Why I Hate Harry Potter Movies
I hate Harry Potter movies. I always have. In fact it took some strong persuasion for me to even read the books. Boy was I shocked. The books, while definitely juvenile literature, are great. Yes you have to turn your mind off on a few matters. (Like the very idea that not only these wizards but all these magical creatures could exist undetected in our world and without significantly affecting our world) But they are great. Perhaps not quite up there with classic literature of my childhood like The Hobbit or The Phantom Toll Booth. But I definitely think they deserve the place in popular culture they hold. But then we come to the movies…
The films were eagerly awaited. At the time I couldn’t understand what all the commotion was about. People were excited about just seeing the train from the book in leaked shots. The first film, when I saw it, was a great disappointment. Yes it was fun, but it was shot in a very, very pedestrian fashion by Chris Columbus. (Somewhat unexpectedly given his film history) Once I read the books though I understood what all the commotion was about. Part of the charm of the books (and this was what Columbus focused in on) isn’t the plot but all the asides. The “living” pictures. The passwords. It is a series about the wonder of the world. Yes it’s recast into a wizarding world. But it captures something about childhood - that sense of wonder about nearly everything around us. And it enables children to see this in a reflected form and perhaps escape their jadedness of the regular world around them. That is it captures something essential to childhood but something that by the time kids are 7 or 8 they are already losing. The sense of wonder.
The problem is that as the books grew more complex the films became harder and harder to make. That’s why, with the exception of the second film (which I consider the best of the bunch), each film has been far worse than the one before it. With the last one being quite wretched. They end up being vignettes of moments all focused on plot. But the stories, I’m convinced, are less about plot than they are about wonder and growing up. Put an other way, all the things so inessential to the plot are the very things that make the books enjoyable. But these are the very elements that need to be cut more and more in the films.
Now I’ll give the last film some credit. The office of Dolores Umbridge is wonderfully imagined as is the entry to the Ministry of Magic. The rest though. Ugh. Say what you will about Chris Columbus’ many failings as a director but he did manage to capture that element of wonder. (Although he thankfully had a slim volume with minimal plot to deal with)
Your thoughts? To me the best of the bunch is the second film, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. There Chris Columbus manages to keep the little elements and sense of wonder but gets a lot more dynamic with the camera. The second best is Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban by Alfonso Cuarón. I think Cuarón is overrated as a director. But I know many love his works. He adds a bit more of a darker tone and arguably much more creativity with the camera. But he faces what later directors face worse: a longer book with a more convoluted story. The last two were complete messes that I’d just as soon have never wasted my money on.
Your thoughts? Am I alone in this?
I like all the movies, but I love Azkaban. It’s the most coherent, cinematic, stylish, and affecting of the bunch. The last two have felt kind of like a bunch of vignettes tied together and the first two were very paint by numbers. But they’re all solid fun.
The movies were my introduction to the Harry Potter world. [I just read the last two books last week because I knew I wouldn't be able to go the three or four years it will take for the last two movies to come out without having the ending spoiled.] So I never had any expectations from the books getting in the way of enjoying the movies.
Comment by Tom — August 7, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
I don’t think these movies should have been made until the story had been finished-after the final book. I also think they could have then made multiple films at once a la LoTR or Pirates.
Comment by Tim J — August 7, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
I have to agree with Tom re: Azkaban; I am a sucker for Cuaron and thought it was wonderful.
Comment by Supergenius — August 7, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
Too bad they didn’t keep him. Although presumably he didn’t want to spend the next 5 years making Harry Potter movies.
I agree it was the most stylish. I can’t put my finger on what bothered me about it. But it did. And this from a Gary Oldman fan who was very happy he was getting beyond his typecast as a villain.
Comment by Clark — August 7, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
See, I look at a movie made from a book in a different way. As being a completely different medium, with different rules and methods, a film cannot follow a book anywhere close to exactly. As such, I actually think Chris Columbus’ films as the worst of the bunch, because he attempted to make those little things you cite as the main part of the movie. The problem is that when you deal with visuals, you cannot recreate the wonder of a book if you focus on the visuals. Wasn’t it George Lucas who said that special effects without a story is a pretty boring thing? (Of course he then turns around and gives us the boring Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones—but that’s another story).
I found both the first two movies to be down right dull. Eye candy. Superficial. Lacking the passion, the life of the book. Alfonso Cuaron brought some life into the series with the third book, as have the last two directors.
