Critical response to the Harry Potter films

The Harry Potter film series is distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures, produced by David Heyman and based on the Harry Potter novels by British author J. K. Rowling. The franchise consists of eight fantasy films. It is currently the of all time.
All the films have been a financial success, making the franchise one of the major Hollywood "tent-poles" akin to James Bond, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Pirates of the Caribbean and Lord of the Rings. Overall, the series' eight films have generally received very positive reviews and acclaim from critics. However, opinions of the films generally divide book fans, with some preferring the more faithful approach of the first two films, and others preferring the more stylised character-driven approach of the later films.
Author J. K. Rowling has been constantly supportive of the films, and evaluated Deathly Hallows as her favourite one in the series. She wrote on her website of the changes in the book-to-film transition, "It is simply impossible to incorporate every one of my storylines into a film that has to be kept under four hours long. Obviously films have restrictions - novels do not have constraints of time and budget; I can create dazzling effects relying on nothing but the interaction of my own and my readers' imaginations".
Overview
Films
Philosopher's Stone
', directed by Chris Columbus, garnered a rating of % "Fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes, Roger Ebert called Philosopher's Stone "a classic," giving the film four out of four stars, and particularly praising the visual effects used for the Quidditch scenes. Praise was echoed by both The Telegraph and Empire reviewers, with Alan Morrison of the latter naming it the "stand-out sequence" of the film. Brian Linder of IGN.com also gave the film a positive review, but concluded that it "isn't perfect, but for me it's a nice supplement to a book series that I love". Although criticising the final half-hour, Jeanne Aufmuth of Palo Alto Online stated that the film would "enchant even the most cynical of moviegoers."
USA Today reviewer Claudia Puig gave the film three out of four stars, especially praising the set design and Robbie Coltrane's portrayal of Hagrid, but criticised John William's score and concluded "ultimately many of the book's readers may wish for a more magical incarnation." The sets, design, cinematography, effects and principal cast were all given praise from Kirk Honeycutt of The Hollywood Reporter, although he deemed John Williams' score "a great clanging, banging music box that simply will not shut up." Todd McCarthy of Variety compared the film positively with Gone with the Wind and put "The script is faithful, the actors are just right, the sets, costumes, makeup and effects match and sometimes exceed anything one could imagine." Jonathan Foreman of the New York Post recalled that the film was "remarkably faithful," to its literary counterpart as well as a "consistently entertaining if overlong adaptation."
Richard Corliss of Time, considered the film a "by the numbers adaptation," criticising the pace and the "charisma-free" lead actors. CNNs Paul Tatara found that Columbus and Kloves "are so careful to avoid offending anyone by excising a passage from the book, the so-called narrative is more like a jamboree inside Rowling's head." Nathaniel Rogers of Film Experience gave the film a negative review and wrote: "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is as bland as movies can get." Ed Gonzalez of Slant Magazine wished that the film had been directed by Tim Burton, finding the cinematography "bland and muggy," and the majority of the film a "solidly dull celebration of dribbling goo."
Chamber of Secrets
Chamber of Secrets, also directed by Chris Columbus, currently garners an % "Certified Fresh" approval rating at Rotten Tomatoes Roger Ebert called The Chamber of Secrets "a phenomenal film" and gave the film 4 out of 4 stars, especially praising the set design. Entertainment Weekly commended the film for being better and darker than its predecessor: "And among the things this Harry Potter does very well indeed is deepen the darker, more frightening atmosphere for audiences. This is as it should be: Harry's story is supposed to get darker". Richard Roeper praised the directing and the film's faithfulness to the book, saying: "Chris Columbus, the director, does a real wonderful job of being faithful to the story but also taking it into a cinematic era".
Variety also said the film was excessively long, but praised it for being darker and more dramatic, saying that its confidence and intermittent flair to give it a life of its own apart from the books was something The Philosopher's Stone never achieved. A. O. Scott from The New York Times said: "instead of feeling stirred you may feel battered and worn down, but not, in the end, too terribly disappointed". Peter Travers from The Rolling Stone condemned the film for being over-long and too faithful to the book: "Once again, director Chris Columbus takes a hat-in-hand approach to Rowling that stifles creativity and allows the film to drag on for nearly three hours". Kenneth Turan from The Los Angeles Times called the film a cliché which is "deja vu all over again, it's likely that whatever you thought of the first production - pro or con - you'll likely think of this one".
Prisoner of Azkaban
Prisoner of Azkaban, directed by Alfonso Cuarón, received a % "Certified Fresh" approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Peter Travers of Rolling Stone gave the film three-and-a-half out of four stars: "Not only is this dazzler by far the best and most thrilling of the three Harry Potter movies to date, it's a film that can stand on its own even if you never heard of author J.K. Rowling and her young wizard hero." The Hollywood Reporter called the film "a deeper, darker, visually arresting and more emotionally satisfying adaptation of the J.K. Rowling literary phenomenon," especially compared to the first two instalments. Stephanie Zacharek of Salon.com asserts it to be "one of the greatest fantasy films of all time." Director Terry Gilliam, whom Rowling had originally favored for film adaptations of the Harry Potter series but had been rejected by studio executives and who had called the first two Harry Potter films by Chris Columbus "just dull. Pedestrian.", praised Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban as "really good...much closer to what I would've done."
