I-Max 3-D Potter Disappoints on All Levels

Rating: 5/10 (13 July 2007)

Television director David Yates makes his first foray into cinema with the latest Harry Potter entry and does so with decidedly mediocre results. Although he does show some stylistic restraint at appropriate times, his handling of narrative elements leaves something to be desired. Also, his movie is literally just too dark, which seems to be an unfortunate trend of recent comic book films (Spiderman, Superman, and of course Batman) that pose as serious-minded and penetrating ventures into the human psyche but are actually just as shallow as their predecessors. The darkness of the new HP adds little to the story and is too literal-minded. But more to the point, it is entirely inappropriate for the IMAX DMR 3-D format.
The whole point of IMAX is spectacle. Harry Potter certainly has its share of spectacle, but since Yates directed this film for general theatre distribution, he doesn't take advantage of the IMAX format very well, and he completely wastes the 3-D technology. As mentioned above, this movie's visual darkness makes a giant-screen format futile. What difference does a giant screen make if you can't see anything? What good are giant shadows? Of course I exaggerate, and indeed some well-lit scenes come off very well on IMAX, but when the vast majority of the footage on screen is cast in shadow because of the director's hackneyed attempt at giving the movie a more dramatic look, you just have to scratch your head and wonder why they bothered to use the big screen technology at all.
As for the 3-D technology, in HP it is pointless. For 3-D to be effective a movie needs to be brightly lit with long takes. Choppy editing and dimly lit scenarios don't offer much to the viewer to enjoy. How can you enjoy the depth of the format if most of what you see on screen is darkness? How can you enjoy the eye-popping effects if you're constantly adjusting your eyes to a new shot.
It seems reformatting Harry Potter for IMAX DMR 3-D was an afterthought, and Yates changed little to accommodate the technology. One could hardly blame him, though. Yate's stylistic choices are nothing if not consistent. That he refrained from comprising his vision for an exhibition format only a fraction of the viewers would enjoy is probably commendable. The blame should go to whoever decided to make only the climax in 3-D rather than the entire movie. It's distracting to the viewers and the director. It added so little to the experience and was poorly handled. The 3-D technology they have can be quite effective. But IMAX has to showcase that technology in films that can take advantage of that. Otherwise audiences are just going to be disappointed and they'll leave the theatre not knowing what they're missing.