There was a review of the 3rd Harry Potter movie that appeared in our local paper. The reviewer raved about it, saying it was superior to the previous two movies and stood alone (was more understandable to people who hadn't read the books) better than the first two moview. I took exception to the review and wrote the following in response to it:
I saw the third Harry Potter film with my family and a friend last night. I’ve enjoyed all the books and was very pleased with the two previous movies. I couldn’t have been more surprised to read your review (from yesterday) this morning, touting this movie as better and more stand-alone than the previous two movies. I’m not intending to start a riot, but I’d like to respectfully disagree with some of the things you said.
“It has great depth and maturity.” You said that but I was unclear what you based it on. Depth seemed to be one of the things that this movie hadn’t the leisure for. The opening scenes for example—the ones with the Dursleys—are usually among my favorite in the books and the movies. Here, like everywhere else in the movie, the action is so compressed that we don’t even have any actual words from Harry’s despised cousin. We see Harry blowing up his aunt with relish and horror after a couple of nasty taunts about his parents, but none of the pathos of his struggle living in a home where he is not wanted. Maybe you meant when Hermione finally punched Malfoy in the face? Funny, but hardly mature. The books and movies that preceded this one had/have a knack for making Harry’s considerable losses ever-present for the reader/viewer just like they are to Harry. This film substitutes visual gags (singing frogs, bird-eating trees, Hagrid skipping stones) or lavish scenery for emotional depth.
“It’s the first version that can actually stand alone as a movie rather than as a slavish copy of the J.K. Rowling novels.” This movie, by far, seems the weakest in that area to me, mainly because it doesn’t explain (please read that in italics) anything. Without some background knowledge of the books or the previous movies, you wouldn’t even know who some of the characters are—Mrs. Weasley is reduced to two or three lines and a strange poncho. The Weasley twins—Ron’s older brothers who figure so prominently into the books—are barely introduced, and Ginny Weasley is hardly even a cameo. The movie, although running two-and-a-half hours, skims over the complex story line like a drive-by shooting. The characters that we’ve come to know and love—Dumbledore, McGongall, Hagrid and even Snape—don’t have enough screen time to actually establish a personality. You have to either know them from the books or from the previous movies to even get a whiff of what they are like. The new professors and Sirius Black, who figure so prominently into the plot (or what passes for it in this movie) are reduced to caricatures. Compare the un-illuminating introduction of Professor Trelawney (obviously not Emma Thompson’s fault, as she is stellar) to the comprehensive understanding we had of Professor Gilderoy Lockhart, in all his wonderful weakness. And Rupert Grint is not well-used here despite the amount of time he has on screen—this movie plays him for more of a patsy than he deserves, not even including him in the joke in the end. The most well-developed character in this movie, I am very sad to say, is the Whomping Willow, and even this character was introduced—far better and a great deal more terrifying—in the last movie.
“Here, he (Alfonso Cuaron) has given “The Prisoner” a dark look that should be acceptable to the books’ fans.” “Rather than the somewhat absurd, if entertaining, aspects of the earlier films, Cuaron has gone for a measure of realism that may make this a movie classic independent of its literary roots. “
Do you mean all those sunny fields that the camera relishes (when it should be doing character development)? Or the long, loving shots of a bridge that has no significance? Maybe Hagrid’s home, which has inexplicably moved to a field in the middle of nowhere? The first movie had far more tone, and cinematic depth—the Hogwarts castle itself is spooky, the professors interesting but also somewhat terrifying, the fear of being unwelcome here (as well) is almost palpable. Also, one of the things so admired in the first movie was the way that we got to see Harry react to things—like the moving pictures in the castle—like we would, while everyone else in the movie treats them as quite commonplace. Here, the director might as well have been sitting in the audience saying, “Look, look—the pictures are moving and talking!”
If it was possible to find someone in America who hadn’t read the books or seen the two previous movies and sit them down for this one, I doubt that he or she would be able to follow the plot of this third Harry Potter movie. This I could forgive, since I am blessed to have known all of the above, except for the way the movie (or maybe it was just your review of it) seems to sneer at them. To belittle something that you are at the same time dependent on is hardly heroic.
If you’ll pardon me being direct, I did not really dislike the movie, even with its flaws. It needed at least an hour longer and a better understanding of the characters to tell the complex story it attempted. I did, however, take considerable exception to your review of it.
I would love to hear other's comments about any of the other HP movies!
Welcome to the Muppet Central Forum!
Sesame Street Season 55
Jim Henson Idea Man
Back to the Rock Season 2
Bear arrives on Disney+
Sam and Friends Book
