A Fine Portrayal, Yet Not The Cinematic Equivalent Of The Book

Rating: 7/10 (10 August 2007)

While the first two Harry Potters were made in a very classic way, no unconventional things or matters that in another way were different book, this is what made them a good movie version of the novels. The third and fourth tried a more dark approach, with a new Hogwarts. While I found the third movie satisfying, the fourth movie was atrocious in my opinion, rushing over everything, giving no complete feeling whatsoever, deleting important and cool parts, and replacing them by useless scenes that were either 'spectacular' or funny (the dragon chase, which made no appearance in the book, lasted about 15 minutes). However, David Yates seems to understand better that a movie needs dialogue and character development. Granted, the fourth book was more action-packed while the fifth contained more character development and dialogue. Yates however, especially in the beginning, uses the time to create bonds between Harry and Sirius for instance, introduces Luna Lovegood in a clear way, etc. The issue with the last few films is however still present in this movie, and that is the fact that many facts are not explained (Grimmauld Place, Order of the Phoenix (!), WHY and how they exactly went to the Ministry could have been much more clear). Of course, Rowling wastes little time in explaining most terms and characters from previous novels, and this justifies why Yates doesn't make this movie for non-readers. However, independent from the book, the movie is not individually a good work of art. Not like The Godfather, The Green Mile, or The Shawshank Redemption, does the movie explain itself and needs no explanation by reading the book. Therefore I conclude this movie is a very nice visualisation, a concrete interpretation of how things look that are described in the book, with some memorable acting (Alan Rickman, Robbie Coltrane and Maggie Smith seem born for their role).