Harry Potter Ends Again With Deathly Hallows - Part 2

Four years ago, J. K. Rowling’s epic Harry Potter saga ended. Now, with the last of the movies out in theaters, the Harry Potter era has truly come to an end. This time, however, I feel neither the sense of loss nor catharsis that I did back then. For me, Harry Potter was never the intense cinematic experience Lord of the Rings was. Despite having lived with hobbits far longer, I found Peter Jackson’s adaptation so exquisitely crafted I barely minded the deviations. As movies, they were singularly enthralling. The Harry Potter films, on the other hand, have always seemed like pale imitations of the books. I spent so much time building up to and thinking over Deathly Hallows that I couldn’t silence the purist this time around. This was the culmination, and there were certain things I simply needed to see in order to be truly satisfied. Some spoilers ahead as I try to work out my reactions to the final film.

Deathly Hallows: Part 2 begins on a despairing note as the faces of two dark characters fill the screen, eliciting shudders as we see a Hogwarts under frightening new management. From the horror of blackened parapets and looming Dementors, we go to the placid quietude of Shell Cottage, where Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) are preparing to make their next move. They consult briefly with two minor characters, one of whom will continue on with them for a time. From then on, it’s almost nonstop action right up until the end, with just a few brief stops for significant conversations. After the minimal role Hogwarts played in the seventh movie, it serves as the setting for the majority of this last installment, and because we’re not limited to Harry’s perspective, the movie allows us to see how students and adults alike defend the castle against invading forces.

Grint and Watson make excellent wingmen as before, though there is little opportunity for levity, and I missed that. Watson stood out to me more this time as the more emotional of the two, though Ron does have one truly wrenching scene that Grint nails despite its disappointing brevity. Following these two on their own quest feels satisfying, and we generally see considerably more of them than we do in the final portion of the book. Because the trio is so much at the heart of the movies, it feels fitting for these two to have a slightly expanded role, though it does lead to at least one scene that feels implausible, and it still feels in the movies as though Hermione has a bit more chemistry with Harry than with Ron – and much more than Harry does with Ginny. In fact, partly because Hermione is by Harry’s side much more than she really should be, Watson’s acting made more of an impression on me than Radcliffe’s most of the time.

Like the first installment of Deathly Hallows, this was written by Steve Kloves and directed by David Yates. Once the action moves to Hogwarts, both seem to have made a concentrated effort to include as many characters as possible, even when we scarcely saw them in the book. Most of these additions feel true to Rowling, filling in gaps by showing what precisely might have happened throughout the rest of the school while Harry tried to complete his Horcrux hunt. I particularly loved the added moments with Professor McGonagall; Maggie Smith may look wispy, but she is as fierce as ever. Because the majority of the movie involves the Battle of Hogwarts, she feels like a vital part of the proceedings instead of just a cameo. Several of the professors are reduced to that status, but at least their brief appearances exemplify their character traits and the spirit of camaraderie amongst the Hogwarts staff. I found myself particularly moved by the mere presence of Herbology professor Pomona Sprout (Miriam Margolyes).

Ciaran Hinds is the only major addition to the cast in this movie. He perfectly conveys the gruff cynicism of the Hogs Head proprietor who offers some much-needed aid, and I have no qualms with his performance, though I wish the trio could have lingered with him a bit longer. Albus Dumbledore’s backstory, so crucial to the final book, is barely addressed in the movies, and Harry’s conflict over whether to continue following him is likewise largely ignored. Similarly, they Grey Lady (Kelly Macdonald), a ghost with whom Harry briefly confers, loses most of her backstory, though her personality seems about right, and I like the way the movie draws Luna (the always-luminous Evanna Lynch) into that moment.

Hagrid, so magnificently portrayed by Robbie Coltrane, has always been my favorite character in the Potterverse and is a big part of the reason Chamber of Secrets is my favorite of the films. This movie allows him three all-too-brief shining moments, though I was disappointed not to get a true sense of his anguish in one of them. Helena Bonham-Carter is icktastic as always, and props go to her for her complex and largely comical performance in one of the movie’s earliest scenes. Aside from a truly head-scratching moment involving her wand and an overly gruesome escape, the Gringotts escapade is well done, especially the dizzying cart ride down to the vault, which probably would have made me sick to my stomach if I’d seen it in 3-D.