Roger Ebert gave the film three-and-a-half out of four stars saying that the film "is not quite as good as the first two," but still called it "a delightful, amusing and sophisticated instalment." Claudia Puig from USA Today praised the film as "a visual delight," while Richard Roeper called the film "a creative triumph." Sean Smith from Newsweek said: "The Prisoner of Azkaban boasts a brand-new director and a bold new vision," he also called the film "moving," praising the performances by Radcliffe and Watson, while Entertainment Weekly praised the film for being more mature than its predecessors. Some of the negative criticism came from The Washington Post: "Put delicately, this is one long sit, made all the more so by a turgid story, a dour visual palette and uninspiring action." Rex Reed, of The New York Observer, also pointed out some over the top style changes, calling it "the silliest, as well as the most contrived - and confusing - of them all."
Goblet of Fire
Goblet of Fire, directed by Mike Newell, holds an % "Certified Fresh" overall approval rating at Rotten Tomatoes. The young actors were praised for demonstrating a "greater range of subtle emotions", particularly Daniel Radcliffe whom Variety described as delivering a "dimensional and nuanced performance".
New cast members were also praised: Brendan Gleeson's portrayal of Mad-Eye Moody was described as "colourful"; The maturity of Harry, Ron, and Hermione, among others, impressed most critics. While the major characters were portrayed as children in the previous films, "they have subtly transitioned into teenagers (in Goblet of Fire)" according to one USA Today reviewer. Harry has also physically matured since Prisoner of Azkaban. In the scene in the prefects' bathroom, Daniel Radcliffe's character is shown with significant axillary hair and muscle growth. Negative criticism included the film's pace which The Arizona Republic described as being "far too episodic", while CNN.com described the film as "clunky and disjointed". Another criticism was that the many supporting characters did not get enough screen time. and set-up events that occur later in the series.
Order of the Phoenix
Order of the Phoenix, directed by David Yates, holds a % approval rating at Rotten Tomatoes. The site's general consensus reads; "" It also has a score of 71 out of 100 on Metacritic, the fifth highest rated after Deathly Hallows Part 2, Prisoner of Azkaban, Goblet of Fire and Half-Blood Prince. Colin Bertram of the New York Daily News gave the film four out of four stars, calling it the best Potter film yet and wrote that "die-hard Potter addicts will rejoice that Yates has distilled J. K. Rowling's broad universe with care and reverence".
Mark Adams of The Sunday Mirror, while giving the film four out of five stars, called it "a dark and delicious delight a must-see movie". Rene Rodriguez of The Miami Herald gave the film three stars out of four and wrote that the film "is the first instalment in the soon-to-be series-of-seven that doesn't seem like just another spinoff capitalising on the money-minting Harry Potter brand name. Instead, Phoenix feels like a real 'movie'". Imelda Staunton's performance as Dolores Umbridge and Helena Bonham Carter's as Bellatrix Lestrange were widely acclaimed; Staunton was described as the "perfect choice for the part" and "one of the film's greatest pleasures", "coming close to stealing the show". The Daily Mail described Staunton's portrayal of Umbridge as a "refreshing addition", with the character herself described as "a cross between Margaret Thatcher and Hyacinth Bucket". Bonham Carter was said to be a "shining but underused talent". Variety praised Alan Rickman's portrayal of Severus Snape, writing that he "may have outdone himself; seldom has an actor done more with less than he does here".
Newcomer Evanna Lynch, playing Luna Lovegood, also received good word from a number of reviewers including the New York Times who declared her "spellbinding". Peter Travers of Rolling Stone also lauded the three principal actors' achievements, especially Radcliffe: "One of the joys of this film is watching Daniel Radcliffe grow so impressively into the role of Harry. He digs deep into the character and into Harry's nightmares. It's a sensational performance, touching all the bases from tender to fearful". Rolling Stones review also classified the film as better than the previous four instalments in the series, by losing the "candy-ass aspect" of the first two and "raising the bar" from the "heat and resonance" of the third and fourth. Peter Travers of Rolling Stone called the film "the best of the series so far, the laughs, the jitters and the juice to make even nonbelievers wild about Harry". Kirk Honeycutt of The Hollywood Reporter wrote that Phoenix is "quite possibly the least enjoyable of the so far", and that despite "several eye-catching moments", "the magic - movie magic, that is - is mostly missing". The review also criticised the underuse of the "cream of British acting", noting the brief appearances of Helena Bonham Carter, Maggie Smith, Emma Thompson, David Thewlis, Richard Griffiths, Jason Isaacs and Julie Walters.
Half-Blood Prince
Half-Blood Prince, also directed by David Yates, holds an overall approval rating from critics of % on the film review aggregate website Rotten Tomatoes with "Fresh" reviews. The film scored 87/100 from professional critics at the Broadcast Film Critics Association and is the only entry in the franchise to gain a nomination for an Academy Award for Best Cinematography.
BBC News's Tim Masters has praised the film's cinematography, visual effects, production design, improved acting and darker plotline. The first review of the film came three weeks before the official release. Paul Dergarabedian of Hollywood.com ranked the film with and called the film a "possible Oscar contender". He highly praised the performance of Sir Michael Gambon, Alan Rickman and Daniel Radcliffe. He commented, "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is a tour-de-force that combines style and substance, special effects and heart and most importantly great performances from all of the actors young and not-so-young". Another early review came from the UK tabloid The Sun, whose anonymous reviewer called the film "masterful" and "very emotional". The reviewer praised David Yates' directing and called Jim Broadbent's portrayal of Horace Slughorn "perfect". Devin Faraci of Chud.com called the film not only the best Harry Potter film yet, but also one of the best films of the year. Andrew Pulver of The Guardian wrote a positive review, and gave the film 3.5 out of 5 stars rating.
Todd McCarthy of the trade magazine Variety said that the film is "dazzlingly well made" and "less fanciful than the previous entries". He praised Alan Rickman's performance and he described Helena Bonham Carter as "mesmerising" and Jim Broadbent as "grand eccentric old professor". The Hollywood Reporter ' s Kirk Honeycutt noted that the film's first half is "jerky and explosive", but in the second half, the film finds better footing. He adds, "Composer Nicholas Hooper, cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel and designer Stuart Craig deliver a singularly muscular and vigorous chapter". Screen Daily called the film "tunningly shot by Bruno Delbonnel in metallic hues leavened by buttery tones and the thumping beats of Nicholas Hooper’s score bear little resemblance to the original and the overall effect is much less tween, much more grown-up".
Deathly Hallows - Part 1
Deathly Hallows - Part 1 was also directed by David Yates. Film review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reports that % of critics gave the film a positive review based on 235 reviews, with an average score of . The consensus is "". The film scored 87/100 from professional critics at the Broadcast Film Critics Association. Among other reviews, Variety gave the film a positive rating, stating, " Having made it this far, the Potter faithful won't be deterred by "Part 1's" bleak, inconclusive tenor, spelling phenomenal returns and raising expectations for a truly spectacular finish."
The UK's Daily Telegraph also gave the film a positive review, remarking, "For the most part the action romps along, spurred by some impressive special effects," adding, "It’s just slightly disappointing that, with the momentum having been established so effectively, we now have to wait until next year to enjoy the rest of the ride." Roger Ebert awarded the first part three out of four stars, praising the cast and calling it "a handsome and sometimes harrowing film... completely unintelligible for anyone coming to the series for the first time". Scott Bowles of USA Today called it, "Menacing and meditative, Hallows is arguably the best instalment of the planned eight-film franchise, though audiences who haven't kept up with previous chapters will be hopelessly lost", while Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly likewise praised the film as "the most cinematically rewarding chapter yet." In a review for the Orlando Sentinel, Roger Moore proclaimed Part I as "Alternately funny and touching, it's the best film in the series, an Empire Strikes Back for these wizards and their wizarding world. And those effects? They're so special you don't notice them." However, Newsweek had a negative review in its 15 November issue, saying that "They’ve taken one of the most enchanting series in contemporary fiction and sucked out all the magic...while Rowling’s stories are endlessly inventive, Potter onscreen just gives you a headache."
Deathly Hallows - Part 2
Deathly Hallows - Part 2, once again directed by David Yates, opened to a Rotten Tomatoes overall approval rating of % based on 260 reviews. The site's consensus reads; "". The film received a "Critic's Choice" certificate and a score of 93 from professional critics at the Broadcast Film Critics Association; it is their highest rated Harry Potter film.
The first review of the film was released on 5 July 2011 by The Daily Telegraph. Philip Womack commented, "This is monumental cinema, awash with gorgeous tones, and carrying an ultimate message that will resonate with every viewer, young or old: there is darkness in all of us, but we can overcome it." He further expressed that David Yates "transmutes into a genuinely terrifying spectacle." Another review was released on the same day, this time from Evening Standard, who rated the film 4/5 and stated "Millions of children, parents, and those who should know better won't need reminding what a Horcrux is - and director David Yates does not let them down. In fact, in some ways, he helps make up for the shortcomings of the final book." The Daily Express remarked that the film showcases "a terrifying showdown that easily equals Lord of the Rings or Star Wars in terms of a dramatic and memorable battle between good and evil."
Roger Ebert gave the film three and a half stars out of four and said that "The finale conjures up enough awe and solemnity to serve as an appropriate finale and a dramatic contrast to the lighthearted (relative) innocence of ' all those magical years ago." Mark Kermode said that the film is a "pretty solid and ambitious adaptation of a very complex book", but he criticised the post-converted 3D. Christy Lemire of the Associated Press gave the film three and a half stars out of four and said "While Deathly Hallows: Part 2 offers long-promised answers, it also dares to pose some eternal questions, and it'll stay with you after the final chapter has closed." Richard Roeper gave the film an A+ rating and said that "This is a masterful and worthy final chapter in one of the best franchises ever put to film."

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu