HOME...REVIEWS...MOVIES

Movie Commentary
The Harry Potter Series

Commentary by Greg "M Sipher" Sepelak
11.25.2002

Don't forget to check out Daniel Suh's review of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.

I have absolutely nothing against the Harry Potter franchise. In fact, I feel that J.K. Rowling has accomplished something worthy of praise; she's encouraged millions of kids to pick up a book and read. That these kids are reading long and fairly complex books is all the better. Plus, she's managed to garner earnest readers from adults as well, which helps bridge that sticky gap between parents and their children.

(The fact that Potter's picked up some "notoriety" from certain loud and stupid parent groups, decrying the series for supposedly teaching kids to dabble in the black arts, only makes me root louder for Rowling, frankly.)

Now, I've never read the Harry Potter books. I've got my personal fantasy fiction fix, one mister Terry Pratchett's Discworld series (which I would give someone's left arm for to be brought to life on the big screen, particularly the books featuring the City Watch. Detritus is too fun a character to limit to the printed word). My wife, on the other hand, has read all the books so far, and is eagerly awaiting the next one in the series. So naturally, she was ready to head down to the theater to see the movies when they came out, with me in tow.

Now, I should note that it takes quite a bit to get my butt into a movie theater. I am really not the sort of person who can sit passively in one spot for an hour and a half. I have to be doing something; drawing, fiddling with a toy, writing down ideas, something. I'm a fidgeter. That getting up to use the bathroom or getting hot food means I'll miss part of the movie doesn't encourage me either. Plus... man, are there a lot of sucky movies. Lots and lots of them. There'll be stretches of months on end where there's not a damn thing in theaters I'd feel inclined to spend time on, much less money. Factoring in the cost of the ticket, snacks, and soda, the experience is so expensive that I have to really want to see a movie to go to the theater nowadays. Or my wife really has to want to see it and I really don't want to sleep on the couch.

That both of the Harry Potter movies (The Sorcerer's Stone and The Chamber of Secrets) managed to keep me in a seat and (relatively) quiet for their hefty two-hour-plus running time certainly says something for their quality, even if most of that can be attributed to the source material more than the medium. They were pretty good movies, I feel.

Yet knowing that we will be going back to that darkened theater to see the third Potter movie, Prisoner of Azkaban, there are things in the two previous movies that I earnestly hope will be missing or changed in future installments. They probably won't, but I feel better getting this off my chest.

All these changes have to do with adherence to the books. It's good that the people involved want to stay close to the source material, but let's be honest here: ditching Tom Bombadil and other bits from The Lord of the Rings didn't hurt that film in the least. Christopher Columbus, director of the first two movies and an executive producer of the third, should take a cue from that.

The biggest thing, I think, is that every plot cul-de-sac in the books really doesn't have to be splashed on the big screen in elaborate CGI-enhanced sequences or, in some cases, even be there at all. The Chamber of Secrets didn't need a Quiddich match to move the plot along. since we got an overlong match in the first movie, this one was ultimately a redundant plot point anyway. The whomping willow and rampaging pixies sequences too seem like little more than an exercise in CGI to force "This is a magical world" down our throats, ultimately doing little more than padding the film.

The less time the next movie spends on Harry's "muggle" family, the better it will be. If the books have one fault (assuming the movies are truly that accurate in capturing the books), it's a complete lack of subtlety. They looooovey-love to pour on "this character is not a nice person, you will hate this character." I can deal with the sneering, pompous Malfoy family to some degree, as they at least are relevant to the plots being hatched in the magicians' world. I don't have any problems with the relentlessly creepy and unlikable Professor Snipe, partially because he's been shown to be at least on the "good" side of magic, making him slightly more three-dimensional than the rest of the cast. I admit, though, that mostly I let it slide because he's Alan Rickman.

But the sequences with the Dursley family are just downright hateful experiences. They seem to exist only for the purpose of driving home how horrible Harry's non-Hogwarts existence is with a sledgehammer. I'm guessing Rowling is trying to make Harry more sympathetic that way. It only makes me question where child welfare is, or why Harry hasn't snapped and had them all killed. At least The Chamber of Secrets kept this portion of the film relatively short. If latter movies excise them altogether from the proceedings, then they'll be far better from that alone.

I strongly insist that something be added to the future Harry Potter films if the books do not provide. Both movies have committed a grievous crime in limiting John Cleese's appearances as Nearly-Headless Harry to maybe four minutes across both movies. It's John Cleese. John "Monty Python And Fawlty Towers" Cleese. How can these people sleep at night knowing that their movies have possibly one of the funniest men still alive, in a role ripe with comic possibility... as little more than a footnote, as disposable a piece of "Ain't this magical?" fluff as the self-washing dishes, living portraits or other visual tricks? It's just not right. I weep.

I realize all that probably makes it sound like I'm down on the movies; honestly, I'm not. Despite the bits that made me think "editing room floor" and "lay it on just a little thicker, please, I'm not convinced this character is evil yet," overall I did find the movies enjoyable enough experiences. Oh, they'd still have flaws even with the above considerations taken care of (both films rely heavily on deus ex machina to conquer the evil Voldemort), and they do suffer from the same "Let's show off our CGI scenery" bits that far, far too many other movies from the last few years do as well. But the plots are decently complex and woven pretty well. When a minor, silly sequence from the first book/movie becomes a major plot point in the second, someone was planning ahead. It was genuinely funny when it should have been, creepy when it should have. For the most part, it works.

They just need to realize that just because it works in a book, it doesn't necessarily add to the movie.

My wife and I will be in line for Prisoner of Azkaban, no doubt. And while I'm sure I'll walk out the theater having been pleasantly entertained, walking out without having to ask my wife "Why was that sequence in there? Was it that important in the book?" would be great.

Copyright © 1999 - 2005 ASM Productions
A SkyJammer Enterprises Publication
ASM is not responsible for content of offsite links.