Of all the actors in the movies, none has been able to do as much with so little as Alan Rickman. Severus Snape’s presence in the final film is actually more pronounced than in the book, and from sheer menace to heartbreaking revelation, he commands the audience’s attention every second that he is on the screen. I also commend the cinematography in Snape’s final scenes, particularly a moment under a vast willow, an instant of exceptional beauty in the midst of the rarely relenting darkness.

There’s little humor to lighten the mood this time around. What does remain largely comes from side characters and is mostly much appreciated. There are some scenes, though, that the movie cheapens a bit through ill-timed attempts at levity. Matthew Lewis has his moment in the sun as long-overlooked Neville Longbottom, but at least half of his appearances involve laughs at his expense. On the other hand, I love McGonagall’s aside that gives underused Seamus (Devon Murray) a small but memorable part to play in the final battle. James and Oliver Phelps really get short-changed here, denied any last quips or hijinks as boisterous Fred and George, and though Chris Rankin Is in the cast list, if Percy was there, I blinked and missed him.

Because the second part of Deathly Hallows is so action-oriented, there weren’t as many little moments that I missed here, particularly since the seventh movie prepared me for the fact that most of what I truly loved about the conclusion was not a priority for the filmmakers. Many of the payoffs that impacted me profoundly in the book wouldn’t have made the proper impression in the movie anyway since the groundwork hadn’t been laid. Still, it irked me a bit that the only iconic Weasley moment that makes the transition from book to screen untouched is one of ferocity. Yes, there is intense love wrapped up in it, and it certainly got a cheer out of the crowd I was with, but the movie avoids both the most exuberant and the most devastating moment for that family, though it at least hints at the latter.

Visually, the movie Is mostly impressive, with Luna’s Punky Brewster-bright wardrobe adding a welcome splash of color whenever she appears, which is all too seldom. To cover for the lack of exposition and detective work that led to the finding of the Horcruxes in the novel, the movie relies more deeply on Harry’s connection with Voldemort, having the cursed objects basically reveal themselves to him, even at great distances. This is a convenient device that mostly works, though the scenes that focus on that telepathic bond are disorienting and unpleasant to watch. Scarcely any scene from the book remains truly intact, but thankfully one of them is Harry’s walk through the Forest, the only moment at which I felt tears begin to form in the corners of my eyes.

Speaking of changes to the book, in addition to multiple obliterated subplots and sapping away most of the literary, spiritual and theological threads so masterfully woven through the novels, the movie makes some alterations that simply make no sense. For instance, Harry makes almost no use of his Invisibility Cloak, with the result that he’s wandering around the school in the midst of the melee, and having the eyes of fellow students and professors upon him at that point feels uncomfortable and strange. Meanwhile, the importance of the cloak as one of the Hallows is entirely lost in the shuffle.

If he’s too visible during the earlier part of the battle, he’s not visible enough at its culmination, and the egregious deviation from the books at the climactic moment is the adaptive choice I find hardest to forgive. Indeed, I’m rather shocked Rowling allowed the alteration, which is a much more significant change than the decision to pair up two characters in a non-canonical relationship that I felt was an improvement on the book. On another minor but important note, if you’re going to emphasize the fact that Harry has his mother’s eyes – and you’re going to ignore all the reasons for that color being green – it would at least behoove you to notice that Lily’s eyes are brown while Harry’s are blue and color-correct accordingly.

But the movies never have been too interested in getting those sorts of details right. In the end, Deathly Hallows: Part 2 is an acceptable conclusion to the Harry Potter film franchise but a frail adaptation of the book. Aside from the muddy explanations of plot points that seem to rely on readers to fill in the blanks, I imagine I would have enjoyed it more if I were only familiar with the movies, which have always been far shallower than the novels. On the other hand, I don’t think I would have fallen so deeply and utterly in love with Rowling’s world and the characters that populate it. They say that a picture is worth a thousand words, but I see the Harry Potter films as one long visual homage to a master craftsman, an impression that seems confirmed in a quotable bit of wisdom imparted to Harry toward the end of the movie. This addition seems to acknowledge that in Rowling’s words is where the true enchantment of Harry Potter lies. While the movies are undeniable labors of love, what they mostly make me want to do is read the books again.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I Could Use a Little More Soul

The end of the Harry Potter film series draws near. Today, I am one movie closer to the conclusion, having just seen the seventh book in the theaters. I admit I raised an eyebrow when I found out that there would be eight Harry Potter movies; after all, seven is the most magically powerful number, and its symbolic significance in the series is immense. On the other hand, I liked the idea of having an extra movie to look forward to. But I should have taken it as an early indication that when it comes to really getting to the soul of the series, the moviemakers haven’t got it quite right.

