Image by Manuel Schäfer from Pixabay In recent history, kids growing up have had different movie franchises serve as tentpoles for their coming of age. My dad’s generation, for example, saw the original Star Wars trilogy in theaters. Younger generations these days have watched the plethora of superhero flicks (notably the Marvel Cinematic Universe) from childhood to adolescence and young adulthood. But it’s rare that a select generational subset can point to a movie franchise that grew up with them.
For people around my age, that franchise is none other than the Harry Potter series. While I don’t consider myself a rabid fan like so many out there, I remember reading J.K. Rowling’s “Harry Potter” books pretty quickly from one to the next. Furthermore, I have distinct memories of seeing several of the Harry Potter movies in theaters with friends and family. And I was thoroughly overjoyed visiting the Wizarding World theme part at Universal Studios while on a high school band trip. It's been more than a decade since the epic story of Harry Potter’s hero’s journey and Voldemort’s rise to power concluded, yet the series continues to have an impact on popular culture. Whether it’s the highly-popular “Cursed Child” stage play or the financially successful Fantastic Beasts series of films continuing with a third entry in a couple of weeks (with two more supposedly on the way ☹), I don’t think peoples’ love for Harry Potter has completely waned. And perhaps it never will. What better time to rewatch and look back at the fourth-highest-grossing film series of all time? So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED! Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (2001) For a summary of the production and release of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, click here. Whenever I decide to go through the entire Harry Potter series again, I am perhaps most excited to see the first film more than any of the sequels. While there may be several reasons for this, I think the primary explanation for it is because Sorcerer’s Stone (faults and all) remains one of the best beginnings to any cinematic saga. Despite being over twenty years since its debut in 2001, it generally holds up due to its incredible strengths outweighing its notable weaknesses. What I think is the main factor in Sorcerer’s Stone retaining a timeless quality over these past couple of decades is how gracefully it introduces the audience to a fantastical world of magic through the youthful and endearing eyes of its eponymous protagonist Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe). By making Harry’s foundations in life up to age eleven rooted in the “muggle” world, Rowling and Chris Columbus (Adventures in Babysitting, Home Alone)—the filmmaker that brought the first two entries in the series to the big screen—seamlessly and effortlessly make him an incredibly empathetic character. And then you throw in his tragic orphan backstory and cruel, abusive treatment at the hands of his obese uncle Vernon (Richard Griffiths), sharp-tongued aunt Petunia (Fiona Shaw), and spoiled brat cousin Dudley (Harry Melling). Put together, this introduction to Harry makes for such a skilled and sensitive onset for bringing the audience out of our reality and into the world of Hogwarts and the magical society surrounding it. But following Harry alone would only make Sorcerer’s Stone a good movie. No coming-of-age story can ascend to greatness without having key supporting contemporaries to bounce off the main character. In this respect, Columbus and the team behind the movie gave us one of the most memorable trios in modern cinematic history with Harry and his two best friends: the fiercely loyal but cocky redhead Ronald Weasley (Rupert Grint), and the intelligent, charming young woman Hermione Granger (Emma Watson). These three characters’ distinct personalities, strengths, flaws, and worldviews balance each other out to the point that their relative lack of acting experience highly evident in this first film is made largely moot thanks to the chemistry amongst them. If it was only the child actors, however, Sorcerer’s Stone probably would not be as good as it is. Thus, several of the accomplished adult actors superbly elevate Radcliffe, Grint, Watson, and the other kids’ performances whenever sharing the screen with them. On this rewatch, I particularly enjoyed the moments with professors Albus Dumbledore (Richard Harris) and Minerva McGonagall (Maggie Smith) accosting and mentoring our three heroes. But I always appreciate and admire Robbie Coltrane as Hogwarts’ gentle, half-giant gamekeeper being Harry’s bridge into the world of magic (especially poignant considering he’s the one who safely brought Harry from Godric’s Hallow to Little Whinging on the night of his parents’ deaths). And, of course, Alan Rickman shines throughout the series as the mysterious and morally ambiguous potions instructor Severus Snape. In addition to the people in front of the camera, Columbus and the creative team behind the camera obviously left everything on the table when it comes to building out the wizarding world. From the costumes, sets and props to weaving in so much world building (like Quidditch and the Stone itself) into the narrative without overwhelming the audience, Sorcerer’s Stone does a pretty solid job of working both as a movie in its own right as well as the inception of a multi-movie franchise. Do certain story moments feel weighed down too much by exposition? Definitely. Is the villain reveal involving Professor Quirrell (Ian Hart) pale in comparison to most of the sequels? For sure. All that being said, Sorcerer’s Stone never disappoints in making me fall in love with the world of Harry Potter every time I watch it. I grin seeing Harry and Hagrid walk into Diagon Alley together, and I’m hooked when Harry falls off his broom when swallowing the Golden Snitch during his first game of Quidditch. But, at the end of the day, it’s the character dynamics (particularly among the central trio) that make this movie both a tentpole of my childhood nostalgia as well as a genuinely great fantasy flick. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002) When it comes to examining the early years of the Harry Potter series, I think that Chamber of Secrets unfairly gets a bad rap when compared to its predecessor. So, I want to look back on this movie by highlighting what (in my humble opinion) it actually does better than Sorcerer’s Stone while also acknowledging what ultimately makes it a less enjoyable film. On rewatch, I was reminded of how much more compelling the central mystery in Chamber of Secrets is than everything going on with Snape, Quirrell and Dumbledore in Sorcerer’s Stone. Even watching these movies as a kid, it was pretty obvious to me that Snape wasn’t evil and that Harry, Ron, and Hermione were way out of their league in trying to snatch the Stone for themselves. Conversely, the way in which Rowling’s narrative and Columbus’s direction unravels the true nature of the Chamber of Secrets feels like a more mature approach to this kind of storytelling. On that note, the film’s narrative delving more deeply into the history of Hogwarts and the broader implications regarding the magical community (i.e. Salazar Slytherin’s hatred of “mudbloods” foreshadowing Voldemort’s war against muggle-borns) kept up the stakes of world building that Sorcerer’s Stone established so expertly. In contrast to the somewhat underwhelming reveal of Quirrell’s dual identity in the previous film, the use of Tom Riddle’s (Christian Coulson) tainted diary as both the tool manipulating Ginny Weasley (Bonnie Wright) to petrify the muggle-born students of Hogwarts and the window into parts of Voldemort’s past felt more authentic in a world filled with magical artifacts. In this respect, I think this is the most inventive use of Voldemort as the villain without actually seeing his contemporary form in the flesh from the fourth movie onwards. Furthermore, Chamber of Secrets shines as an example of how much CGI and special effects can improve only a year off the heels of the movie that came before it. Notably, the Quidditch match involving Harry and his blonde-haired rival Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) looks and moves far better than the game featured in Sorcerer’s Stone. Also, Harry’s confrontation with the Basilisk in the Chamber itself held up surprisingly well and was—dare I say it—a more tense and compelling climax than Harry facing off with Quirrell in the first movie. And, without question, the best addition to the cast was Jason Isaacs as Draco’s malevolent, scheming father (and secret Death Eater) Lucius Malfoy. Not only was his role in the plot incredibly satisfying, but his scenes with Harry that bookend the movie remain some of my personal favorite character-focused scenes involving a hero and villain. Sounds like I really enjoy Chamber of Secrets, doesn’t it? To be clear, I do. In fact, I like all of the Harry Potter movies to varying degrees. And, for the most part, the differences in quality from one movie to another are largely miniscule enough so as to be negligible. Still, I do want to justify my ranking at the end of this blog with some reasons why (in my humble opinion) Sorcerer’s Stone is ultimately the stronger of the first two films in the series. The biggest thing working against Chamber of Secrets as a whole is the bloated runtime. At two hours and 41 minutes, it just feels overly long for no good reason. Upon rewatching it, there are undeniably multiple scenes that could’ve been shortened up (if not cut entirely) like some of the stuff with Gilderoy Lockhart (Kenneth Branagh) or Moaning Myrtle (Shirley Henderson). But I could forgive this if not for the utterly disappointing lack of Hermione for most of the film’s second half. I get why Hermione being petrified is needed to raise the stakes going into the third act, but I just think watching only Harry and Ron work together without Emma Watson’s presence highlights just how much all three of them need to be intimately involved in the story to keep the narrative strong and enticing versus just mildly interesting. While I said earlier that I appreciated the unique take on Voldemort’s role as the villain in Chamber of Secrets, I do admit that making Voldemort the villain once again feels repetitive and somewhat unnecessary. Especially considering his increased presence in future installments of the series, we probably didn’t need a teenage Voldemort working behind the scenes this much at this point in the overarching narrative. Finally, while I appreciate the distinct look and feel of these first two films, I do think that Columbus’s storytelling sensibilities are not as adept at balancing a darker and more mature tone with the silliness and corniness inherent to several scenes and moments in Chamber of Secrets. All in all, Sorcerer’s Stone benefits from its many strengths overcoming its flaws. Unfortunately, the reverse is true when it comes to Chamber of Secrets. While it’s certainly not a bad second movie in the series, it does not hold up as well as its predecessor and doesn’t hold a candle to many of the sequels to come. But again, I like all of these movies…I just happen to like Sorcerer’s Stone more than Chamber of Secrets. 