kind of movie it is. It’s also gifted with a more ever-present adversary in Professor Dolores Umbridge, played by a scene-stealing Imelda Staunton. She’s a bright blotch of pink on an otherwise dim canvas, and her sadistic disciplinary methods being the most clear and present danger is a nice bit of counter-programming on the villain front.

Still, this entry of the Potter saga feels dry and mechanical. Yates, known for his stage and television work before the Potter films, tries to mimic Alfonso Cuaron’s generous camera from the third film but fails to capture the auteur’s mojo. Perhaps it’s because Yates was, at the time, still a novice with blockbuster filmmaking, or perhaps the script by Michael Goldenberg doesn’t manage as many energetic movements. This is the only screenplay in the franchise not written by Steve Kloves, and it might be the worst. Goldenberg does a fine job aggregating the book’s overstretched narrative. However, he crams in too many Voldemort fever dreams and unnecessary asides like Hagrid’s giant brother, and relies to an almost embarrassing extent on newspaper headlines and montages to tell his story. He also writes cloying lines like, “We have something Voldemort doesn’t. Something worth fighting for.” The actors impress by making most of these posits feel credible. Radcliffe especially seems to have made great strides, aptly shouldering heavier scenes with the great Gary Oldman. They must know the script isn’t doing them any favors.

The film goes out on a high note with a series of action scenes in the Ministry of Magic, which for some reason is painted jet black before the bad guys take over. Here, the series’ first real wand battles feel frightfully immediate. The air pops and crackles as if infected with rampant electricity, wizards are blasted across rooms, and viewers realize they are a far cry from the impotent spells that began these films. The danger is palpable and the rush is invigorating, even if we’re already satiated from hours of doom and gloom.

Grade: C+

____

Review 6

Harry Potter and the Dirty Pretty Things

A view to a stun.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Yates, 2009)

After proving himself an adequate caretaker of the franchise, Director David Yates comes to “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” with a more interesting vision. While his “Order of the Phoenix” is an average, single-minded fantasy, “Half-Blood Prince” is an expansive, gorgeous epic that incorporates several plot lines with skill and grace. It’s the best film in the series since “Prisoner of Azkaban,” but it’s most akin to “Goblet of Fire” in the way it juggles various tones. In a sense, it’s the film “Goblet” wanted to be, switching genres suddenly without feeling disingenuous and providing a sweeping emotional experience for viewers.

Although the wizarding world is more dangerous than ever, Yates no longer hits the audience over the head with violent jump cuts or malevolent color palettes. He and cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel instead craft a mood reminiscent of a waning afternoon, with prominent greens and browns that characters seem to cling to in the face of coming darkness. The kids by now are used to living under the threat of attack, and their focus has returned to things like homework and the allure of fellow classmates. There’s a lot of snogging this time around and even more come-hithers. Harry seems to embrace his new mantle as the Chosen One, who is prophesied to battle Voldemort to the death. He gleefully boasts once in front of Hermoine, and why shouldn’t he? He’s not fighting Voldemort now, and that cute brunette in the library isn’t going to wait forever. This return to trivialities might not make “Half-Blood Prince” the most exciting chapter of the Potter saga, but it’s a necessary recourse that keeps the ongoing story from drudgery.

Still, danger is closer than they think, with classmate Draco Malfoy (a more well-rounded Tom Felton) tasked to perform a shocking task before year’s end and Professor Severus Snape (fan favorite Alan Rickman) sworn to watch over him. Yates excels at balancing this story with all of the teeny hokum, often using the same shot to show students interacting frivolously and then finding Malfoy, alone in the dark, struggling to divest some potentially fatal burdens. The film also contains some standout flashbacks, shown through the Pensive device as moving ink blots. Here, the most important part of the Potter mythology — the horcrux — is revealed, thankfully, through a stirring discovery rather than a pedantic lecture. Figuring prominently into this storyline is Professor Slughorn, played masterfully by Jim Broadbent as a sycophantic oaf embattled by his own memories. Slughorn is one of the most interesting of Rowling’s supporting characters, and Broadbent’s performance is one of the best of the series.

“Half-Blood Prince” is not a perfect movie. There is an action scene in the second act that, while beautifully shot, contributes nothing to the film. Additionally, Yates still seems to think that awkward is the same thing as funny, a habit he imposed on some cringe-worthy asides in “Order of the Phoenix” as well. The movie also doesn’t reach the exhilarating mysticism of “Prisoner of Azkaban,” but that probably reflects the reality that older teens are awed by breasts rather than enchantments and conjury.

Ultimately, it’s the small details — most of them visual — that make “Half-Blood Prince” such a success. Luna’s Gryffindor lion hat, Harry’s shadow moving down the stairs toward an inconsolable Hermoine, a wand battle at twilight at the base of the behemoth Hogwarts castle. Nicholas Hooper supplements the lush visuals with an especially moving score this time around, which thankfully leaves John Williams’ well-trodden themes behind. There is also more subtext than usual in this entry, most of it of examining post-9/11 paranoia and school violence. Students are searched before entering Hogwarts and silk Death Eaters habitually test the school’s defenses for weaknesses. Even dark wizard-catchers pace back and forth before the candlelit Great Hall, preparing for attacks from beyond the gates but ignorant of the threats already inside. Those shots of children socializing in the foreground while Malfoy stalks the halls behind them are haunting in their authenticity. Sometimes the most potent fantasies are allegories for things too painful to tell outright.

Grade: A-

____

Review 7

Harry Potter and the No Country for Small Kids. Part One.

Why did we waste all that time playing Quidditch at Hogwarts when we should have been running track?

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (Yates, 2010)

The following is my original review that I wrote last November, when HP7.1 was released in theaters.

“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1″ undoubtedly benefits from 10 years’ worth of character work in the six preceding chapters of the series, but it’s a formidable examination of waning youth in its own right.

Yes, the film merely sets up a grander story and ultimately makes little narrative progress before the end credits, but a kind of emotional catharsis develops by “Part I’s” stopping point that indicates our heroes are finally ready to accept an adulthood where their lives are forfeit.

The movie lays down an emotional gauntlet for the three leads (all of whom have developed into refined thespians, despite being inconsistent in earlier entries) while aptly balancing typical adventure tropes. This is a particularly difficult endeavor for director David Yates who must volley frenetic action beats in the first and third acts around a long middle stretch driven entirely by sparse dialogue, radio static and the saddest sunsets you’ve ever seen. The pacing is disjointed, yes, and those who take issue with the second act have the right instincts.

But the film should be this way. For the first time in the series, the narrative literally stops and waits. The youths, free from the guidance of wiser wizards, move the story completely on their own steam. Days and days go by in the film when literally nothing happens unless one of the leads forces an action or conversation — but even then, usually nothing comes of it. It is a frustrating new angle for the franchise, but a necessary one. Harry, Ron and Hermoine must decide who they are before they can decide what they do. Nothing could be more appropriate for a saga about maturity.

Here we find justification for Warner Bros.’ decision to split the final book into two releases, aside from financial incentives. Yates inevitably would have had to reduce this middle portion if “Deathly Hallows” was made into a single three-hour film. Some would say good riddance, but the story would have lost several terrific scenes. Is there a better sequence in the entire series than Ron battling a nebula of black magic imprisoned in a locket, which projects a nude Hermoine taunting his heroic shortcomings against the great Harry Potter? Is there a better montage in this franchise (and there have been many) than the kids wandering through abandoned trailer parks and hiding in barns as silk Death Eaters weave patterns through the sky, scanning the countryside for their prey? Both sequences drastically re-frame the franchise, as does a wonderful and violent animated sequence that charts the legend of the Deathly Hallows.

The nuances in “Deathly Hallows, Part I” may be easy to miss the first time around, but they contain rewards for those who have followed this story from the beginning.

Take for example a scene where Harry wrestles with a massive snake, a sequence which easily could have played like a by-the-numbers monster attack. Although the scene begins in a typical old, dimly lit house, Yates has the fight burst through a wall into a conjoined townhouse where it continues on the floor of a bright, modern, white-walled nursery with an empty crib. These houses are said to be near where Harry’s mother was murdered while he lied in his own crib as an infant. Now we see him years later, on his hands and knees, struggling just a few feet from the crib against the same obstacles. It’s a particularly painful and honest representation of how years and wisdom often can lead us, like our heroes, nowhere at all.

Now, some thoughts after re-watching it:

When I first reviewed HP7.1, I graded the film an A-. However, after viewing it again, I find the first forty minutes or so too erratic to earn a rating equal to the superior “Half-Blood Prince.” True, the film becomes terrific when the kids are on their own in the wilderness. Here, our heroes seem less like plot turnkeys and more like real people, and the film effectively utilizes a near-avante garde presentation unfamiliar to most big-budget movies. However, before the wonderful second act, the film is inconsistent. The unreliable pacing sometimes works, as when the kids take refuge in a coffee shop and swiftly go from discussing their plans to fighting for their lives against two Death Eaters. Yet, the story mostly comes in unwelcome fits and starts, and without a necessary sense of danger. Characters talk about enemies hiding behind every corner, but besides the coffee shop scene, the audience never feels the threat. There is even a sky battle and an attack on a wedding that both come and go so fast that we have no time to sense dread or fear or loss, all of which apparently are felt by Harry. An alarming amount of horrible things seem to be happening off screen, and the characters become wide-eyed when hearing of them. But the loss of a major character in the sky battle or the fall of the Ministry of Magic don’t carry any dramatic weight at the offset. Finally, when the kids escape into the countryside the film stops to breathe, to appreciate their predicament. Here, Yates parses their dialogue and movements, stretching out interactions over an entire desolate winter. Some nights pass silently, but sometimes a branch cracks out past their campsite. Now, we sense the danger. And now we’re on the right track for a conclusion that seems, for the first time, remarkably tangible.

Grade: B+