I’ve been lenient with the Harry Potter movies so far, understanding that it’s a tricky business to pull off a faithful adaptation and that everyone will want to see something different. I went into this movie prepared to overlook some odd interpretive choices, but I wasn’t ready for the extent of the differences. While the movie, helmed by David Yates, is well-acted and often intense, I couldn’t help feeling as though the soul was largely sapped out of it. Some spoilers follow as I try to dissect what didn’t work for me, as well as what did.

Back when I watched the sixth movie, I was disappointed that my favorite line in the book - Dumbledore’s “I am not worried, Harry; I am with you” - didn’t make it into the film, and I feared that my favorite line in the seventh book would suffer a similar fate. Not only did we not hear Harry say, “I won’t blast people out of my way just because they’re there; that’s Voldemort’s job,” the moment that precipitated it was left out entirely. Instead of Harry being exposed to Voldemort through an act of mercy, it’s through the bravery of another character, who goes out in a blaze of sacrificial glory. I get that screenwriter Steve Kloves wanted to give this character a more dramatic exit, but the whole thing that made that death so shocking was that this was a bystander helplessly caught in the crossfire. The death in the book was symbolic of an end to Harry’s childhood and an indication of dark times to come, when many innocents would be callously slaughtered.

The movie sets that oppressive tone from the start, but for the most part, we see very little of the effect that Voldemort is having in the world at large. We are almost completely disconnected. There’s no Patronus that greets Harry and his friends with news when they take shelter in Sirius’s house. No tense visit from Remus Lupin, whose seeming indifference toward his family inspires such rage in Harry in the book. No bumping into Arthur Weasley at the Ministry of Magic. No overhearing Tonks’ dad, fellow student Dean Thomas and goblin Griphook in the forest. No recollection from Ron of his sojourn with his brother Bill and his new bride Fleur over Christmas. No secret Potter Watch broadcast. And no liberation of throngs of half-blood wizards at the Ministry of Magic, though at least we get a clear sense that Ron feels responsibility for the man whose form he is imitating and his family. Still, as isolated as Harry, Ron and Hermione are in the book, so much is stripped away here that we almost forget how intimately their mission is tied to the fate of the world.

Of the scenes in the first part of the book that I felt a strongest pull toward, few remained intact. Most were altered, sometimes subversively, while others were omitted entirely. No interaction at all between Dudley and Harry. No discovery of a long-ago letter from Harry’s mother in Sirius’s house. Harry shows up at the wedding of Bill and Fleur as himself; instead of Luna’s piercing gaze recognizing her disguised friend instantly, we have her tell her father to leave Harry alone because he really doesn’t want to talk to them right now but is too polite to say so. By the same token, the vibrant mural inside her house depicting her friends makes no appearance in the movie. Kreacher’s gripping tale loses all context and urgency, and we have no understanding of how deeply he cared for his master, how heinously Voldemort used him, how dramatically this bitter old servant changed in the face of Harry and Hermione’s empathy. Once they’ve escaped the Ministry, we don’t see Ron “fretting over the fate of the Cattermoles.” Voldemort’s confrontation with Grindelwald is presented in such a manner that we get no sense of remorse or wisdom from Dumbledore’s old nemesis; he merely comes across as crazed and easily relinquishes the information Voldemort seeks.

Of all the changes to the movie, I’m pretty sure the one that rankles the most with this Potterphile raised on Tolkien is the death of one particular sniveling follower of the Dark Lord. This character dies at the same time, in the same place, as in the book, but the circumstances disregard one of the most important payoffs in the series. In the book, this moment recalls the time in the third book when Dumbledore told Harry that he might one day be very glad that he spared this man’s life, much as Gandalf told Frodo not to bemoan Bilbo’s act of pity in sparing Gollum. A long-ago act of mercy has powerful ripples late in the game, yet another of the book’s pervasive reminders of Harry’s fundamental decency. But in the movie, he merely dies of a projectile to the back, and there’s no indication of a spark of gratitude or hesitation in the face of the boy who once stood up for him despite his deadly betrayal.

Along with all of these individual moments, there’s the fact that key plot points just don’t get very sufficient explanation. At the end of the movie, my mom, who hasn’t read the books, didn’t have a sense that Dumbledore was carrying a lot of skeletons around in his closet. She thought the bit of mirror we see Harry use to summon help was a piece of the Mirror of Erised from the first movie. She didn’t understand what the Hallows and Horcruxes had to do with each other. This last one seems especially egregious. Harry has no time whatsoever to reflect on his new knowledge of the Hallows; as soon as he finds out about them, he’s whisked off to his next crisis, so there’s no time for an obsession with them to fester and burrow into his spirit. In his final scene, there’s no sense of him making a conscious choice between pursuing the power represented by the Hallows and seeking the Horcruxes as instructed by Dumbledore. Maybe that will come in the eighth movie. But I’m not so sure.

None of this is to say that there was nothing enjoyable about the movie. Daniel Radcliffe was appropriately intense as Harry, and I was even more impressed with Emma Watson as vulnerable but mature Hermione. Of the trio, Rupert Grint impressed me most; he’s really come into his own in the last couple of movies, and after all his comedic hi-jinks in the sixth movie, he has a much darker road to travel here, spending a good portion of the movie surly and drained of all joy. Evanna Lynch is luminous in her later scenes that demonstrate Luna’s capacity for respect and kindness, and Tom Felton’s nearly wordless performance is effective in conveying how unsettled Draco Malfoy, Harry’s schoolyard enemy, is now that Voldemort is holding sway. Jason Isaacs, usually so silkily sneering as Draco’s father Lucius, is scarcely recognizable here, so haggard and haunted is his countenance.

Several new characters are briefly introduced, with Rhys Ifans making the biggest impression as Luna’s eccentric father Xenophilius. Also noteworthy is Andy Linden’s slimy Mundungus Fletcher and Guy Henry’s poised, poisonous Pius Thicknesse. I confess myself disappointed with Matyelok Gibbs’ portrayal of Auntie Muriel, though part of that is down to the screenplay - and the screenplay in general leaves a lot to be desired. She comes across as a gossipy old woman, but we get no sense of just how mean-spirited she is, and all the comedic aspects of her character vanish. Of course, much of that is tied in with the wedding ceremony itself, which we never get to see; we only get a small peek at the reception. I was also disappointed in our one glimpse of Neville; it’s meant to show us he’s got gumption, but instead he just comes across as foolhardy.

There were a few added scenes that I actually quite enjoyed. I liked the fact that one of the first things we see in the movie is Hermione at home, a sight never before afforded by the books or films, and we witness her Obliviation of her parents, erasing her presence from their memories. We hear about it in the book after the fact, but it’s powerful to see here, and it really establishes her emotional state, as well as her ability to put those emotions aside in service of her mission. I also thought the scene of her and Harry dancing together in a rare moment of unguarded giddiness was a nice addition, especially since the mood immediately turns somber afterward. Even more than that, I loved the little scene at Sirius’s house in which she tries to teach Ron how to play Fur Elise on the piano. Another great moment has George sauntering into the Weasley kitchen while Harry and Ginny share an enthusiastic kiss and observing them with a smirk. The cluelessness of the headphones-wearing waitress the trio encounter as they flee Death Eaters also made me smile. Moments like this may not have been in the book, but they felt authentic.

More iconic scenes were handled well too. The Seven Potters in the living room was warm and wonderful, a comic high point of the movie.  While I was annoyed at the implication that Harry, Ron and Hermione basically blundered into their Ministry break-in rather than carefully planning it for days, I thought most of that segment was handled well and certainly was action-packed.  The Christmas scene in the churchyard, with the singing of the choir drifting out from the church and the snow swirling 'round and Hermione comforting Harry and creating a wreath of flowers for his parents' grave, was quite moving, and I was pleasantly surprised to see the inscription on their gravestone intact, though most who hadn't read the book probably wouldn't have known what it said, as the stone is hard to read and neither Harry nor Hermione mentions it. 

The destruction of the locket Horcrux is a thrilling, albeit rather terrifying and steamy, sequence. The Tale of the Three Brothers slows down the movie, I suppose, but I enjoyed Watson’s narration of it, accompanied by eerie animation. This comes in the midst of the trio’s meeting with Xeno, one of the most intense scenes in the film.  Everything that happens from that point on is pretty riveting, but what I was most interested in was the final scene involving Harry and his friends. More than anything else, I was anxious to know whether this scene would come across properly. Although a few details changed, Kloves and Yates do it justice. It made me cry, no easy feat for the girl with the defective tear ducts. The beauty of the setting and Alexandre Desplat’s score in this scene contributed to the near-perfect ending - though I do find it odd that we’ve still been given no indication that I heard as to who owns this cottage that serves as such convenient refuge. The scene is still better in the book, but the movie version is almost as affecting.

A lot happens in this movie. It never felt to me like it dragged, which was a complaint I’ve heard from a couple of people; of course, I have always had a rather high tolerance for people wandering around in the woods in movies and books. What bothered me wasn’t the pacing; it was the priorities. Most of the things that seemed to me to be most important about the first portion of the seventh book don’t make it into the movie. Hence, while a lot of care went into Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part I and I still enjoyed the film for what it was, this dark adaptation that disregards most of the book’s most spiritually stimulating moments demonstrates more effectively than any of the others that the movies are no substitutes for the books.

Jim Broadbent and Teen Silliness Prevail in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Late one Friday night two years ago, the seventh book in the Harry Potter series hit shelves. Like thousands of other Potter fans, I stood in line for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, and though I did my best to savor my reading experience, I had nonetheless devoured the conclusion of the epic saga by Monday night - at which point I, like so many others, felt a searing sense of loss. No more books to anticipate. How could we stand it? Eventually, we recovered, and we found a salve in the knowledge that while the books were finished, three movies remained. Now we are down to two.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is one of the funniest books in the series. It's also one of the most emotionally wrenching. I hoped that the movie would be able to successfully convey both extremes, and though I often tut-tutted over the film's many omissions, I believe that screenwriter Steve Kloves and director David Yates ultimately pulled the task off admirably. Would I have done some things differently? You bet. But I applauded as loudly as anyone when the credits began to roll. (Fair warning: Here be spoilers. I try not to spill too much, but if you haven't seen the movie yet, you may want to skim.)

Half-Blood Prince finds Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) poised on the brink of adulthood. Within the space of a year, he has witnessed the deaths of two friends, and he knows that his nemesis, the evil Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes, who does not appear in this film), is gaining strength. Eventually, they will have to face each other again; meanwhile, he finds himself in unusually close confidence with Albus Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) as the headmaster shares several memories that shed light on the Dark Lord's early years. While arming himself with this knowledge, he devotes most of his school hours to homework, romantic entanglements and Draco Malfoy, who he's sure is up to something sinister. There's also the matter of Dumbledore's assignment to retrieve a crucial memory from Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent), the old potions master who has returned to his post after a lengthy absence.

Radcliffe is terrific as Harry, particularly during the movie's lighter moments. One notable thing about the sixth installment is the extraordinary amount of silly behavior displayed by hormonal teenagers. Ron (Rupert Grint) is by far the worst offender in this regard, at least of the trio, but Harry and Hermione (Emma Watson) each have their moments. There are many awkward pauses and nervous giggles, and food is constantly being used as a prop to enhance the comedy of the situation.

Up until this point, Grint has been somewhat underused in the films, often given lame dialogue and few opportunities to make a tangible contribution. Here, he is frequently front and center, and acting like a complete doofus. Yes, he's still used almost entirely for comic relief, but I'm okay with that; his performance, particularly during the scene in which Ron accidentally ingests a powerful love potion, is inspired. The film might have delved a bit more into his jealousy and insecurity than it did; his reactions to certain events don't seem as vehement as they could be. But Kloves concentrates these emotions in Hermione, which is a decision I can live with.

While Ron spends much of the movie swaggering, we see Hermione at her most vulnerable, and she turns to Harry for comfort, knowing that things aren't going so well for him in the romance department either. It's sweet to see the depth of their friendship here, knowing that the relationship is purely platonic. Harry does get on Hermione's nerves, however, as he surpasses her best efforts in Potions by following the instructions scribbled in his second-hand textbook. In this movie, then, we see Hermione at her most emotional, stung by Ron's insensitive behavior and seething that Harry is coasting along on academic dishonesty, cheating from some past student who might not have been a very nice person.

As Dean Thomas, who is dating Ginny Weasley (Bonnie Wright), Alfie Enoch scarcely says a word, but it's still a more interesting role than he's ever had before, so it's a shame that we never get to witness their break-up, or even hear of a definitive end to their relationship. He just drops out of the movie. Anna Shaffer gets a moment or two to make eyes at Harry as Romilda Vane, but it's Jessie Cave as Lavender Brown, who throws herself all over an initially unprotesting Ron, who really shows the female capacity for silliness. She spends the first part of the movie sighing and swooning whenever Ron comes near; once they're together, she smothers him with public displays of affection, draping him with a gaudy love locket, calling him "Won-Won," drawing tokens of her regard in fogged windows and, of course, snogging him relentlessly. Almost as jarring is Freddie Stroma as conceited Cormac McLaggen, whose attentions toward Hermione are as amusing as they are unwelcome. His storyline wraps up before Christmas, but not before an encounter with Severus Snape (Alan Rickman) that is one of the funniest moments completely invented for the film. None of these inadequate love interests is part of the picture by the time the movie's mood turns dark for Harry and Dumbledore's dangerous late-night Horcrux-hunting adventure, but each contributes significantly to the film's lighter portion.

