I’ve been a “Harry Potter” fan for about eight years now, and like many on the older side of the young adult spectrum when the phenomenon began, I came to it reluctantly. My younger sister was absolutely obsessed with the books, and was watching her copy of the first movie approximately 17 times a day, so after sitting through weeks of her throwing around words like “Dumbledore” and “Ravenclaw,” I finally buckled. I had to see what all the fuss was about.

So I started to read the first book, and didn’t sleep until I finished it. Then I read the second, and the third, and the fourth, and it seemed an impossible wait for the fifth book, which I then also then greedily flew through. And finally, like so many of my fellow fans, I devoured the final book in a single eight hour period, stopping only once for a meal. If you’re still not on this bandwagon, and you’re wondering why I would devote such time and energy to a silly little book about wizards, I will say only that I appreciate a good story, and “Harry Potter” is, if nothing else, one insanely good story.

My love of the books has ultimately led to a love-hate relationship with the “Harry Potter” films. I love that some of my favorite moments, people and places from the novels are up there on screen for me to see over and over again, but I hate the often unnecessary destruction of author J.K. Rowling’s brilliantly crafted plots. I’m especially nervous now because just yesterday, “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince,” the film version of what might be my favorite book in the series, hit theaters, and I haven’t seen it yet.

So, I wonder, will it be a grand and epic adaptation of the darkest hour yet for Harry Potter, or will it be another dud (oh yes, there have been prior duds, believe you me) designed to do little more than get money from 12-year-olds? I don’t know, but since those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it, I thought that before most of us venture off to the theater to see the boy wizard’s latest adventure, it might be wise to take a look back at the past five films, their highs, their lows, and their cinematic value. Wands ready? OK, here we go.



Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (2001)

Directed by Chris Columbus

Written by Steve Kloves

The first Harry Potter film had a simple mission: set up the premise (boy wizard versus Dark Lord), introduce the world, and make the thrills and chills of the plot stand out, and at that, director Chris Columbus and writer Steve Kloves succeeded admirably. “Sorcerer’s Stone,” while far from a perfect adaptation, still manages to be a very good one. Every part of Potter’s world is satisfyingly magical, from the crooked wonders of Diagon Alley to the talking paintings of Hogwarts’ halls. While the film fails to include some of the more satisfying details of the book (Peeves the Poltergeist is notably absent), it’s real virtue is in its brilliant casting. Once you’ve set up your players for a seven film series, you can’t really take anything back, and Columbus (with Rowling’s consultation) made certain that the people in Harry’s world were as memorable on the screen as they were on the page. Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, Robbie Coltrane ... what’s not to love? Throw in beautiful sets and a marvelous score by the great John Williams and you’ve got an intro movie for the ages.



Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)

Directed by Chris Columbus

Written by Steve Kloves

Columbus and Kloves returned for the tale of Harry’s second year, taking the story into darker territory as the lives of students were suddenly very much at stake. The abrupt shift from the magical beginnings of the first film left some parents worried, but to me the film still kept a sense of playfulness, particularly in a sequence involving a flying car and a very angry tree. The casting continued to be stellar (look out for great work by Kenneth Branagh and Jason Isaacs), and Richard Harris, in his final film role, is spectacular as the wizened head of Hogwarts, Albus Dumbledore. Still, there were parts of this film that just felt too contrived to me, as though all the natural suspense of Rowling’s novel was played up so much that it seemed predictable. Not bad, but far from brilliant.



Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

Directed by Alfonso Cuaron

Written by Steve Kloves

Spanish director Alfonso Cuaron made a big splash when he took a whimsical yet startlingly Gothic turn in his direction of the third installment in the Harry Potter series. The film drew more critical acclaim from critics than the previous films, and in spite of its deviations from the novel, became a fan favorite. The reason is that Cuaron took the focus away from the magic and let the emphasis fall on the volatile emotions of his three teenage stars. Harry struggles with his parents’ past, Ron with his status as the best friend of the most famous wizard in the world, and Hermione with her desire to keep up with more work than any other student at Hogwarts. Cuaron also made the somewhat gutsy decision to take the trio out of their usual Hogwarts robes and into the apparel of real teenagers. Suddenly, it was all much more accessible. There was room to breathe, room for action, room for adolescent fury. But even among the growing power of the young cast, nothing could surpass the awesome acting power of Gary Oldman, who made his debut in the series as Sirius Black, the titular prisoner of Azkaban. Kudos also to David Thewlis as Professor Remus Lupin for his remarkable turn as a wizard moonlighting as a werewolf, and Michael Gambon, who took over for Harris as Dumbledore, bringing a new sense of amused madness to the role.



Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Directed by Mike Newell

Written by Steve Kloves

I’m not going to say very much about this, largely because I hated it. I’m not one of those book fans who is opposed to deviations from the novel’s plot for the sake of the film, but “Goblet of Fire” seemed to make a mockery of those kinds of changes. Everything that made the book’s plot cool was left out, leaving a product that was so stale and fragmented it hardly felt like a Potter flick to me. This film also marked the first time that a casting decision went awry, as Brendan Gleeson (a brilliant actor whose work I love) was cast as Professor Mad-Eye Moody. It just didn’t work. The film’s finale hit an emotional strong point, but everything leading up to that was one giant disappointment.



Harry Potter the Order of the Phoenix

Directed by David Yates

Written by Michael Goldenberg

I went into the fifth Potter flick with every intention of being disappointed again. So irritated was I with “Goblet of Fire,” that I thought “Order of the Phoenix,” by far my favorite book, would make me want to storm of the theater. Thankfully, I was very wrong about that. New Potter director David Yates (who will finish out the series), brought the darkness hard and heavy, and made fighting with wands look almost as cool as fighting with lightsabers. Though there were some issues (the miscasting of Imelda Staunton as Dolores Umbridge chief among them), there were also moments in this film that flat out gave me goosebumps, leading me to believe I can trust Yates to round out the rest of the films in style.

Tune in next week for my thoughts on “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.”