Guilty Pleasures #18 - Harry Potter Month: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2

In my Death Note review I posed the question "what makes a good adaptation?" I never really answered the question, the answer is different for every person. My personal opinion is that it must capture the tone and feel of the source material and contain just enough of the plot to satisfy any future stories, whilst telling a complete story in its own right (it should never be a requirement to read a book or watch a series to understand a movie). It cannot be an exact copy of the source material. With a book, you can be content reading it for hours, maybe even days, that’s not the case with a movie, where 3 hours is pretty much the limit and even then it has to be a special movie that can last that long.

The Last Airbender is a terrible adaptation above all because it fails to capture the tone and feel of the source material. It’s a terrible movie for its cr*ppy pacing, constant exposition, lack of character, nonsensical plot elements etc. Death Note fails to me to capture the feel of its source because it fails to capture Light in the manor it was hoping to thanks to its ending plot-twists. I realise some of these are subjective but we’re here to talk about the Deathly Hallows part 2.

The later Harry Potter stories have in some ways struggled with my criteria because filming started prior to the book series being finished (filming for the Philosopher’s Stone began in 2000, the final book didn’t come out until 2007) plot points that become relevant later are often left out. Prime example is Bill Weasley whose appearance in part 1 was rather out of nowhere.

Made with whatever was left of the $250million after the first part was done (they were filmed concurrently) this film broke box office records, breaking $1bn at the box office, the highest of any Harry Potter movie and why wouldn’t it? The series has always been a strong performer at the box office and naturally people would flock to see the final instalment in this very long-running franchise. But does that mean it’s any good? Well, let’s dive in. 

For this review, I will be drawing comparisons to the book but I stand by my opinion that a movie should stand or fall on its own merits as well.

Harry Potter Month - Mini Review: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Political changes are a particularly difficult thing to write about when writing a children’s story. All too often it’s the case of portraying one side as the heroes whilst the others the villains, like Amon and Kuvira in Korra. Suffice it to say this is my least favourite of the Harry Potter books, not to say it was bad, but I’ll explain what I mean in the review.

David Yates steps into the director’s chair for this film, he’ll be the director of all the remaining Harry Potter movies. And the daunting trial for this movie is that it’s the longest book of the series, ironically converted into the shortest movie (counting the 2 deathly hallows movies as one anyway)

Movie made $939.9m on a $150m budget, but appraisal was a tad more mixed with a 71% on rotten tomatoes.

Harry Potter Month - Mini Review: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

So, we’ve made it to the fourth film, the first one to get a 12 (the UK equivalent of a PG-13 rating) in the UK. Why the change now? Partly it’s because of much darker content that more-or-less begins with this movie. Partly, and I’m only theorising here, is the introduction of a law in the UK that changed the 12 rating in cinemas to 12A, allowing children under the age of 12 to see such movies, providing they’re accompanied by an adult.

But that’s politics, we also have our third new director, Mike Newell after the director of the third movie Alfonso Cuarón denied stepping up for another movie. The movie was given a $150m budget and its performance was an improvement over the third, $896.9m earned in the box office. Critics enjoyed the movie, 88% rotten tomatoes rating and 81 on metacritic, for all that matters, it’s time to give my view.

Harry Potter Month - Mini Review: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

So we come to the second adaptation of a JK Rowling Novel, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. 

Interestingly this movie only had a $100m budget as opposed to the $125m for the first one, the film made $879m, an admirable performance but still below that of the first one.

Critical response was also positive, 83% on Rotten Tomatoes although only 63/100 on metacritic, the least of any Harry Potter Movie. But I’m not here to judge on other’s opinions, I’m here to give my own, so let’s dive in.

Harry Potter Month - Mini Review: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

It’s Harry Potter Month. 

Where I do mini reviews of all but one of the Harry Potter because like hell am I doing long reviews of movies that are within the realms of 2 and a half hours long. In fact, I’m only really doing a long review of half a movie… OK, I’m going off a bit here but let’s just say that the Harry Potter films do question the myth that children have short attention spans.

So where better to start than the first movie: Harry Potter and the Philsopher’s (or if you’re in America Sorcerer’s because... I really don’t care, the books were written by J K Rowling in England, it’s Philosopher’s) Stone.

Released in 2001 the movie was given a $125m budget and naturally was a success, grossing $987m in the box office, the second highest of any of the Harry Potter movies.

Just a final note before I begin, I haven’t reread the books for the purposes of these reviews, I’m judging the film on its own merits, not as an adaptation (although for some intent, I will reference areas of the book that I remember)