Yes, I'm very biased. Harry Potter is to me sheer perfection, but even as an 'objective movie-reviewer wannabe' I think that the films are quite unique. Every film manages to feel both very different from the last one, but at the same time there is a strong feel of similarity. It's the perfect mix between authenticity and renovation. I'll try to explain why the Harry Potter series isn't just of great sentimental value for me, but that it is the strongest films series of the last few decades.
Four years after the first novel came out, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001) hit the theatres. It was an instant hit, and it made almost 1 billions dollar at the box office. Chris Columbus, the director, worked very closely with J.K. Rowling (who insisted that the whole cast would be British) that the magical feeling of the books would translate into film. The three young actors, Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson, became worldwide stars within months. These actors were as good as an actor of 11 years old could be. In comparison to the outstanding supporting cast (Maggie Smith, Richard Harris, Alan Rickman and Robbie Coltrane) they do fall short, but that is to be expected. The growth that these three young actors went through, throughout the eight films, is amazing. Around the third film Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) they are not a weaker aspect of the film anymore, they are part of the very stellar cast.
The growth of the three main actors is an important part of the development of the films. The older they get, the more mature the films become. The atmosphere from the first film (2001) is so different from the last one (2011). It's not only because of the more advanced possibilities of special effects in 2011, but the latter films are darker and more serious. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 (2010) and Part 2 (2011) are no children's films anymore, because there are truly frightening and mature moments in them. The development of the films is also accented by the darker soundtracks. The four composers (John Williams, Patrick Doyle, Nicholas Hooper and Alexandre Desplat) add more maturity to the films as they go along. Characters and the feel of a film often change throughout various films series like The Lord of the Rings or Pirates of the Caribbean, but the changes that the Potter universe goes through are unmatched.
The crew is an important part of why the whole film series feels like a whole, despite its internal differences. There have been four directors, but the production designer, screenwriter and producer have been around from basically the first film to the last. The role of especially Steve Kloves as screenwriter has been a crucial one. With one main screenwriter the characters can be given a consistent voice in all films. It is therefore notable that he didn't write the script of the fifth film Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007), because that film is, in my opinion, chracter-wise one of the least. J. K. Rowling has stated in various interviews that she felt like her story was safe in the hands of David Heyman, the main producer of all films. Because all of these consistent factors, watching any Harry Potter film, is like coming home.
There are not a lot of other film series with more than five parts. And the series that have multiple parts, are quality wise by no means consistent. Part I, II (and III) of the Star Wars Saga were highly disappointing and there are enough bad movies in the Star Trek series, the James Bond films and X-Men. All these series lack consistency and that is why Harry Potter is something special. The worst reviewed film (Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)) still gets solid reviews, a 6.3 by 'metacritics' (professional critics) and all films are between a 7.4 and a 8.1 on IMDb (general audiences). In comparison: the Star Wars films are between 6.5 and an 8.8. I think that it's better to be consistently good, than to have very high peaks and low dips. Also, the last two films have proven that the splitting of a story doesn't always have to unnecessary (because The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, The Hobbit and Twilight: Breaking Dawn really weren't that spectacular).
In short, the Harry Potter series is unique because of the huge development and changes the films go through over the course of 10 years. It is also unique because of the incredible consistent quality and appreciation of both general audiences and movie critics. There has never been a series like Harry Potter and quite frankly, I don't think there ever will be.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten