A Modest Disappointment

Rating: 6/10 (21 November 2005)

This is easily the worst of the 4 Harry Potter films. Within that comment, I don't mean to imply that the movie is bad, as it is still among the more enjoyable 2-1/2 hours I've spent in the theater. However, the movie falls far below expectation, and is problematic in many ways.
Part of the problem is JK Rowling herself. It really isn't necessary to write a near 800-page book, geared primarily for children. A story about a young wizard doesn't have to compete with "War and Peace" to achieve the page-limit of greatness in literature. Thus, the problem facing Steve Kloves (screenwriter), and Mike Newell (Director)--taking a snippet from the book and making it into a full-length feature film.
What could have been an exciting story, became, what appeared to be, a single scene stretched to 2-1/2 hours. As a result, you get short shrift of many of the central characters, such as Hagrid and McGonagall, and you're left with serious problems concerning content and pacing. Most of the scenes didn't flow very well together, as if major chunks had been exorcised for the final cut, and the editing seemed so disjointed, I left the theater almost numb.
The cinematography was also substandard, as it looked way too dark and murky for way too long. I thought I was watching the movie through a Coke bottle. Add to that some rather insipid dialogue and stiff acting from most of the actors involved, and the overall feel of the movie comes across as rather amateurish and not quite ready for release. And yes, the CGI effects DO get in the way of the movie!
New characters are introduced such as Viktor Krum and Cho Chang with little to no fanfare or plot development, and the dishy Rita Skeeter was an unnecessary distraction that had nothing to do with the rest of the movie. What I'm seeing is a number of characters that are superfluous to the plot, and that didn't really go anywhere in terms of character development or moving the story forward at any intelligible pace. Getting back to Chang, I can't believe 3,000 people auditioned for that role??? You've got to be kidding--she was only in the movie for 2 minutes, at best! Ralph Fiennes gives a devilish performance as Lord Voldemort, which, although brief, is probably the saving grace of the picture. I really can't imagine this film having the "repeat factor" that so many other top-notch films possess. It will make the oodles and oodles of initial dollars, but after that, the film should drop off the radar rather quickly.
I attended the midnight screening of the film, and if the packed-house audience was any indication of what was to come, there was tumultuous applause when the movie began, and then deathly silence, with the few exception of a handful of under-the-breath grumbles as people exited the theater when the film ended.
Overall, Steve Kloves gave us our first shoddy Harry Potter script, and Mike Newell, who was paid 1/10th the amount Chris Columbus was paid for the first installment, directed a dull walk with all the aplomb of a deer-in-the-headlights first-time filmmaker. We're all better off re-visiting "Four Weddings and a Funeral"....and, Warner Brothers needs to stop handing off this fantastic franchise of a movie to newbie and "out-of-their-element" directors. Where is Peter Jackson or Steven Spielberg when you need them??