My problem with the Harry Potter series is that the movies have been made far too soon. There hasn’t been hardly any time for artists to conjure up the world in their own minds, for readers to visualize for themselves in their own imagination just what this wizardry world really looks like. We should have given it fifty years or so to let the artistry foment and produce fantastical art, a la Lord of the Rings. What made Lord of the Rings so fantastic is that those little things, dragons and the black riders and Gollum have all been conjured up in the minds of many artists, all providing masterful artistry for the film. It allows the film to present the story without overly focusing on the fantastical and magical.
The greatness of any story is not the fantastical, but always the relationship the characters have with each other. This, in the end, is what always draws us back to the best of the masterpieces.
Comment by Dan — August 7, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
Oh, I agree film and book are different. That’s why I didn’t mind, for instance, Lord of the Rings which has a very different feel from the books. The books are written in this odd conversational form that I don’t think I’ve seen in any other book of that type. The movies focus in on action which plays a fairly minor role in the books. But it worked.
Now one can take a very long book, capture its essence and bring it to the screen. The best example is (in my opinion) Silence of the Lambs.
That’s just not what happened with the Harry Potter books. As I said I think the book that comes closest to being captured is the second.
Now one can, of course, look to books that are either very, very loosely adapted (say the Bourne series as an exceptional example) or that take major liberties in places (say The Shining as a great example) However none of the Harry Potter movies do this.
I’ll grant you that Cuarón brought some life and dynamism to the films. (Which is why I listed it second) The last two not only didn’t do that they brought this odd grey tone to it. Further the films ended up feeling like loosely connected vignettes. It was much more about losing what made the books interesting so as to get to the next dragon fight. Contrast this to Lord of the Rings which focused on expanded “excitement” set pieces but managed to keep the tone. Further the LotRs films flowed naturally. (The closest exception would be the extended edition of the first film which I think could use a re-edit myself)
Comment by Clark — August 7, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
Oh, regarding characters. I think that the second and third films are where those were drawn the best and the issues of the characters brought out the most. I’d say that Columbus increased both the characterization but also the dynamism of the second one. (The camera moved a lot more in it) By the fifth film though the plot was overwhelming the characters. So they came through as almost rehearsing lines to the camera. At least to me. (This was very glaring in the last film I thought)
Comment by Clark — August 7, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
Clark, I think you’re just a hater.
But seriously, I happen to hold the opposite opinion. I think each movie has gotten progressively better. I think you have to take into account the massive popularity of the books in evaluating the movies. I’m guessing at least 90% of the people watching the movies have read the books. Obviously, the books are going to be more complex and detailed than the movies. The film makers have to make a lot of decisions about what to keep and what to cut. I think the last three movies have made very judicious decisions about what needs to stay to remain faithful to the overall narrative, while cutting whatever they can. The movies have to be Harry Potter distilled to its essense. Or, put another way, they are almost the Cliff’s Notes version of the books. But if you want to get the details, you can always turn back to the books.
That said, the acting, set design, editing and visual effects in the movies have been fantastic. And I’m always amazed at the movies’ ability to maintain consistency with an amazing cast.
Comment by BTD Greg — August 7, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
I’ve never managed to get into Harry Potter, books or movies, but I did end up seeing one movie. The one where there was a big lightning fight in a cemetery, or something, at the end. I thought it was pretty good, but obviously don’t remember much from it now.
I’m so lame about movies.
Comment by Susan M — August 7, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
The second movie was the best!?! I watched the first one and was disgusted. I decided to give the second a chance, just in case it was a fluke. It wasn’t.
What I hate about these movies basically centers in two things.
1) Harry doesn’t ever accomplish anything himself. His parents always bail him out one way or another. Indeed, I would like to see a movie about his parents.
2) The ending of both the first and the second was a complete pull a rabbit out of a hat ending. Each time Harry does something completely random which just happens to be the secret to beating the enemy. This scene is then followed by the necessary “Dumbledor, WTF was that?!?!” scene, where Dumbledor has to try explain to both Harry as well as the audience why the ending was not cheating after all. Like a joke, any time you have to explain the ending of a story, it can’t possibly have been that good.
Comment by Jeff G — August 7, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
Dear Jeff,
I felt the same way at your points #1 and #2. I was hoping that Harry would become some magical prodigy like Dumbledor and mop the floor with Voldemort in some final duel.
But Book 7 explains why Harry was so lucky each time he faced Voldemort and why Voldemort couldn’t kill him. Harry is special, but not because of his magical skill.
Comment by BRoz — August 7, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
Azkaban is the only one I really enjoyed. I haven’t liked the books at all though, enough that I haven’t read past the second, so I’m not the best judge.
Comment by jjohnsen — August 7, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
Been there already.
Comment by D. Fletcher — August 8, 2007 @ 9:34 am
Jeff, Harry is just a kid. Especially in the early books. Of course he can’t accomplish a whole lot himself. That seems an odd criticism. He does do a lot.
