Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

Directed by: David Yates

Written by: J.K. Rowling (novel) & Steve Kloves (screenplay)

Harry's sixth year is off to a weird start. Snape is finally the Defence Against Dark Arts teacher, and they have a new potions master. Harry also gets private lessons from Dumbledore, to discover crucial details about lord Voldemort's past.

---

Yates's style still annoys me. He's trying to force fantasy literature into action. With Yates directing it seems that the grim visual side and "action" is more important than the actual story. And again, the idea of a dark fantasy story is making the movie so dark it's hard to see. That kind of aesthetic only suits David Fincher, and Yates is nowhere near his brilliance.

Also the romance side doesn't work at all in this movie. Sure, teenage romance is of course a bit awkward, but this is so outrageously clumsy it's painful to look at the scenes. The writer still hasn't managed to capture Ginny Weasley, nor has he decided what she should be like. Ginny is a completely different character compared to what she was like as a small child and even when Half-Blood Prince is compared with Order of Phoenix. Did the writers just want to have someone cool to be Harry's love interest? She is nowhere near as cool as she is in the book. Why is it so hard for men to write believable female characters? 

But if there is one character this movie manages to capture it's Draco Malfoy. Still, there's no sign of actual character development, because in the fifth movie he was still that annoying school bully and now he's, well... this. To be honest, that development happens very quickly in the books also. It's of course understandable, but slightly annoying. 

I love how they still pretend like now we get some real insight into Voldemort's past when we see like two memories of him. It's ridiculous. 

Half-Blood Prince is slightly better than the fifth movie. Maybe it took Yates some time to get used to the series. Still, he just doesn't seem to quite grasp the idea of Harry Potter, he just wants to make dark fantasy action for young adults.

☆☆☆☆☆

5 / 10

Harry Potter and the Order of Phoenix (2007)

Directed by: David Yates

Written by: J.K. Rowling (novel) & Michael Goldenberg (screenplay)

Harry Potter returns to the wizard world only to realise very few people have taken Voldemort's return seriously, and the ministry is trying to discredit both him and Dumbledore.

---

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is the first Harry Potter movie directed by David Yates. Some fans love Yates and his different style, but there are people who don't like him, myself included. Sure, he's the one responsible for my favourite half of the series, where Harry is growing up and everything is darker. But in the movies the characters aren't as deep and the darkness feels more like a colour scheme than a change in the story telling.

Yates's style chooses action over the story - which makes no sense when considering what the novel was like. Order of the Phoenix had very little action, but it explored wonderfully, for example, Harry after seeing Voldemort returning and seeing Cedric Diggory being brutally murdered. In the movie you can see it bothers Harry, he is incredibly angry, but that's that. If you haven't read the book it only seems like Harry is having his puberty and therefore a bit moody, even if you could claim he has a case of PTSD. 

There are many emotional scenes in the novel that weren't included in the movie. They were completely forgotten or replaced by something really, really weird, apart from few that were important to the plot - they saved the scenes that were important when looking at this one movie, but ignored the story as a whole, and they seemed to figure character development was not that important. Harry Potter series is not seven separate stories it's one story in seven parts. 

At this point it's clear the filmmakers didn't care about the story as much as making the movies and making fans watch them and just get through the whole series. 

But it's lovely to see the film allowing few characters develop properly: like Neville during the DA. They tried to fake Ginny developing as well by only showing us that she is indeed amazing with spells. Still the filmmakers have forgotten to give her any sort of personality. I love her in the books but in movies she's just an empty husk - skillful of course, but she's not as interesting as in the books. 

'

Order of Phoenix is over-simplified and is trying to force a story into a film form in the easiest way possible. Yes, sure, they didn't have so much time to focus on the stories individually considering the stars were growing up but still, this is ridiculous. 

☆☆☆☆

4 / 10

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

Directed by: Mike Newell

Written by: J.K. Rowling (novel) & Steve Kloves (screenplay)

It's Harry Potter's fourth year in Hogwarts, and this year the school is hosting the Triwizard Tournament, where three students from three different schools compete in dangerous tasks. Since the competitors have to be at least 17 years old, Harry and his friends have no intention of taking part. But the night the competitors are announced by the goblet of fire, somehow Harry turns out the be the fourth one...

---

After the magnificent Prisoner of Azkaban, The Goblet of Fire is just a horrible downgrade. Yes, the book is long and there's no way every scene would be in it, but so much has been left behind. The beginning is butchered, so is the school year. Now it seems like nothing else happened except for the Triwizard Tournament. The main characters had like one class during the entire year. They should've made the movie longer. Three hours may be a long movie, but it's better to make it long than make it seem like all this happened in few months instead of one school year. Seasons barely changed!

This film includes the one change everyone hates: Dumbledore was supposed to calmly ask Harry if he put his name in the goblet of fire, but for some reason Michael Gambon's Dumbledore is furious 24/7 and even violent. It makes no sense. Of course Dumbledore is quite a reckless headmaster, but with Richard Harris he seemed gentle, just the right way. If Michael Gambon can't pull of that kind of gentleness, they should've cast someone else. Everyone loved Harris, he was the perfect Dumbledore. After he died, did the people in charge of casting just think, "Ah, fuck it, let's choose someone completely different". 

One thing I like is how dark the ending is. It's a good prelude to how dark the last movies are going to be. Of course now it seems like the movies are starting to be too scary for kids. It's hard for me to watch few scenes because of how gruesome they are, so how do they except children to watch them? 

All the charm Prisoner of Azkaban is gone. If one Harry Potter movie clearly needs a remake, it's this one. 

