It’s times like these that, as a reviewer, I’d like to give you a blank sheet of paper, because if you’ve seen any of the movies, read any of the books, or have any basic concept of what it means these days to have the words Harry and Potter in the same sentence, then you can write this review yourself.
But then, how else would I get my own little perverse pleasure in telling you a bunch of things you already know?
For those that have been vacationing on the sun for the past 15 years, this is the fifth in a series of seven Harry Potter films based on a series of seven Harry Potter novels, the last of which is set to be released in less than two weeks. This is a big time for Pot-heads, made more so by the film’s excellent box office timing, arriving just in time to comfort those out there discouraged by a Summer of luke-warm “threequels,” John McClane and Optimus Prime. I don’t take up much issue with the aforementioned films, personally, but the Potter films have begun to tap into something akin to James Bond, in that they’ve become movie comfort food, appearing every two years and guaranteeing to thrill and trill all ages who have a little bit of, shall we say, magic in their hearts.
The main question on people’s minds is, as with the previous Harry Potter sequels, “is it the best one yet?” I am still of the opinion that the first film remains the strongest entry in the series, partly because it was warm and fresh visually and an auditory delight, and partly because it was freaking Harry Potter. But the films have changed and grown a lot, sometimes for the better with the series’ appreciably darker tone over the years, and for the worse, when in 2002 Richard Harris died, leaving us a world without a Dumbledore. Michael Gambon stepped in, and while his performance was serviceable, we all mourned the loss of Harris.
The main problem with any book-to-film adaptation is what hits the cutting room floor, as 98% of adaptations are simply not up to snuff, with films like Silence of the Lambs or Lord of the Rings, which nearly surpass their source material, appearing only once in a generation. This problem is never more evident in a lengthy series like Harry Potter, where much of the relevant character development that comes from downtime in the novel is swept under the rug in order to move the story along. If something explosive, dire or mysterious isn’t happening, it’s just not included, simple as that, especially when one is adapting an 800-plus page novel. Elements like Quidditch, Luna’s lengthy tabloid expositions, Hagrid’s battle with the ministry and Sirius’ mirror are nowhere to be found here, but at the very least the film time exceeds two hours, so they make the most of what they can. This cliff notes version poses a problem to newcomers, as the films have come to the point where they simply enhance the experience of reading the novels, leaving the characters more shadow than substance, with a lot of blanks to fill in that only come from familiarity with the source material, and it is suggested that newbs either start at the books, or, if they fear the written word, at least catching up on the previous four films.
