The “Harry Potter” films have, by and large, been complete and utter disappointments. The less said about Chris Columbus’ first two movies (“Sorcerer’s Stone” and “Chamber of Secrets”), the better. The series hit its previous highpoint with the third installment (“Prisoner of Azkaban”) thanks largely to the virtuosity of director Alfonso Cuaron and an innate thematic understanding of what made J.K. Rowling’s books so special. Cuaron’s offhanded treatment of the magic was perfect, he finally breathed life into a world that was strictly relegated to the page. Mike Newell’s fourth entry (“Goblet of Fire”) had a kind of wacky, Bollywood bounce but not much else and David Yates’ fifth book (“Order of the Phoenix”) seemed to be a depressing return to the staid doldrums of Columbus’ initial entries.
When Warner Bros. announced that they were so happy with Yates’ job on “Order of the Phoenix” that he would be back to direct the sixth and seventh (and, now, eighth) movies, well, it did not instill much confidence. Yates is a television director by trade, having done the “State of Play” miniseries for BBC (amongst others), and you could really feel that episodic tone in “Order of the Phoenix.” Would the final chapters in the epic “Harry Potter” saga be brought to life in a similarly rinky-dink fashion?
The answer, mercifully, is “no.” David Yates’ new “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” is an exhilarating return to form and the best entry yet in the series.
As far as the story goes, “Half-Blood Prince” finds Harry (Daniel Radcliffe, more than holding his own) dealing with the death of his uncle, Sirius Black (played by Gary Oldman in the previous two films) and the acknowledgement in the magic community that Harry really is the Chosen One and that his mortal nemesis, the ghoulish Lord Voldemort is indeed back. Back at magical boarding school Hogwart’s, Harry is dealing with his hormonal urges while best friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) try to figure out if maybe they are, to paraphrase our beloved Michael Jackson, more than just good friends. There’s an egotistical new potions teacher, played by Jim Broadbent, whose very memory may contain a secret to stopping Voldemort. And then there’s Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton), son of an imprisoned villain, who sports a Paul Pope sneer and sulks around the castle (sharply bringing to mind parallels to Columbine).
One of the most engaging elements of the new movie is its emphasis on the kids’ relationships. This movie is a more genuine outpouring of teen emotion than in the odious (and oddly defended, check out this week’s New York Magazine) “I Love You, Beth Cooper.” The amount of gooey looks exchanged in this movie probably ranges in the dozen, but it’s all so well done – funny, heartbreaking, real – and you really don’t mind. The emphasis here is on the students, unlike previous installments that have been almost too enamored with their storied British cast (Ralph Fiennes, Jason Isaacs, and Brendan Gleeson all sit this one out). Unlike Michael Bay’s “Transformers,” which mistakes childish humor for the real deal, this film is funny without ever playing to the cheap seats.
If there’s one legacy from the Chris Columbus days that remains, it’s his choice of the actors, who this time do a really great job. While some of the adult actors, in particular the always-wonderful Alan Rickman, slide perilously close to caricature, the kids are embodied with real heart and emotion, and each one rises to the challenge in a way that we’ve never seen before. (And that’s not a knock on Rickman, he’s superb here, stretching out even the simplest sentences like each word is a piece of silly putty.)
It’s also worth nothing the visual effects here, which are truly special. After being bombarded by superheroes, space ships, and robots all summer long, it’s nice to finally be taken aback by the imagination and wit of these effects. There’s a kind of inky, ghostly texture to the effects – from a basin that contains memories to teleporting dark wizards wreaking havoc on modern day London to a pool of legless demons – they add a further touch of elegance to the film without being too “hey, look at me!” obvious.
Yates seems to have mastered both the technical aspects of the series while simultaneously getting a better handle on the emotional undercurrents of the story. Those of you disappointed by the coldness with which he dispatched a major character in the last movie will be heartened to know that he gives this movie’s big death its proper respect. As dazzling as this movie is, you’ll also actually, you know, feel stuff. Which is cool.
Overall, this is easily the best “Harry Potter” yet. They’ve managed to condense much of J.K. Rowling’s rich plotting without it ever feeling overstuffed (Steve Kloves returns to adapt, after taking the last movie off). There are some moments where things slow down considerably, but never to the point that you’re rolling your eyes or checking your watch. Editorially, this movie is incredibly proficient. There are a couple of redundant flashbacks and maybe one shot that lingers for too long, but overall it really movies along in all the right ways. (TV composer Nicholas Hooper’s wonderful score helps in this respect too.)
Everything seems to really come together with this “Harry Potter.” It may have been the movie fans of the series have been waiting six movies for, but at least it’s finally here. In a summer starved for quality escapist entertainment, “Harry Potter” arrives in the nick of time. It’s positively magical. [A-] – Drew Taylor
Everybody keeps ripping on Columbus' first installment, but it ain't actually that bad. It was fun. Anybody who says that movie it isn't fun is lying to others and/or themselves. It gave us the three leads – still performing admirably to this day – and it gave us the visual specifics of the world. As much as you'd like to compare it to Phoenix, they're actually nothing alike. Phoenix was muddied and confusing. It didn't know what story it was telling or what it's tone was. Sorcerer's Stone new exactly what it wanted to be and hit the bulls-eye, whether you like that kind of movie or not.
I am NOT a Harry Potter fanatic. I agree that the second movie was rubbish, and that the third was the high point, and that the fourth was a bit of sightseeing tour (lots of cool bits but no heart). I just can't stand when people trash movies based entirely on snap recollections or mass opinions. I equate the first movie's sense of magic to something like Coraline. They're on par. Deal with it.
"I just can't stand when people trash movies based entirely on snap recollections or mass opinions."
Very true, and I also agree with what you said on Sorcerer's Stone. Phoenix fits more in the visceral, darker, action-driven style of the last decade (or post new-millennium). I wouldn't call it a mess, but it's not for everyone. Good points.
I was disappointed with the work Yates and the composer turned in last time so it's nice to hear they brought their A-game this time.
This is the first movie however where they completely added scenes that never took place in the book. Tn doing this they not only added, but opted out of the final battle scene, which helps set the tone for the beginning of the next book.
Actually? I really dug the last movie. I thought it was positively gorgeous with all the bright colors on black. It all blew my mind, and this one didn't disappoint either.