☆☆☆☆☆

5 / 10

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

Directed by: Alfonso Cuarón

Written by: J.K. Rowling (novel) & Steve Kloves (screenplay)

Harry Potter's third year in Hogwarts is shadowed by another threath: a dangerous murderer Sirius Black has escaped the prison of Azkaban, and is apparently after Harry.

---

Cuarón was a way better choice compared to Columbus! Columbus' versions were clearly meant more for kids than (young) adults, but Cuarón knows how to make a film truly for the whole family. Prisoner of Azkaban is of course scary for kids, but not too terrifying, yet still thrilling for anyone older. 

Visually Prisoner of Azkaban exceeds two previous movies. It's a lot different, considering how simple the first movies tried to be. There cinematography is astonishing and the camera moves in fun ways - like through windows or mirrors, and that always fascinated me as a kid. Even if movies are meant for children, cinematographers shouldn't shy away from eccentric, artistic choices because kids will love them. 

Also Prisoner of Azkaban rocks as an adaptation. It has scenes that didn't exist in the book and many details added by those who made this film, yet they all work. Those conversations between Harry and Lupin were always amazing and even if they weren't in the book or they were in the book but in a different form, those conversations were amazing and deep and gave... some hope to it. Also this is the only movie that has Harry's messy hair right.

Prisoner of Azkaban really stands out from all the other Harry Potter movies. It's no wonder many claim it to be their favourite.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

8 / 10

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)

Directed by: Chris Columbus 

Written by: J.K. Rowling (novel) & Steve Kloves (screenplay)

It's time for Harry Potter to start his second year at the Hogwarts school of witchcraft and wizardry, but he gets a warning from the house-elf Dobby that he should not return. It's soon clear that many students of the school are in danger, when it seems the chamber of secrets have been opened, and someone is after the muggle-born students.

---

Compared to the first one, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is still very much meant for children. It's Chris Columbus' effect for the film. But still, this time the story is scarier and much darker. You can see the slight change in the atmosphere. But it's still not too dark or scary for the kids. This definitely reaches a larger target audience than just families. 

If you've seen the Harry Potter movies and read the books, the stories don't seem that great after a while. You are so used to them. But when I just finished watching this movie I understood how amazing this movie is when thinking about the fantasy elements. There's a great wizard (Salazar Slytherin) who's heir is after those whose blood is not as pure as Slytherin would want it. That't has elements of epic and also a great narrative about the treatment of minorities. If only any of those characters petrified by the monster would actually be a minority, instead of being just metaphors for minorities.

The Chamber of Secret feels like a much better adaptation compared to the first movie. Of course I haven't read the book for a while, but as much as I do remember, they didn't use the lines exactly the same way they were in the book. Most important scenes were preserved and this time the film didn't seem too quick - though this one was longer than the first movie. This was almost close to perfect: they chose just the right scenes to include. Of course there are few things that now weren't mentioned or shown, but people who read the books will know them, and people who don't read the books probably won't need them.

There are many visual choices I wouldn't agree with. Like when Harry realises who opened the chamber of secret this time, the flashbacks to that person were... lousy. They used weird effects where the shot was distorted and it just didn't seem to suit the scene anyway. Sure, the technology wasn't as good as what I'm used to seeing, but there had to be better way. Also there were annoyingly many fast, dramatic zooms which just seemed too humorous for the scenes they were used during.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

7 / 10

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001)

Directed by: Chris Columbus
Written by: J.K. Rowling (novel) & Steve Kloves (screenplay)

A young boy living with his abusive aunt and uncle finds out he's a wizard and gets to go to a school meant for people like him. He also finds out he's famous in the wizard world because a powerful dark wizard didn't manage to kill him when he was a baby. He is told he is certainly destined for great things.

---

I've decided to watch all of the Harry Potter movies during my sister's autumn holiday, because I wanted to watch something I've watched since I was a kid. Yeah, you can tell my quest for watching all the Twilight Saga movies isn't going so well. But the thing is they aren't just nostalgic for me. I also don't like them as much anymore, which gives me kind of like a different look on them. I've seen them a million times (or read, I have seen the last ones like... once), so what can I tell about them now? It's always hard for me to talk about movies I've seen so many times, so it's great practice.

While I'm not big on fantasy, I can't deny the effect Harry Potter has had on the genre - and on my generation. It' the first fantasy series I ever watched or read, and so many people connect through Harry Potter. It's astonishing, no matter what I feel towards the series.

Watching the first movie makes me feel really bad about how horrible Harry's childhood was living with his aunt and uncle who clearly didn't care for him at all. It's gotten even more horrible now that I have grown up and I've realised how abusive they really were. Seriously, why on earth would Dumbledore give this kid to people who hate wizards? Did he honestly think that writing them a letter would make this all go well? Of course this is not the last time which makes us question Dumbledore's decisions.

Chris Columbus has mostly directed movies for the whole family. His imprint is clear. The first Harry Potter movie is clearly a very childlike fantasy. It's mostly aimed for children, and no one's trying to hide it. Sure, people of all ages can watch it, and the book isn't just meant for kids, but the movie is just so clearly meant for children, which can make it slightly annoying. But it's fascinating to see how that changes when the series goes on. The movies change a lot considering their target audience was growing up the whole time, and they eventually look like a dark young adult fantasy instead of this colourful fantasy for children..

This first movie adaptation annoys me so much. They've followed the book closely, some lines are straight from the book. Yet so much is missing. So many important details are gone. Of course not everything can make it to the film but still it bothers many viewers who have read the books. Also even if the movie is long it seems to happen so fast. 

It's an entertaining movie but after so any years they lose some of their magic. It's sad, of course, but it's mostly the fault of the audience (in this case, me) and not the movies.

6 / 10