OK MOVIE movie, less so for lovers of literate film

Rating: 6/10 (20 November 2005)

I went with high expectations to the new Harry Potter on its second night with a NON-Potter fan. As my friend observed (having only seen the thickness of the book, not having read it), to film a book that thick you HAVE to condense - but the condensation was so extreme I was concerned that anyone who had not read the book going in couldn't FOLLOW what was happening in the movie.
It turned out as the first Potter film my friend LIKED.
The first two films ("The Sorcerer's Stone" - "PHILOSOPHER'S Stone" outside the United States where they don't underestimate the intelligence of their audience - or how many of us learned about the Philosopher's Stone in old Donald Duck comic books! and "Chamber of Secrets") were absolute models of FAITHFUL translations of terrific books to screen - a template for how ALL classic (or at least popular) books should be filmed.
The last one ("Prisoner of Azkaban") wasn't nearly as successful artistically, changing the tone (without good reason - frequently diminishing the potential "cinematic" power) and the letter of the best book in the series - and diminishing some of the best pseudo-science fiction overtones. It was distorted by a MOVIE-movie director who acknowledged who didn't WANT to film the BOOK, but make a movie with his own stamp on it (God protect movies drawn from good SOURCES from directors like that!).
Thankfully, Rowlings and the studio stepped in to protect their franchise and insist that some major plot points essential for later developments of the story COULD NOT BE CHANGED. The film succeeded financially, and for the most part artistically, but it worried me how many of the reviews praising this one said nice things about the LAST one. I was right to be worried.
While getting a new director who supposedly promised to be more faithful (a promise not notably kept), he retained some of the worst revisions in visual tone (NOT necessary for the "darker" story) imposed on "The Prisoner of Azkaban."
Recognizing that as the books get thicker MORE omissions are inevitable, I actually enjoyed this one more, but was still disappointed that several essential visuals from the book (like the LOOK of the use of the "flue network" for communication) were thrown out in favor of less effective but more expensive "special effects" simply to call attention to themselves.
Yes, massive details, setups and MOTIVATIONS from the book (MOST of the Quiddich World Cup, Ron's admiration one of the players - later to be rethought - and Fred & George's build up for their joke shop - important in the next book/movie, "Order of the Phoenix") frequently entire characters, some of them who will be important in later books, were eliminated (the Dursleys, ALL the "house elves," a member of the Ministry of Magic and Ron's elder brother Percy, beginning a climb for weaselly power in the Ministry and most of the rest of the family; the dastardly Rita Skeeter remains as barely an afterthought). Most of these however don't hurt the story (yet), but to toss out the plot specific PERSPECTIVE from which Harry's dreams were seen does. It makes one wonder if part of the director's problem was that he didn't actually READ the book, just the "treatment."
Often these eliminations were in favor of flavorless insertions (for no discernible reason other than justifying the "screenwriter" credit - like the desultory "dance lesson"), but occasionally to give MORE screen time to characters who merited it and were being stiffed by elisions elsewhere (Cedric Diggery and especially the increasingly interesting and well played Neville Longbottom).
Also on the good side, while having far less impact than in the book, is Emma Watson's Hermione Granger. Always a firm natural actress, Ms. Watson is developing into a positive beauty who should have a grand post-Potter career.
Ralph Feines is going to be a FINE Voldemort, but throwing out much of J.K. Rowlings' actual plot specific description of details of his face seems a VERY lame make-up artist's conceit rather than inspiration. Michael Gambon (still unevenly filmed in this outing) is slowly growing into the role defined by the late Richard Harris, but his make-up artists are going to HAVE to get his hair and beard back to a purer white before the 6th and 7th films rather than the hideous rat color they've been effecting so far.
I came away from the film having enjoyed it but being honestly unexcited by it, as I had been by the first two. The over-long first "Challenge" was an exciting spectacle, but a SEVERE and illogical disappointment compared to the dazzling and highly cinematic work in the book which was FOCUSED and didn't have to roam all over the countryside, destroying castle roofs and ignoring the POINT of the challenge to BE so. The deletion almost entirely of the exciting SCORING of the three challenges or the work of virtually anyone but Harry IN them, removed most of the real interest. The final challenge bears little resemblance to the one in the book and almost none of its excitement or interest.
At the same time, it looks like the film will be SO successful, someday we may actually get the HBO (or some such) miniseries actually DOING the books as written ala the several BBC Sherlock Holmes series or HBO's (sadly historically revisionist) ROME. I guess I'm happy for that - and that to the extent the film excites some illiterate MOVIE people to READ the source they've got wonderful surprises in store for them.