Film Feature: Harry Potter and the Legacy of a Franchise

Printer-friendly versionE-mail page to friendPDF version

2.) Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Photo credit: Warner Bros.

Though this first non-Columbus installment may be considered by some fans as the oddball of the series, it is utterly exhilarating, even as the entire production momentarily buckles under the weight of its own ambition. Alfonso Cuarón (“Children of Men”) was the first person to transform Rowling’s text into a work of cinematic art. No director before or since has taken as visionary and audacious an approach to the material.

The last act initially overwhelms with a burst of complex plot twists during a confrontation scene that plays like a screenwriting train wreck, but the following sequences, in which story fragments click together in exuberantly satisfying fashion, more than compensate for the confusion. Cuarón is more interested in evoking the mood and spirit of the books than becoming enslaved by their plots. He pays for it a bit in the end, but his efforts were worth it.

Some of the best details in the film occur in the corners of the frame: the dire fate of a bird perched upon the Whomping Willow, the Igor-like innkeeper who silences his car with a Muggle-made remote, the bobbing figure of Harry’s inflated Aunt Marge (played by Pam Ferris, who ironically played the Trunchbull in “Matilda”), etc. Radcliffe has said in interviews that Cuarón was the first filmmaker who instilled in him a passion for cinema.

The director gives Radcliffe a smashing showcase, but the actor still isn’t quite up to the acting challenges, relying on his tendency to breathe heavily through gritted teeth when attempting to show emotion (a tick he still has yet to shrug off). But Cuarón does push Radcliffe out of his comfort zone in scenes where his adolescent angst causes him to lash out at the world at the same time as his friends (Hermione’s knuckle sandwich served to Malfoy is a rousing crowd-pleaser). The addition of Michael Gambon as Dumbledore is crucial, since he lacks the warmth of Harris, turning the character into a tangible and fallible being with a sly wit to boot. The more you love cinema, the more likely it is that Cuarón’s masterwork will leave you dazed and dazzled.

Pensieve Moment: I ended up forcing two buddies of mine to see this one with me in the theater. Neither of them wanted to be caught dead in a Potter line. We ended up seeing it on a double bill with the execrable Vin Diesel vehicle, “The Chronicles of Riddick.” As “Azkaban”’s end credits began to roll, my friend Steve turned to me and said, “Hey, this Potter stuff isn’t too bad…”

1.) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1
Photo credit: Warner Bros.

To say this latest installment is the best of the series is somewhat of a gamble, since it’s technically the first half of the picture. But as a standalone work, it is simply extraordinary. As much as I loved the previous “Potter” pictures, I was extremely skeptical about Warner’s decision to split the final film in two. It all smelled suspiciously like a moneymaking scheme that could potentially botch the saga’s crucial final chapter. The fact it has strengthened the adaptation above and beyond all expectations is a triumph attributable to Yates, who utilizes the extra running time to explore the characters with a depth that wouldn’t be possible in a mere two-and-a-half hours.

Without the comforting structure of a school year or the ensemble of veteran acting legends to back them up, Radcliffe, Grint and Watson are given the opportunity to truly shine. They do not disappoint. As the three friends become stranded in the woods while evil forces lurk about, the tension and claustrophobia resonates on an achingly real level. For the first time ever, the attraction between Ron and Hermione feels genuine. When Ron suspects that his friends are conspiring behind his back, his enraged outburst has none of the usual Weasley-esque cuteness. If I had to choose which young actor has evolved the most over time, it has got to be Grint, whose portrayal of the wounded and moody best friend is both riveting and drolly funny (without an ounce of overacting).

As for Radcliffe, he excels during a priceless sight gag where various characters morph into Harry, allowing the actor to briefly display his versatility. Even Dobby, the obnoxious house elf from “Chamber,” proves to be lovable this time around, a sure sign that the franchise has learned from its past missteps. Yates appears to have taken a cue from Cuarón in terms of his visual richness—there’s a magnificent animated sequence used to cinematically convey the meaning of the Deathly Hallows. Yet the best sequence is also the one dreamed up purely by the filmmakers: Harry and Hermione’s impromptu dance to “O Children” (by Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds), which manages to say more about their relationship than any amount of dialogue ever could. It removes every last shred of doubt that Yates is the right man to bring this franchise in for a landing.

Pensieve Moment: “Deathly Hallows” was the only Potter book I read all in one go. I was hellbent in ensuring that no killjoy ruined the ending for me. So in the midst of my hectic college schedule, I managed to set aside an entire day and read the book cover to cover. It was a euphoric experience. When “Part 1” arrived in theaters, I flew out to see it with my sister at a theater near her new apartment. Now she’s flying in to see “Part 2” with me ten years after we experienced the first one together. Regardless of the final film’s merit, it’s guaranteed to make for a magical night.

By MATT FAGERHOLM Staff Writer HollywoodChicago.com matt@hollywoodchicago.com