Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 (2010)

Directed by: David Yates

Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint

Overall Rating: 63.3

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt. 1" begins the final chapter in the Harry Potter universe.  Being the final chances for Warner Bros. to get some extra Harry Potter revenue, the decision to split the final film into two parts comes across as unnecessary and forced.  The entire "Part 1" just feels like a filler-lead-in to the ultimate climax, but never delivers anything of major substance.

"Part 1"'s real plot involves the kids of Hogwarts dealing with the *SPOILER* death of the school headmaster, Dumbledore.  As the evil Voldemort continues his quest to find and kill Harry Potter, Harry and the gang attempt to remain hidden, while also tracking down and destroying the "Horcruxes" to weaken Voldemort.

The pace of the film is unabashedly slow.  Without being able to trust anyone, we're left primary 3 characters (Harry, Ron, and Hermione) traveling on their own, plotting their next move.  The only real action occurs when Voldemort's minions finally do corner the kids, only to have them slip away by the skin of their teeth over and over again.  The worst offense of just poor film-making occurs towards the end of the film when the kids are captured by a group of Snatchers and taken to Beatrix (Helena Bonham Carter) and the Malfoys.  Not being sure if the disfigured face is actually Harry, the last 30 minutes of the film is essentially the bad guys trying to figure out if it really is him.  Don't worry about the fact that this "unknown person" was travelling with the only 2 friends Harry has, or the fact that these baddies have shown no remorse for killing innocent people before but are now suddenly needing to be sure it's Harry before handing over to Voldemort.

The one area where the movie does shine is where the Potter series struggled early on: the visuals.  While early on, all of the visual effects seemed childish and out of place (mostly because they were forcing child actors to work with CGI/greenscreen effects), the later films in the series including "Part 1" have really refined how and when they rely on the CGI.  Everything feels much more realistic and blended in with the story, not forcing "cool" images just to have them in the film.

Not personally being a big Harry Potter fan, I can understand the attraction of the film for the die-hards out there waiting to see how their beloved Harry's story plays out.  But as someone watching the film as a standalone piece (although watching all Potter films in chronological order), "Part 1" just doesn't deliver.  Had they combined Parts 1 and 2 into one 3 hour film, it could have been an amazing experience, but the decision to split "The Deathly Hallows" into 2 parts hurts the integrity of Part 1 more-so.

Individual Ratings
Enjoyment Factor: 5
Dialogue: 6
Acting: 6
Direction: 8
Audio/Visual: 7

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

Directed by: Mike Newell

Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint

Overall Rating: 75.8

"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" takes the standard formula of the previous Harry Potter films and turns it upside down, but in a good way.  In "Goblet", Harry and pals learn of a wizardry tournament to be held at Hogwarts that includes the best students of three wizard schools.  While Hogwarts initially was represented by new character Cedric Diggory (Robert Pattinson), Harry's name is somehow entered into the tournament despite him not being of age.

Over the course of the film, we see the tournament champions participate in a series of 3 challenges meant to show their prowess as wizards.  Unsurprisingly, every single break that Harry could catch, he does.  Whether it's getting a sneak look at the first challenge, miraculously finding an herb that allows him to breathe underwater for an hour, or being right around the corner every time a friend is in need.  I know the films are designed for younger viewers, but after 4 films even a pre-teen has to be wondering how Harry always seems to be in the right place at the right time.

As the characters are growing older and now in their mid-teens, the romantic storylines are starting to take place.  Again, despite being seemingly the most famous wizard in the world and having girls constantly swoon over him, we get the "Harry is a nerd who can't get a date" storyline while the young students look for partners to attend a ball celebrating the tournament. 

"Goblet" also finally reveals Ralph Fiennes as the fully incarnated Lord Voldemort, a much needed character at this point in the series to help darken things a bit.  While the previous films all had their versions of villains, the storylines all felt a bit "Scooby-Doo" in their childlike plots.

Director Mike Newell makes his mark during his only "Potter" film, relying less on fancy wizard special effects as the previous films, and more on character interaction.  Some swooping shots through landscapes overdo it a little on certain instances, but in all, the film works visually.

"The Goblet of Fire" continues to take the Potter universe into more adult themes, and continues to help move the series in the right direction.  The youngsters still have their moments where they appear to be overacting, but the cheese factor from some of the earlier films is being limited.


Individual Ratings
Enjoyment Factor: 8
Dialogue: 6
Acting: 6
Direction: 7
Audio/Visual: 7

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)

Directed by: Chris Columbus

Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint

Overall Rating: 63.5

The second film in the "Harry Potter" series, "Chamber of Secrets" sees the young wizards return to Hogwarts for their second year of wizardry school.  Ignoring warnings of death should he return, Harry Potter and the gang must unravel the mystery of the titular Chamber of Secrets, that is causing students to be petrified.

With "Chamber", however, the storytelling seems to take a back seat to wowing the audience with visual effects and what I like to call, the "kid at heart" moments, where the film focuses more on showcasing something that a 10 year old wishes were real.  These visual effects on their own are unique and entertaining for the younger audience, but takes away from the overall storytelling.

Following up on the first entry "The Sorcerer's Stone", "Chamber" falls into the same routine/pattern.  Show Harry's abusive adopted family, let the audience know what the mystery of the film is, have a quidditch match, then solve the entire mystery at hand in the final 30 minutes.  It worked for the first film where we are being introduced to the magical world of Potter, but seeing the same template unfold in "Chamber" left me feeling like I was watching a photocopied letter, only with different font.

Still being young into their acting careers, the children in the film appear to still be learning how to portray emotion.  It's easy to write them off as inexperienced, but when 85% of your cast are child actors, it affects the viewing enjoyment after a while if they don't have any range.  Whether it's Rupert Grint's constant look of open mouthed fear, Emma Watson's know-it-all smirks, or Daniel Radcliffe's amazed bewilderment, we don't get to see a wide range of character emotion.

As previously mentioned, what "Chamber" does do well is visually and aurally stimulate the audience.  John Williams' score uplifts the viewer to a heightened sense of wonder, as is so often the case with his work.  The CGI seemed sharper than in "Sorcerer's Stone", if by ever so little. 

All in all, "Chamber of Secrets" undoubtedly serves a purpose in the grand scheme of things in the Harry Potter universe, but as a standalone movie, it comes up short.

Individual Ratings
Enjoyment Factor: 5
Dialogue: 6
Acting: 6
Direction: 8
Audio/Visual: 8