The most successful movie franchise of all time is finally about to reach its conclusion with the release of the last Harry Potter film. Some will be sad but others may be glad, writes DONALD CLARKE
THE FLAG is about to be lowered on the most successful movie franchise of all time. When, a little over a decade ago, Warner Brothers unveiled Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone,few pundits reckoned that the studio would be left with even a smidgen of egg on its face. But, even after acknowledging the rampant success of JK Rowling's books, the soothsayers would, surely, have been astonished to hear that – with one film still to go – the series would have accumulated $5½ billion dollars in worldwide takings. So, as the last film edges into cinemas, it's worth asking a few questions.
What’s the best film?
There's really little debate. Even those hostile to the series found themselves warming to Alfonso Cuarón's Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. After somewhat slavish adaptations by Chris Columbus, Cuarón brought an individual sensibility to the third episode. He wasn't invited back.
What’s the worst film?
It has to be Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Extending every minor plot point to exhausting length, Chris Columbus, too keen to be Rowling's safe pair of hands, offered a masterclass in slovenly pacing. Those purists who ran their fingers along the book like a classical music fan with a sonata score were well satisfied. Others wondered why any 251-page children's book should be allowed to generate a 161-minute film.
How have the leads fared?
It's a funny one this. As Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson ease into adulthood, the movie industry finds it hard to devise ways of furthering their careers. Though Radcliffe has sold tickets on Broadway – for the troubling Equus– none of the actors has had anything like a breakaway hit. Could they all disappear like Mark Hamill? Grint, the most talented, deserves a chance.
How have fans reacted to negative reviews in this place?
Of the last film, one correspondent remarked: “if your [sic] going to write a review on the hary [sic] potter movie be fair for god’s sake. Its [sic] obvious that you either didn’t actually bother to watch the movie or you went into the screening convinced that it was going to be rubbish and you did not even try to be fair.”
What is the negative legacy?
Faithfulness. Faithfulness. Faithfulness. In the internet age, film-makers, when adapting sacred texts, have become increasingly wary of digital rabbit punches from disgruntled fans. Despite furious efforts to include as many details from the books as possible, the films still get criticised for leaving out the odd hyphen or comma. The result has been a weird combination of plodding structure and overstuffed narrative.
What’s the positive legacy?
Being cynical, a series of huge pay days for British and Irish movie professionals and a welcome boost for the UK film industry. Much of this was deserved. The films were technical marvels that showcased the ingenuity of a great many gifted folk. Few would begrudge the host of talented character actors – Gambon, Thewlis, Coltrane, Branagh, Harris and a few dozen others – their cheques or their increased mainstream visibility. The pension plan has just crashed.
What of the rivals?
The success of the first few films – and of The Lord of the Rings– inspired every studio to attempt its own supposedly long-running fantasy sequence. Very few fared well. Disney's Narniastarted spectacularly then spluttered, before being handed over to 20th Century Fox. US objection to the secularism of The Golden Compassannihilated the adaptation of Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials. The least said about Eragon, The Dark Is Rising, Cirque du Freakand Percy Jackson & the Olympiansthe soonest mended.
Who’s the biggest winner?
Rowling was already a multimillionaire when the film adaptations kicked into action. The three stars have, to date, failed to break out from the Potter straitjacket. The supporting players were all jewels of their generations. The real winners here are the good people at Warner Brothers. Thanks to the Harry Potter films – and Batmanand The Hangover– that studio has been top of the heap for the past two years.
Which old trooper came out on top?
So many to choose from. Brendan Gleeson had great fun as the swivel-eyed Alastor Moody. Helena Bonham Carter got to exercise all her gothic glands as Bellatrix Lestrange. Richard Griffiths was characteristically tweedy as Vernon Dursley. But the honours must go to Richard Harris, who brought levels of depth and warmth to the first version of Prof Dumbledore. It was a shame that, at his death in 2002, so many obituaries led with that brief performance. But This Sporting Lifeand A Man Called Horselive on.
Didn’t they get a little too cynical in the closing lap?
Another unfortunate legacy of the Potter franchise stems from the decision to split the final adaptation into two parts. A great deal of studio guff emerged explaining that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallowswas too long and complex to fit into one film (however enormously long). Nobody was fooled. This was that rare class of cash cow that, when sawed in half, could deliver milk from both bifurcated ends. The folk at Twilight noted the move and took the shears to the last part of Breaking Dawn.At some point in the future, the final episode of a series will be split in three. Then four.
Will the Academy finally yield and put some Oscars Harry Potter’s way?
Probably not. When The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the Kingfinally staggered on to screens, the Academy, aware that the Tolkien films had earned staggering sums, finally relented and handed out a few statuettes. The Potter films are in an odd place. They have received good reviews from surprising sources, but only nine Oscar nominations – all in technical areas – have come the way of the (to date) seven pictures. The films leave as many voters cold as they excite. Expect the drought to continue.
Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows: Part 2will be on general release next Friday, July 15