😊 Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) When fans of Harry Potter reflect on when the series really started embracing its young adult audience and shifting away from an older kid audience, they often bring up Prisoner of Azkaban. Chris Columbus will forever deserve credit for jumpstarting the franchise, but Alfonso Cuarón (Children of Men, Gravity, Roma) took over directing duties and very clearly intended to age up the series to match our wizarding trio becoming full-blown adolescents and the increasingly dark, sinister tone of Rowling’s source material. In doing so, he made one of my personal favorite films in the franchise as well as one of the best. In my humble opinion, the main source of my great admiration of Prisoner of Azkaban is how it crafts a compelling mystery and scary narrative without ever involving Voldemort intimately in the plot. Instead, it is the specter of Sirius Black (Gary Oldman), who supposedly played a key role in Voldemort’s murder of Harry’s parents, and the increasing dangers posed by Sirius tracking Harry down to finish what Voldemort started. With this threat looming over Hogwarts during his third year, Harry finally receives some guidance and care from an actually competent Defense Against the Dark Arts professor Remus Lupin (David Thewlis). Not only do we see a genuine friendship bloom between this mentor and his student, but it adds tension and thematic nuance to the critical second-act reveal at the Shrieking Shack about the true nature of Black’s past connection to Harry and his parents’ deaths. Before I get to that, however, I want to briefly shine a spotlight on some of my favorite elements of world building in the Harry Potter franchise: the Dementors. Before Sirius Black supposedly becomes a genuine threat to Harry by infiltrating Hogwarts, he must face down his fear of these soulless, floating, demon-like creatures cloaked in black whose sole purpose for existence is to steal peoples’ happy memories from them. Without question, the Dementors not only effectively push Prisoner of Azkaban towards the line of being straight-up horror but also have gone down as one of the most terrifying magical creatures of Rowling’s universe. On a lighter note, I always enjoy the introduction of Buckbeak the hippogriff. On the one hand, the CGI involved in creating this elegant and proud creature holds up to this day (especially when compared to some of the more questionable special effects in later entries of the series). Also, the bond he establishes with Harry leading up to pretty important moments in the movie’s overall plot is another great reminder of how (mostly) tight this story and Cuarón’s cinematic adaptation of it truly is. Of course, the first half of Prisoner of Azkaban is very good. But once the truth about Sirius Black is revealed, it becomes truly great. Cuarón pulls off such incredibly staging in the Shrieking Shack scene to ramp up the tension between Harry, Sirius, Lupin, and Peter Pettigrew (Timothy Spall)—the actual betrayer of the Potters still devoted to Lord Voldemort—to keep the audience questioning the legitimacy of what Lupin and Sirius are saying until Pettigrew himself admits it upon returning to human form. From here on out, Prisoner of Azkaban continues to amp up the stakes by flipping everything we thought we knew on its head. Whereas before the narrative was about Harry avoiding being found by Sirius, now it becomes about saving him from wrongful execution. Thanks to the time-travel plot thread involving Hermione and Harry using a Time Turner to spare more than one life, the audience is able to experience the second act of the film with that new emotional context. All of this great moviemaking comes together during the climactic face-off between Harry and the Dementors who are trying to kill Sirius and Harry’s past self. His training with Lupin both in the Patronus Charm and in overcoming his fears builds to this moment when Hermione convinces him that his dead father will not suddenly show up and save everyone. Instead, Harry has an epiphany: he is a powerful wizard, and he must be the one to save his godfather and himself. Just thinking about this scene gives me chills, and (in my humble opinion) is the culminating of Harry’s first fantastic character arc in one of these movies. Before, he succeeded in defeating Quirrell and Tom Riddle’s memory based largely on luck and lots of outside help. But here, he’s able to channel what he’s learned from three years in the wizarding world and show everyone (most importantly himself) what he is capable of. To be fair, there is some clunkiness in the editing of these time-travel scenes that upon a rewatch I wish Cuarón and his creative team could’ve cleaned up. Furthermore, I do wish we had a little more Dumbledore (now being played by Michael Gambon) to make his reinterpretation in the series more acceptable at face value. But these are minor criticisms at the end of the day; Prisoner of Azkaban will always be one of my favorite Harry Potter movies, and I’d be surprised if most fans of the franchise didn’t agree. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005) Part of me wishes that Alfonso Cuarón stuck around to direct the follow-up to Prisoner of Azkaban. But I’m grateful that he gave us one film in the series, and I’m just as grateful that Mike Newell (Four Weddings and a Funeral, Donnie Brasco) managed to craft a sequel that, in more ways than one, supersedes its predecessor as one of my other favorite films in the franchise. Maybe that’s controversial to say, but on this rewatch Goblet of Fire just hit me a little harder than it has before. Let me explain why. Similar to the challenges that Cuarón faced in maturing the characters and world of Harry Potter while also managing a complex narrative with plot twists and time travel, Newell looked down no less daunting obstacles in adapting Goblet of Fire for the big screen. First off, you have the challenge of weaving the subplot of Voldemort’s resurrection in the flesh into the main story involving the Triwizard Tournament at Hogwarts without the former distracting from the latter nor the latter overshadowing the former. Somehow, Newell’s direction in tandem with the cast and crew somehow pulls this off. He effectively balances the lighter comedic tone of the teen-centric scenes surrounding the Yule Ball, the action-heavy drama of the Triwizard challenges, and the horrifying climax involving Harry facing down Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) thirteen years after their first encounter. Never at any point watching Goblet of Fire did I feel that a scene was out of place given what came before or after it. In fact, I found the teen drama and romance refreshing given all of the high-stakes doom-and-gloom happening around it. (I will say that Ron and Harry’s brief falling out felt entirely unnecessary, but obviously that’s more the fault of Rowling’s book than the filmmakers) Another surprising strength of Goblet of Fire is how it surpasses the mysteries in the first two films of the series (and remains on par with the twist in Prisoner of Azkaban) while involving Voldemort directly in the narrative. Of course, he gets help from Barty Crouch, Jr. (David Tennant) disguising himself as ex-Auror and eccentric professor Alastor “Mad-Eye” Moody (Brendan Gleeson). Both actors pull off effective performances, particularly Gleeson who manages to convince the audience of his genuine care for Harry while always keeping the viewers at a distance before fulfilling the terrifying and heartbreaking reveal of his true identity. Certainly, the most entertaining highlight of Goblet of Fire in terms of the plot is the events of the Triwizard Tournament themselves. While some elements of Harry fleeing the Hungarian Horntail on his Firebolt feel dated and anticlimactic or the champions surviving the maze somewhat confusion, you cannot deny when watching this movie that magic has never felt more like a modern action movie than in these scenes. Of course, this plot alone doesn’t work without the underlying mystery of why Harry was forced into this competition and the extent to which Voldemort is working behind the scenes leading up to getting him into the graveyard for his grand entrance in the third act. Thus, it all came down to this fantastic scene. Once Harry and fellow Hogwarts champion Cedric Diggory (Robert Pattinson) agree to take the Triwizard Cup together, they are transported to Voldemort’s location where Cedric is unceremoniously murdered by Peter Pettigrew and—with some of Harry’s blood—Voldemort is finally brought back from the brink of death. From this point on, the series changes forever as the audience is finally confronted by the “big bad” of Harry’s story. AND IT’S AWESOME! 😊 Seeing fourteen-year-old Harry Potter duel the most powerful dark wizard ever and, ultimately, not succumb to his fears by standing up for himself is arguably his most heroic moment as the hero of this story. Furthermore, Ralph Fiennes absolutely KILLS it in this scene (a sliver of what we see over the course of the next four movies). But the emotional gut-punch of a cherry on top is Harry speaking to his parents—or at least their spirits—for the first time ever. I’m not a particularly emotional person, but I always choke up during this sequence out of sheer sympathy for Harry as a tragic character who has rarely succumbed to self-pity or other unlikeable characteristics due to what Voldemort did to him. To tie up loose ends, Harry manages to escape Voldemort’s bloodlust by the skin of his teeth but returns to Hogwarts (with Cedric’s body) the winner of the Triwizard Tournament. But he is bruised, bloodied and broken, and isn’t afraid to show everyone just how dire the situation has become for the wizarding world. And while I understand some peoples’ criticisms about Cedric’s death feeling a little shallow since we only knew him for one movie, I found on this rewatch that his death hit me harder than really any time before. Personally, I think it’s because I realized that Cedric is dying is less about this one kid getting killed and more about the metaphorical and thematic significance of his death. Essentially, Cedric dying at Voldemort’s hands (and, in turn, Harry watching it happen but helpless to stop it) represents the end of innocence for these characters. Even with some pretty dark shit happening during their first three years at Hogwarts, they all know that from here on out them dying at the hands of a Death Eater—or Voldemort himself—is not just a possibility but something of a likelihood. And recognizing that this time around, while also seeing our characters come to that conclusion, was really quite heartbreaking. (Shoutout to Robert Pattinson for maximizing his screen time to make us care about Cedric enough for his death to mean as much as it did) Simply put, I loved Goblet of Fire more than I think I ever have before. Is it as tight of a story as Prisoner of Azkaban? Maybe not. Is it bursting with as much charm and nostalgia as Sorcerer’s Stone? Certainly not. But I think it’s a fantastic halfway point for this movie series that aptly ties a knot on Harry, Ron and Hermione’s early years while foreshadowing dark times ahead of them with the threat of Voldemort looming on the horizon. With a new director taking over from here, where does the franchise go? Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007) After three different directors kept the first four Harry Potter films fresh and distinct but also aesthetically and narratively cohesive, David Yates took the helm and went on to direct the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth entries in the franchise (as well as all three Fantastic Beasts movies made to date). There are both positive and negative aspects of this change in leadership behind the camera, but all in all I think Order of the Phoenix is one of his stronger entries in the series. What ends up being one of this movie’s greatest strengths, in my humble opinion, is the intense and intimate focus on the effects of the psychological trauma that Harry has accumulated in his short yet eventful life. From reminding the audience of the horrifying nature of Dementors in the opening scene to exploring his mental, magical connection to Voldemort as representing his struggle with the darkness within him, Harry goes through the wringer in Order of the Phoenix just as much (if not more) than previous movies. Furthermore, I appreciate how Yates tackles the explanation of Harry and Voldemort’s minds being tied to one another towards the end of the film without giving too much away for the future of the series. Unfortunately, one of the trade-offs of the near-complete focus on Harry’s story in Order of the Phoenix is the disappointing lack of meaningful screen time or character arcs for Ron and Hermione. They certainly get their moments (I’ve always appreciated the three of them sitting by the fire laughing at each other), and I get that the story of this movie is more about building out the team of warrior wizards and witches like Neville Longbottom (Matthew Lewis) and Luna Lovegood (Evanna Lynch). But I just wish we could’ve seen a bit more of development for Ron and Hermione given how much Goblet of Fire was focused on Harry coming into his own as a formidable wizard. The focal point of the plot, however, is where we get the standout performance of the film as well as the one and only villain performance in the entire series that threatens Ralph Fiennes’ top spot as Voldemort: the government employee who takes over Hogwarts—while donned entirely in pink—Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton). From her very first scene during Harry’s trial at the Ministry of Magic, Umbridge makes her mark on the franchise as an impeccably immoral and devious antagonist that you just love to hate but hate to watch. And Staunton absolutely nails the character as the epitome of a corrupt bureaucracy bent on denying the truth about Voldemort’s return while being far more concerned with Dumbledore’s non-existent rebellious plotting against Cornelius Fudge (Robert Hardy). Similar to how the increased violence and drama of the past couple movies reflect the series’ growing maturity and darker tone, the political themes dominating Order of the Phoenix exhibit how this series is becoming more for teenagers and young adults and less for children. With Umbridge’s presence and the diminishing power of Dumbledore and McGonagall, Harry and his friends experience the plight of sociopolitical oppression, state-sponsored fear-mongering, and propaganda through the education system firsthand. Given its place in the series, I appreciate this movie taking the time to ask the question: “What if the wizarding community acted like so many actual human beings do in the face of overwhelming danger and just flat out deny it?” Does it make for the most gripping fantasy cinema and entertainment? Kind of. Despite lacking much of the action that filled out Goblet of Fire, there’s enough to keep the narrative moving and the most impactful action in the climax makes up for the lack thereof earlier in the film. Which gets to the film’s pretty great finale. I’ve always enjoyed how clear Yates shows just how out of their depth Harry and his friends are once they’ve arrived at the Ministry of Magic. While they hold their own against Lucius Malfoy and Voldemort’s other lieutenant Bellatrix Lestrange (Helena Bonham Carter), they get outgunned and outsmarted just before Sirius, Lupin, and the other members of the Order come to save the day. It’s at this point, after nearly five Harry Potter movies, that the cinematography and staging of magical action sequences results in seeing wizards and witches throw offensive spells at each other in a way that feels organic and exciting to watch. And it’s in this scene where two of the best moments in the entire Harry Potter series happen. First, another heartbreaking death scene where Bellatrix kills Siris right in front of Harry. This might be Radcliffe’s first genuinely great moment of acting in the franchise; despite not hearing his scream, seeing his entire world collapse around him as Lupin holds him back is always so affecting and heartbreaking to watch. Just knowing the last of what Harry can call his family is gone forever tastefully adds to the tragedy of his hero’s journey. But then, out of anger, Harry seeks revenge on Bellatrix and is caught in Voldemort’s trap. Do we get another duel between Harry and Voldemort? Nope. Instead, we see what (in my humble opinion) will be the uncontested greatest duel in the history of the franchise: Dumbledore and Voldemort. There is so much creativity and ingenuity in the spells these two cast against each other and what they do to defend themselves from the other’s attacks. Furthermore, Gambon and Fiennes convey so much backstory with so little dialogue which helps justify the logic behind Voldemort’s plan to take Dumbledore off the board in the next film. Hopefully I’ve given you the impression that I like Order of the Phoenix. Is it as well structured or paced as Goblet of Fire or as complete of a story as Prisoner of Azkaban? For sure, but these flaws are ultimately overshadowed by this movie’s very high highs that make it a solid entry in the franchise despite not being my absolute favorite. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009) So, is Yates able to follow up the solidly entertaining Order of the Phoenix with an equally pretty good sequel Half-Blood Prince? Despite some interesting elements at work here, I think not. As a reminder, I don’t hate any of the Harry Potter movies. Nor do I think any of the eight films in the series are bad. But, if I’m honest with myself, Half-Blood Prince ends up being the most flawed of all the movies on its own. Ultimately, much of these flaws stem from the fact that the movie feels more like an essential yet difficult piece of the puzzle rather than a well-integrated part of a painting. Instead of fitting elegantly into the overarching narrative of the series by upholding what came before, it acts like more of a stop gap for the audience by forcing too much exposition in too little time to soak in and process in an effort to just set up the finale. Another way to explain this is by viewing the Harry Potter series in a three-act structure. Sorcerer’s Stone, Chamber of Secrets, and Prisoner of Azkaban essentially make up the first act that introduces our protagonists and key supporting characters as well as building up to the central conflict and main villain. From there, Goblet of Fire, Order of the Phoenix, and Half-Blood Prince propel the story forward with Voldemort’s return and some impactful character deaths (Cedric, Sirius, and Dumbledore, respectively) to inject heightened stakes for our heroes going forward. And, of course, the two-part Deathly Hallows concludes the story. If viewed through this lens, I don’t think Half-Blood Prince delivers on being the tragic conclusion to Harry’s second act. Much of my disappointment with this movie is due to the relative lack of impact from Dumbledore’s death at the hands of Snape. While both Felton and Rickman’s acting is on point during the scene atop the Astronomy Tower, what is lacking from this crucial moment is how little I was invested in Harry and Dumbledore’s relationship. I don’t blame the actors, but rather the screenplay and overall direction that severely limited their screentime together in favor of unnecessary teen romance subplots that feel out of place given the increasingly dire atmosphere present throughout some of the movie. In a way, it feels like Yates wanted to do his version of Goblet of Fire too late in the series that ends up diminishing the character dynamics, drama, and terror caused by Voldemort’s full-blown return. And the characters who end up feeling disproportionately affected by this drawback? Snape and Malfoy. After six movies, Tom Felton was finally given some meaningful writing and character work beyond simply being a privileged, racist bully towards Harry, Ron and Hermione. And when he’s on screen (particularly with Snape in the hallway, with Harry in the bathroom, and facing down Dumbledore on the Astronomy Tower), he effectively captures my attention and makes me sympathize with Draco’s internal moral struggle trying to reconcile the pressure on him to please his father and Voldemort and his unspoken knowing that what he’s been asked to do is the wrong thing to do. Closely tied to Draco’s storyline is Snape, whose past as a Death Eater (only mentioned briefly in Goblet of Fire) comes to the forefront in his dealings with Bellatrix and Draco’s mother Narcissa (Helen McCrory). After promising her to protect Draco and assassinate Dumbledore if Draco is unable to do so, Snape’s true intentions remain shrouded in mystery up until he casts the Killing Curse against his boss and friend (at Dumbledore’s pleading). From there, his identity becomes firmly committed to Lord Voldemort’s vision of the future. Don’t these both sound like great character arcs? Too bad they only make for a handful of scenes because, due to Yates’s take on Half-Blood Prince, we needed the focus of the first two acts on Ron’s dating life and Harry and Hermione’s jealousy. Now, I understand that the state of the relationships between our three main characters is necessary for the last two films of the series. I just wish Yates had better balanced these elements to make for a rich story with distinct, yet equally compelling, character arcs. Another character that I found myself surprised by how much I enjoyed watching was Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent). For a character primarily featured in only one of the eight films, Slughorn ends up being fairly complex as someone who surrounds himself with greatness to conceal his own insecurities as well as evade confronting his greatest regret: enabling young Tom Riddle’s (Frank Dillane) insatiable curiosity with immortality and dark magic. Thanks largely to Broadbent’s performance opposite Radcliffe, the scene of Harry manipulating Slughorn to hand over his untainted memory of Riddle goes down (in my humble opinion) as one of the best acted scenes of the entire Harry Potter series. Ultimately, however, Half-Blood Prince doesn’t really come into its own until Harry and Dumbledore journey to find the Horcrux in the cave. From there on out, the movie becomes engaging all the way through. But it shouldn’t have taken nearly two hours of meandering, superfluous teen drama and plotting exposition to get there. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 (2010) When last watching the Harry Potter series from start to finish a few years ago, I remember being really down on the first half of Deathly Hallows. I found it poorly paced, narratively disjointed, and not very engaging given the seemingly low stakes in comparison to past films. Furthermore, its inevitable trappings as the first two acts of a three-act finale to this saga can definitely come off as unsatisfying by the time the credits roll. But something was different this time around. Coming off of the rushed storytelling of Order of the Phoenix and the stunting, exposition-heavy narrative of Half-Blood Prince, I found this movie a refreshing breather even though there’s still a lot going on. It felt like it had a good reason to take its time in telling its story, and ended up (mostly) keeping me engaged the whole way through. Contrary to me not giving it credit awhile ago, Deathly Hallows – Part 1 has some pretty great action and intense scenes during its first act. Notably, the Order escorting Harry from the Dursleys’ home in Little Whinging to the Weasleys’ home in the Burrows remains one of my favorite scenes of the franchise. Not only does Yates establish the lengths that Voldemort will go to to track down and kill Harry, but I’ve always loved Hagrid coming more to the forefront in this part of the story. He says it himself: he brought Harry to the Dursleys years before, and it was only fitting for him to take him away from Voldemort once more. Furthermore, in a similar vein to Dumbledore’s badass duel with Voldemort in Order of the Phoenix, the chase through London is another example of the creative team finally making combative magic feel grounded and sensible but also fun to watch. Despite the slight slowdown for the wedding between Bill Weasley (Domhnall Gleeson) and former Triwizard champion Fleur Delacour (Clémence Poésy), the movie allows breathing room for some tying up of loose ends. From the new Minister of Magic Rufus Scrimgeour (Bill Nighy) delivering Dumbledore’s gifts to Harry, Ron and Hermione to the introduction of important elements of lore like Harry’s birthplace Godric’s Hallow and the story of the Deathly Hallows themselves, Deathly Hallows – Part 1 continues to remind the audience how rich the lore of Rowling’s magical world is while planting some seeds for the last movie (i.e. Harry’s first Golden Snitch, Gryffindor’s sword, the Elder Wand). Another sequence I ended up appreciating more upon rewatch was Harry, Ron and Hermione infiltrating the Ministry of Magic disguised as employees. Their mission: to steal the locket that is Voldemort’s true Horcrux. Who must they steal it from? None other than Dolores Umbridge, who has fully embraced her position in the puppet Ministry that Voldemort has propped up. As soon as she’s on screen, Staunton wastes no time reminding us just how much we love to hate Umbridge. And, of course, it’s great to see the three kids all grown up pulling off another one of their cockamamie schemes. But this is the part of Deathly Hallows – Part 1 that I was really worried about going into it. From them escaping the Ministry to being captured by Snatchers and taken to Malfoy Manor, I recalled the three protagonists wandering the woods and being angry with each other to be the least interesting collection of scenes in any Harry Potter movie. But in light of the two films that came before this, I ended up genuinely appreciating how much character work is done in this movie’s second act. For one thing, we get to see our three heroes (almost) completely on their own and tested to the greatest extent. Not only is there some good drama and tension from watching them forced to survive without any help or guidance from Dumbledore, the Order or the Weasleys, but these three do some of their best acting in the entire franchise as their character are brought to the brink enduring psychological turmoil and physical isolating from everything they know and love. I was particularly impressed by Grint playing the various dimensions of Ron’s erratic personality (largely caused by wearing the Horcrux around his neck) affecting his demeanor towards Ron and Hermione. While this middle act isn’t the most exciting or action-packed of any Harry Potter film, I feel like it was needed to make many of the moments in the last movie live up to their potential. Much of the third act sees our trio captured and sent to the residency of the Malfoys. Their escape scene makes for a solid final action piece, much thanks to the levity provided by Dobby (voice by Toby Jones) who I found much better utilized as the source of humor than as the annoying, paranoid side character in Chamber of Secrets. But the tone quickly changes to what is (in my humble opinion) one of the best-handled death scenes in the entire series right up there with Cedric in Goblet of Fire and Sirius in Order of the Phoenix. I think Radcliffe’s performance holding what, in real life, amounts to nothing in his hands opposite Jones’s beautifully tragic line delivery shows how underwhelming some of the other death scenes in both Deathly Hallows flicks (“Mad-Eye” Moody, anyone?) end up being. All that being said, I do think Deathly Hallows – Part 1 remains one of the relatively weaker films in the series simply due to it being the first half of one complete story. But I found myself appreciating it on its own terms much more this time around. And it accomplished what’s undeniably its most important task: exciting me for Deathly Hallows – Part 2. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 (2011) For a summary of the production and release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2, click here. While some viewers are frustrated by the incomplete and unsatisfied feeling they get after watching Deathly Hallows – Part 1, I have heard few (if any) fans of the Harry Potter series disappointed by Deathly Hallows – Part 2. I am certainly one of the people who thoroughly enjoys this movie. That being said, there are both pros and cons to a movie that is virtually all payoff to the seven films that preceded it. For starters, the second half of Deathly Hallows has so many hype moments throughout the climactic Battle of Hogwarts that can effectively service any fan. From Harry and McGonagall confronting Snape in the Great Hall to McGonagall commanding Hogwarts itself to fight back to Molly Weasley (Julie Walters) finally getting her badass moment to shine by ruthlessly killing Bellatrix to Neville standing up to Voldemort AND slicing Nagini with the Sword of Gryffindor to…SEE WHAT I MEAN?!? So. Much. Payoff. And not just in the action scenes. For our main hero’s journey, Harry has plenty of meaningful closure to his story. Notably, his final scene with Snape (while not a gut punch) is always quietly heartbreaking even before the final twist of the series is revealed: Snape, a double agent, was always loyal Dumbledore (including killing him per Dumbledore’s request) and defended Harry out of love for his deceased mother Lily (Geraldine Somerville), and that Voldemort’s failed murder of Harry unintentionally made Harry into a Horcrux. Forgiving the fact that Alan Rickman unquestionably deserved more screen time in all the other movies to develop this backstory, what we learn about who Snape really is in Deathly Hallows – Part 2 retroactively redeems him and makes him one of the most complex and compelling characters in the entire franchise. But, more importantly, this revelation pushes Harry towards his fate: he must die by Voldemort’s hand. I always get chills during his “final” goodbye to Ron and Hermione and him using the Resurrection Stone to see his mother, father James (Adrian Rawlins), Sirius, and Lupin (who unceremoniously died offscreen…but I’ll get to that later 😊). All of this leads up to Harry coming to Voldemort of his own accord defenseless and ready to die (shoutout to Robbie Coltrane giving that gut-punch delivery of Hagrid disconcertedly expression his anguish about why Harry would ever in his right mind actually show up in the Forbidden Forest). For any hero’s journey, seeing the hero straight up sacrifice himself for the greater good evokes some universal respectability that few other heroes can muster in me. From here, Yates’s adaptation of Rowling’s writing gives us easily the most spiritual scene of the entire series with Harry tinkering on entering the afterlife alongside Dumbledore. Honestly, it was just nice to see Radcliffe and Gambon act opposite each other with everything out in the open (in addition to Gambon offering a touch of Richard Harris’s performance from the first two flicks to tie a neat bow on Dumbledore as a character). My final positive for Deathly Hallows – Part 2 is the epilogue. I know that this is controversial, but I’m personally someone who loves “full circle” endings. And Yates and Rowling giving the audience (and Harry) the happy ending he deserves where he’s moved on from Voldemort, married, and now has children that he’s sending off to Hogwarts like Mrs. Weasley did for him so many years before is (in my humble opinion) a perfect end cap for the series. With all that said, however, Deathly Hallows – Part 2 certainly has some drawbacks as a movie that relies almost exclusively on payoff. On the one hand, the film sets itself apart from most of the rest of the series (arguably with the exception of Order of the Phoenix) by pursuing a no-holds-barred, pedal-to-the-metal pace that never really lets the audience breathe from scene to scene. Surely, this is understandable given the more deliberate pace of Deathly Hallows – Part 1 but I do think there should’ve been more of an equitable balance between these last two movies in the series. Likewise, the almost exclusive focus on Harry’s journey with Voldemort wrapping up comes at the expense of most of the other characters lacking satisfying conclusions to their arcs. While we do finally get the Ron/Hermione romance cemented in the eons of cinematic history, I found that Draco and the Malfoys’ unceremonious departure from the Battle of Hogwarts left something to be desired from where his story left off in Half-Blood Prince. When it comes to the villains, however, I think Voldemort’s anticlimactic death always feels lackluster compared to his grand resurrection in Goblet of Fire and various other scenes in Order of the Phoenix and Deathly Hallows – Part 1. Certainly, Ralph Fiennes deserved better. But when it comes to the deaths in this movie, Lupin and Fred Weasley (James Phelps) are easily done the dirtiest. For one of the Weasley twins who’ve been in the series from the start, he deserved an on-screen death. As did Lupin, who doesn’t even get the slow-motion cut that Fred got. Instead, my personal favorite Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher is simply shown dead on the ground holding the hand of his wife Nymphadora Tonks (Natalie Tena), who also probably deserved a better death scene. These criticisms aside, though, Deathly Hallows – Part 2 is still one of the best conclusions to any film series in modern history. The fact that it lands the ship that was started by seven films before it is part of what makes the Harry Potter franchise timeless and a modern classic cinematic saga. No matter my nitpicks or disappointments with certain aspects of the series, I’ll always look back fondly on these movies both as nostalgic aspects of my childhood and as a great, epic fantasy story that does far more right than it does wrong. With all that said, here is my official ranking of the eight films in the Harry Potter series:
What is your favorite (and least favorite) Harry Potter film? Would you like to see a reboot of the series, either in film or on television, in the near future? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Austin McManusI have no academic or professional background in film production or criticism; I simply love watching and talking about movies. Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|