Comment by Clark Goble — August 8, 2007 @ 11:21 am
Clark,
I dislike the first two films because I had exactly the opposite reaction to them. I felt that Columbus was trying to hard to be faithful to every little detail of the book and that, as a result, we got a series of pictures that were reminiscent of the book, but no real sense of what it was like to live at Hogwarts. Columbus really had the visual equivalent of a tin ear for choosing details and tangential scenes (at least, to my mind). It always felt like a movie and never like another world to me.
I agree with the majority in saying that Cuaron’s film is the best of the bunch (although I haven’t seen the latest). Mike Newell’s version was servicable. Columbus’s were a little less than that.
My father always wondered what the hub-bub was about, but he didn’t read the books until a couple of weeks ago. His opinion is that they leave out too many details in the movie (perhaps assuming that all the audience has read the book and is able to fill in the details). The books are much, much richer in detail (and heart). Maybe the reason that the movies have been dissatisfying is that, in keeping the plot, they lose the magic. As an example, Fred and George are, by far, the most dynamic and exciting characters in the story. They are reader’s version of the id gone wild. They played next to no role in the first 4 movies and, while I imagine they must play a larger role in the fifth, they are still just scenary.
Comment by John C. — August 9, 2007 @ 9:15 am
John, that was sort of the point I was trying to make. By losing all the details the magic was lost.
Let me say I do think Columbus went too far in the first film (which I hated) in giving details. But what was most egregious was that annoying,”look, here’s the dinner table.” “Look, here’s a talking picture frame.” Now part of this was justifiable since it was Harry seeing them for the first time. But it was just too “in your face.” The first film was dismal film making on many, many levels. I really thought he got away from much of that in the second.
But, while I think the second and third films to be much, much better than the rest I honestly can’t say that I liked them.
Comment by Clark Goble — August 9, 2007 @ 10:23 am
I think Harry Potter might have been better as a series. Rather than 7 movies, a total of about 18 hours, how about a 3-year series of 50-minute-long episodes, so 50 hours of Harry?
Comment by D. Fletcher — August 10, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
heres the order i think the movies are from best tol least
1. Prisonor of Azkaban
it was the most exciting
2.Order of the phenoix
it would of been my 1st choice but it left
too much out and a lot of it was
essentail to the 7th book
3. Chamber of Secrets
i liked it and they stayed pretty close
to the book
4. Goblet of Fire
left some stuff out and it wasn’t
really really wasn’t excting till the
end
5.Sorceror’s Stone
wasn’t that exciting…. it was cool to see all about hogwarts and the magical world but it didn’t leave me on the edge of my seet it was bassically setting you up for the rest of the story line to come
Comment by Tammy — August 10, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
I’m really surprised to hear that anyone really liked the two films Chris Columbus directed. They invoked a sense of wonder well enough, but I think that was more due to the story itself than anything on his part. As Tom said, paint by numbers.
Azkaban is still the best of the five movies by far. I would have loved for Cuaron to direct all of the rest.
Comment by summershine — August 11, 2007 @ 9:06 am
harry potter is a roller coaster ride of excitement
Comment by jawe — November 16, 2007 @ 5:34 am
harry potter is a roller coaster ride of excitement coz of its versatility
Comment by jawe — November 16, 2007 @ 5:35 am
I LOVE HARRY POTTER HOW COULD YOU NOT??????????? I THINK HARRY POTTER FILMS ARE VERY GREAT MOVIES AND ALSO ARE THE BOOKS TOO. PLUS I THINK THERE GOOD BOOKS FOR KIDS LIKE AROUND THE AGE OF 10 TO 17 TO READ. I JUST DON’T SEE WHY CLARK WOULD HATE THE HARRY POTTER MOVIES AND BOOKS.
Comment by Robin — November 16, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
HARRY POTTER ROCKS!!!!!!!
Comment by Robin — November 16, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
YOU HEART LESS PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by Robin — November 16, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
I don’t see how everyone can say that the movies were full of fun but not very good. Is this some sort of ‘Pirates of the Carribean II’ thing, where it’s only funny to the hardcore fans? Because I’ve read all the books multiple times and have all the movies and I can’t see how soeone can like a movie but not think it’s good. I agree with whoever said that films and books cannot be compared. They are simply different mediums, just like books and paintings. The books are on a higher plane than the films, that’s all.
Comment by Jill — November 26, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
I think tht the books are better than the movie’s, and Azkaban is probably the best, but if you think all the movies suck, you’re a dumbass. =)
Comment by Katherine — November 30, 2007 @ 1:55 pm