Though I enjoyed them in my younger years, the first two films are pretty bad on the whole. The three main actors don’t do the best job, although Emma Watson’s potential was there for all to see. The secondary characters have been strong from the word go however, particularly Alan Rickman as Snape and Maggie Smith as professor McGonagall. They are both tremendously talented actors, and have given consistently good performances to go with their very good characters. Robbie Coltrane was practically born to play Hagrid and does a fine job. As for Richard Harris, we’ll get to the role of Dumbledore a little later on. Two films in however, and although they were hugely commercially successful, (the first film was the highest grossing film in the series until Deathly Hallows part 2, which grossed over $1.3 billion worldwide) and critical reception was generally positive, I wouldn’t say that I care for either of them much, though if nothing else, they do fill me with a wonderful feeling of nostalgia.
Then Prisoner of Azkaban came along, and it marked a noticeable improvement in quality for the series. The talented and versatile Gary Oldman was added to the cast, playing the roll of Sirius Black. (Incidentally, I think J.K. Rowling is something of an astronomy fan, Sirius and Bellatrix are both names of stars) There was an improvement in the acting as well, the three leads looked more comfortable in their rolls, and although Daniel Radcliffe still had some bad moments (the crying scene, anyone?) they did a much improved job. Despite the improvements however, Prisoner of Azkaban still isn’t quite good enough to make it a film that I could find myself watching anymore than once every year or two, and I’m a guy who generally rewatches a lot of films. However, things were definitely on the right track. Step up Goblet of Fire.
Goblet of Fire was the first film of the series that I could say was actively good. Now three two-and-a-half hour films is a very long time to get it right, make no mistake, but they did get it right finally. The actors gave further improved performances, bar a few emoting issues from Radcliffe, the special effects were better than ever, and it was the first of the films were I actually felt emotionally invested in what was going on. Robert Pattinson gives a passable performance as Cedric Diggory, before running off to do that vampire film that no one knows about. I highly enjoyed the films climax, I thought it was played very well, and was probably the high point of the film, which is what a climax should be.
Order of the Phoenix continued the trend of improvement, introducing the character of Dolores Umbridge, played extremely well by… an actress who’s name escapes me. I loved the overarching plot threads, Harry learning occlumency, the distancing between Harry and Dumbledore, the threat that Hogwarts faces both from the ministry of magic and from the forces of Voldemort (more on Ralph Fiennes’s performance to come). It creates genuine drama, something the films were lacking up until this point, although Goblet of Fire had it’s moment. It also features one of the most intense moments in any of the films, the battle between Voldemort and Dumbledore. The wizarding world’s two top talents jousting was spellbinding, if I may use the expression, and was a real triumph for the series.
Then we come to The Half Blood Prince. Again, the improvement is there for all to see, and at this point Half Blood Prince isn’t just good for a harry potter film, it’s just good. It’s a really good movie, in every aspect. Jim Broadbent gives a very good performance as Horace Slughorn, which was a trickier roll than most of the side characters, he’s a character that is kind of slimy and cowardly, but who’s heart is in the right place, and that’s a difficult balance to find, and Broadbent does an admirable job. Alan Rickman is also at his very best in Half Blood Prince, in one of Snape’s more important role’s within the series.
Finally we come to Deathly Hallows. Part 1 really showed how much confidence and faith that the film makers had for it’s three main leads, whom 90% of this film is centered around. The more experienced actors aren’t to be seen, or are only seen very rarely. The film banks on it’s characters, it banks on it’s actors, and it banks on it’s script, and it deserves to be commended for that at the very least. As for the film itself, the actors do a great job, and I do mean great, they give very good, confident performances, and they anchor the film very well. One thing I will say is that the film quite slow paced, and there are a few occasions where it’s pacing lets it down a little, but this moments are generally sparing.
Part 2 is the total opposite. There isn’t a moment of down time, just an unrelenting, momentus, glorious finish to the series. The film features a lot of action, and it’s action scenes truly do the series justice. I also like the fact that the fight between Voldemort and Harry at the end was altered a little. In the book, it was purely plot driven, and the exposition did come across as a little clumsy. In the film, while it certainly is still plot driven, there is more of an actual fight, and it’s handled pretty well. A terrific ending, to an altogether very good series of films.
But what is it that makes these films good? Well, a large chunk of the credit has to go to the actors on display. I’ve already a mentioned that it took the three main actors a few films before they really started to perform, but from the fourth film onwards, they do give good performances, and the quality of them only increases. Daniel does a more than competent job as Harry, Rupert Grint is fine as Ron, although he does overact every now and then, and Emma Watson is probably the most talented of the three actors, and is very good in the roll as Hermione.
Another important factor is that the series never takes itself too seriously. An Academy Award winning drama with wizards is one thing that I think few people want to see, and Harry Potter is wise enough to know what wants to be. There are some tense, dramatic moments of course, but the films are also light hearted enough to get in some good humour, usually courtesy of the Weasley family, particularly in the early films. The humour does take a back seat in the later films, but it’s still present throughout.
Now there are 3 key performances that I haven’t yet gone into: Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort, and Richard Harris and Michael Gambon as Dumbledore. Let’s start with Harris. I liked Harris in the role, I thought he did a good job of capturing the essence of the character and bringing him to life, he understood the playful and eccentric side to Dumbledore’s character, and he portrayed it well. His portrayal of Dumbledore was much closer to the book, and was undoubtedly superior to Gambon’s portrayal. Sadly, Harris passed away after the release of the second film, and Michael Gambon did take over the role. When Gambon took over, I thought he was terrible in the role. I thought Gambon was a million miles away from the essence of Dumbledore, and it was literally like looking at a completely different character, and it’s one of the bigger problems of films three to five. His performance improved slightly in Half Blood Prince, but it still never felt like I was looking at Dumbledore. As for Ralph Fiennes, he plays Voldemort just fine, Voldemort isn’t the most interesting villain that cinema has ever seen, but he does the job required of him, nothing more, nothing less.
Love it or hate it, the Harry Potter series has been a phenomenon that only comes along once in a lifetime. More than $8 billion grossed worldwide, multiple awards won, all films being met with critical acclaim and overwhelming commercial success, the Harry Potter journey may be finished, but it will live a long time in the memory, and be admired by many generations of watchers and readers and everything in between yet to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment