Devout Potter-philes generally fall within one of two categories when it comes to their feelings about the movie adaptations of the Harry Potter series:
1. Adore Them
2. Loathe Them
The Potter-heads in the Adore Them category have quibbles about various details ("Trelawney was all wrong," "They changed the ending," "I can't believe they left my favorite part out,") but, overall, think they aren't too shabby as far as bookish movies go.
The fans in the Loathe Them category couldn't disagree more. These people would rather endure the Cruciatus Curse or be exiled to Azkaban or write a 20 page essay with Professor Umbridge's bloody little quill -- possibly all three at the same time -- rather than say a good word about any one of the films.
Let's pour our vial of Harry Potter film memories into the Pensieve and take a collective stroll down the lane of Potter history, pondering the good and the awful about each of the first five book-to-movie manifestations of the Harry Potter series.
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
What worked:
I've heard a lot of yammering from the Chosen Ones in the media as Half Blood Prince approaches about how the series has "finally" matured from its Disney-esque beginnings into deep, thoughtful movies worth watching.
These people irritate me.
As lovers of the books know, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone isn't about being deep or thoughtful or mature at all -- it's pure delightful fantasy as Harry (and through him, the reader) learns about the wonder and whimsy of the magical world. It's fun and largely lighthearted and the movie captured the feel of the book and multiplied it beautifully. Fans finally got to see Hogwarts, Quidditch, Diagon Alley, Professor Dumbledore, and there was precious little to complain about -- it just looked, and felt, right. O.K., so it wasn't Lord of the Rings, but it wasn't trying to achieve that level of emotion and profundity in the first place. It does, however, achieve what it set out to do perfectly.
What flopped:
While every time I watch this movie I am constantly irked by the decision to throw in non-book dialogue for Harry, Ron, and Hermione with cutesy little tag lines at the end (every time I hear Ron's "She really needs to get her priorites straight" line, I roll my eyes so much I nearly get motion sickness), there isn't much else in this adaptation to fuss over. Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson certainly weren't going to be winning any Best Actor or Actress awards for their performances, but, for kid actors, they did a durn good job.
How the movie compares to the book:
This is the one book of the series that many fans feel was just a bit inferior to its movie manifestation, probably because many Potter-heads saw the film first and were inspired to read the books afterward. The book contains much more detail and a number of subplots left out of the movie (a good decision, in most cases), but, because the movie does such a successful job replicating the feel of the book, the power of the two together are greater than either alone.
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
What worked:
Again, the Chosen Ones constantly berate this movie for being too smilingly rosy-cheeked and upbeat and, again, I disagree. While the story just begins to dip the tip of its toe into the waters of Trouble Ahead, it's still quite jolly and the movie straddles both extremes excellently.
Kenneth Branaugh as Professor Lockhart is endearingly spoofy, the Quidditch scene is great-looking, and Tom Riddle manages to be both evil and oddly attractive simultaneously. This film sticks closely to the book's original plot, complete with screaming mandrakes, flying Ford Anglias, the Weasley's very cool clock, gigantic spiders, and a hefty dose of well-timed humor. Before seeing the movie on opening night, I was petrified with fear that my favorite scene from the book -- Dumbledore asking Harry to read the name on the sword that came out of the sorting hat to prove to himself that he is truly a Gryffindor -- would be either left out or butchered. Thankfully, it wasn't. Chamber of Secrets, like Sorcerer's Stone, is still children's fare, but it's high quality children's fare.
What flopped:
The final scene in the Chamber -- Harry talking to Ginny -- is excruciatingly bad, both in terms of screen-writing and the performances of Daniel Radcliffe and Bonnie Wright. In fact, the Harry versus Tom Riddle-with-basilisk side-kick worked much better in the book than on screen. A pity, since that was one of the best portions of the story.
Richard Harris was suffering from poor health all throughout the filming of Chamber of Secrets, and it showed: Dumbledore sounds and looks weaker than Dumbledore ever should.
How the movie compares to the book:
For many young Potter lovers, Chamber of Secrets is their favorite book of the series. It's spiced with the perfect amount of wit, danger, and romance. The movie manifestation isn't perfect, but it manages to portray the most important scenes and characters in the book with a good deal of devotion to Ms. Rowling's text.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
What worked:
If you'd asked me on opening night what I thought worked in the Prisoner of Azkaban bookish adaptation, I'd have instantly answered, "Nothing."
Since then, I've calmed down (a bit) and can say that, visually, the movie worked as a great transition from the fairy tale-ish plot and feel in the first two books of the series to the darker and more unhappy Prisoner of Azkaban. I can also say that Harry's inflation of Aunt Marge was masterfully done, that David Thewlis as Professor Remus Lupin was one inspired bit of casting, and, despite a lot of belly-aching from Potterheads to the contrary, I actually like Michael Gambon as Professor Dumbledore, possibly even better than I liked Richard Harris.
However, that's as far as I'm willing to go in praise of Prisoner of Azkaban.
What flopped:
Prisoner of Azkaban has always been my personal favorite book of the series. I love the shift in focus from fighting external demons -- weird two-headed professors, Heirs of Slytherin leaping from the pages of diaries -- to fighting internal demons, always the most difficult ones to defeat.
What made me most unhappy about the bookish adaptation was that, for the first time, the movie didn't come close (or really appear to even make a decent attempt) at replicating and enhancing onscreen the emotional climaxes of the book. Harry's first attempts at warding off the boggart-turned-dementor under Professor Lupin's tutelage, his belief that it was his father who saved both himself and Sirius from the dementors, and, later Professor Dumbledore's quiet reassurance that Harry had finally seen his father in himself -- all of these were scenes I was positively pawing at the ground to see well-done. I was sorely disappointed.
And, as if that weren't enough alone, a number of the story's details were badly mishandled. Why was Professor Trelawney portrayed like a complete dope? Why add in the insinuation that Professor Lupin had loved Lily? Why didn't it occur to Harry to ask Professor Lupin how in the hell he knew how to work the Marauder's Map when even Professor Snape couldn't figure it out? And don't even get me started on that Firebolt ending....
How the movie compares to the book:
If you watch Prisoner of Azkaban without having first read -- and loved -- the series, I can understand how you'd think it was a good movie. I assume this explains why the Chosen Ones foamed like a pint of butterbeer in their initial reviews of the film. If you love the books and want to see a film that stays true to their plot and feel though, Prisoner of Azkaban comes up woefully inadequate.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
What worked:
A better question would be what DIDN'T work. After Prisoner of Azkaban, I was scared silly Goblet of Fire would end up similarly disemboweled. What a delight to see a film that preserved nearly everything that made the book great while hitting the feel of the plot's important scenes dead-on. Sure, some of the story was rearranged and, in some cases altered, but I can handle that when everything else is this well done. Brendan Gleeson as Mad Eye Moody, the Quidditch World Cup, the Yule Ball, the elder Mr. Crouch, all three of the Triwizard tasks, and, of course, Ralph Fiennes as You Know Who were all excellently done. Goblet of Fire also marked the first time I cried during a Harry Potter film: when Mr. Diggory weeps over his dead son's body. Amazingly well done.
I know that a huge faction of Potter-philes deeply dislike Michael Gambon as Dumbledore and still consider Richard Harris to be the definitive onscreen manifestation of the great man. I disagree; I liked Mr. Gambon as Dumbledore from the beginning. To me, his voice, his demeanor, even the way he moves, puts a strength and depth into Dumbledore's character that Mr. Harris lacked. Nowhere does this show up more than in Goblet of Fire. If you disagree with me (and I know there are Potter lovers out there, even now, raising their wands with the intention of hitting me with a Bat-Bogey Hex), go back and watch Mr. Gambon as Dumbledore in the Great Hall at the end of Goblet of Fire as he is speaking to the students about the death of Cedric Diggory. Watch his facial expressions, his body language. Incredible. I don't know any other actor -- short of Ian McKellan, and he turned the role of Dumbledore down -- that could have played it better.
What flopped:
In 157 minutes, Goblet of Fire barely takes a single misstep. Plenty of my fellow Potter lovers balked at Dumbledore getting a little hot under the collar after Harry's name comes innocently flying out of the Goblet, but I couldn't get het up over that.
How the movie compares to the book:
Out of all the Harry Potter books and their film adaptations, Goblet of Fire comes the closest to being both an outstanding book and an outstanding movie.
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
What worked:
It's darker; it's more sophisticated; it's visually stunning -- what's not to love about Order of the Phoenix? As the series moves towards the eventual Potter-Voldemort tête-à-tête, Order of the Phoenix does a bang-up job shifting the Dark Side front and center. Imelda Staunton as the poisoned honey Dolores Umbridge darn near steals the show here, but you've got to admit that the battle in the Ministry of Magic -- especially the one between You Know Who and The Only One He Ever Feared -- was a thing of beauty and a joy forever. Order of the Phoenix has given me high hopes for Half Blood Prince.
What flopped:
I was terribly disappointed that Harry's violent rearrangment of Dumbledore's office near the conclusion of the book was left out. The quiet little heart to heart they have onscreen simply doesn't make up for the raw emotion displayed by both in that same scene in the book. I would have loved to see Mr. Gambon's interpretation of Dumbledore as he watches Harry thrash about the room, as well as his confession that he only shielded Harry for so long out of love.
How the movie compares to the book:
Order of the Phoenix is the edgiest, most unhappy book of the series and the film version does a good job of visually capturing that tense darkness. It isn't as powerful as the book, but it's an excellent adaptation.
Agree? Disagree? Think I've been hit with a Confundus Charm? Let us know -- leave your thoughts about how the Harry Potter movies measured up to the books below.
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince is approaching faster than Victor Krum on a Firebolt. All this week, the Book Examiner will be featuring bookish Harry Potter yak like you won't see anywhere else, including a highly opinionated review following the Midnight Release of the movie in the early hours of July 15th. Sate your ravenous Potter-loving soul: SUBSCRIBE to the Book Examiner for bookish rants, raves, reviews, and recommendations delivered with the precision of an owl to your Muggle inbox.
Cast your eye here, Potter-heads:
Video: An amazingly revealing behind-the-scenes look at Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
Early Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince reviews are in: The verdict? It's a winner
10 best books for treating Harry Potter withdrawal
10 best books for Twilight addicts
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince featurette
Predictions on where the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows split will occur
The Book Examiner Team Twilight vs. Team Harry Potter debate: a polite and intelligent literary fracas (and may I say here, please, people -- quit snarking on me for comparing the two. These are the two biggest literary phenomenons of the modern book world; it's perfectly natural to ponder the similarities and differences between the two.)
The 5 most annoying literary romances...and the five most romantic ones (here's a hint: Harry and Ginny are in one of these categories)
What makes a good book to movie adaptation? 5 great bookish movies...and 5 lousy ones
10 reasons for the popularity of Twilight (why would I suggest Potter-heads read this? Simple: in my opinion, the number 1 reason for the popularity of Twilight is Harry Potter. Agree? Disagree? Confused? Take a look at and see what you think)
Harry Potter spoofs: Harry Potter and the Dark Lord Waldemart and Harry Potter meets Pride and Prejudice
Watchmen movie review: What worked, what flopped, and how the movie measures up to the book
Twilight movie review: What worked, what failed miserably, and how the movie measures up to the book
The top 20 most annoying book reviewer cliches and how to use them all in one meaningless review
The Book Examiner's Utlimate Guide to pairing alcohol and literature
Book Lush 101: Drink your way through English Literature
Photo credits: filmofilia.com; legalmoviesdownloads.com; movieposter.com; allposters.com; the-reel-mccoy.com
Comments
nicely done. i was disappointed in OftP when the fountain creatures did not come to life. each movie is better than the previous one, and it'll be amazing to see it all come to fruition in deathly hallows part 2
I really think Richard Harris was a much better Dumbledore than Michael Gambon. Harris' portrayal of Dumbledore captured the feel of the books. In contrast, Gambon's unexpected portrayal of Dombledore made me feel that he didn't even read the book.
Yes, I know, Gambon is a good actor. But he didn't even try to capture anything that Harris set up. As a result, there was no consistency from the previous movies' Dumbledore, and this created a huge shift. This showed that Gambon cared more about how he personally wanted to portray Dumbledore than how he cared to give the fans what they were led to expect (i.e., what the books and Harris provided).
Every time I see Gambon as Dumbledore, I cringe a bit. He's grown on me more, but as a devoted Potter fan, there’s no other choice for me. It's like a bad outfit someone wears: you may overcome your repugnance for it, but you never approve of it. Consequently, every time I see Gambon, I immediately long for Harris.
The movie I am least pleased with thus far is Goblet of Fire. While all the scenes you mentioned were given a proper execution onto screen, I feel as though the entire movie was rushed and gave the new characters no development, particulary Cedric Diggory (I doubt that anyone in the audience who had not read the book felt pity for him when he's slaughtered). I think adding 10 or 15 minutes to the movie with a concentration on the individual characters and their relationships would have made the movie better and given it fluidity instead of jumping from one action scene to the next.
I've always loved the first two movies, most likely because they stick so well to the original plot of the books. My favorites are Prisoner of Azkaban and Order of the Phoenix. However, I do agree with you on the Firebolt ending.
Agree for the most part especially about the inferred crush between Lupin and Lily. I wish they would have add a little more of the James-Lupin-Sirius-Peter backstory instead.
I greatly disagree with your review. Prisoner of Azkaban is the greatest Harry Potter movie up to date for various reasons. First, it is not the typical Hollywood blockbuster that just wants to be a box office hit and tries to stick to the formula as much as it can without adding anything extra to the film. The first Harry Potter films are the perfect example of this. These two movies are just plain, they seem to be something artificial; lacking of life or charm, kind of like a ride in an amusement park. Meanwhile, in Prisoner of Azkaban, director Alfonso Cuarón tries to do a much more personal film and does not fear to trim the parts of the book that don't fit in the film medium, hence giving the movie a better pacing and making it more interesting to the audience. The dark tone of the movie, the magnificent soundtrack (which finally moves on from the repetitive and somewhat annoying “Hedwig’s Theme” to more jazzy rhythms, and I especially like “Double Trouble” which makes references
to Macbeth), and great direction makes this movie the best in the series. Finally I must add that the director's and the screenwriter’s job is not to make an illustration of the book, but an adaptation; which by definition has to adapt or change for the big screen.
I AGREE 100% with each review I think exactly the same!!! but I haven't calm down after watching HP3!!! so I still think that the answer is nothing!!!... well ok, the Aunt Marge balloon was OK (good) but that was it!!! and don't you dare to get me started with the million thinks that flopped horribly... I really think that by far the best movie is HP4
What a disappointment that Harry never got to whisper "Prongs" as he recognized his dad-as-patronus (the stag) in the lake scene of "Order" and he made this important connection. It was a lovely, heartbreaking, and illuminating moment in the book BUT IT WAS LEFT OUT OF THE MOVIE.
ALL of these films are awful. ESPECIALLY Goblet of Fire. Jesus, I can't believe a real fan of the books wrote this column.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!