Among secondary students, Tom Felton is the standout as Draco Malfoy, who for the first time becomes a truly three-dimensional character. In early scenes, he struts around arrogantly, looking quite creepy with his pale face and white-blond hair contrasting starkly with dark outfits that almost seem out of The Matrix. There's a military precision to his movements as he proudly prepares for the task that Voldemort has set him. But as the film progresses, we see, mostly in short asides that shift the perspective from Harry to Draco, that he's struggling, and by the end of the movie we witness real agony and pathos from him. I would have liked for his conversation with Dumbledore to have gone on a bit longer than it did - long enough, at least, for the headmaster to utter one of the most important lines in the series. But their encounter is riveting nonetheless; Draco has never been so fascinating. Unfortunately, his henchmen Crabbe and Goyle (Jamie Waylett and Josh Herdman) scarcely appear in the movie at all; theirs is one of several subplots that gets cut, making many of the film's events seem much more coincidental than those in the book.

Sadly, another student almost entirely absent is Neville Longbottom (Matthew Lewis), the almost-Chosen One who is much more competent and courageous than anyone would initially guess. He doesn't have an especially large role in the sixth book, but there are still opportunities for him to shine: Harry's staunch loyalty to him on the Hogwarts Express; Professor McGonagall's (Maggie Smith) unexpected words of praise during their class scheduling conference; his improved performance in light of having a custom wand for the first time; his participation in the defense against the Death Eaters who infiltrate the school as this installment concludes. None of that shows up in the movie. In fact, as I recall, he only speaks in one scene, when he offers Harry a drink at Slughorn's Christmas party, as he's been deemed unfit for the professor's elite Slug Club but worthy of serving as a waiter to its members. An earlier scene shows him at a dinner party thrown by Slughorn, but aside from sporting a very snazzy vest, he makes no contribution to the evening.

On the other hand, Evanna Lynch is positively radiant as Luna Lovegood, the ethereal, eccentric fifth-year Ravenclaw who can always be counted on to provide a startling observation. She replaces Tonks (Natalia Tena) as Harry's liberator after he finds himself in a nasty jam on the train, and though I hate the way Tonks is shunted aside in this movie, the scene is so funny and sweet that I don't mind the change. While I wish we could've heard Luna commentate a Quidditch match, we do get to see her support her friends by wearing her enormous lion's head, and her all-too-brief scene at Slughorn's Christmas party is wonderful. Quick props to Georgina Leonidas as Katie Bell for giving us what is perhaps the film's creepiest image, and I should also mention Robert Knox as Slug Club hopeful Marcus Belby, who's played mostly for laughs as a ravenous eater with a tenuous family connection to a famous potioneer. Tragically, Knox was stabbed to death days after he finished filming, cutting short a career that had barely begun.

I was thrilled to see Fred and George Weasley (James and Oliver Phelps) steal a couple of scenes; because they are no longer in school, I feared they might get cut altogether, but they share the spotlight in an eye-popping detour to Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes, the Diagon Alley joke shop they co-own. This early scene is pure eye candy, and it's such fun to see them careen around the shop, speaking in unison and hawking their wares, while missing no opportunity to give their little brother a hard time. Sadly, not only is Percy absent from the film, he's never mentioned at all, which would make me nervous that his storyline might not be resolved at all, except that he's listed in the credits for both installments of Deathly Hallows. I suppose we just have to wait extra long to cram in three books' worth of family tension. It's also taking an inordinately long time to introduce Bill Weasley. Omitting him and Fleur Delacour from the movie strikes me as most unfortunate; I don't see how there will be time to establish meaningful character arcs for them prior to their wedding. Then again, post-Hogwarts romance in general doesn't seem to fare too well; the complex relationship between Remus Lupin (David Thewlis) and Tonks that is so subtly developed throughout the book is distilled to one throwaway line in the middle of the movie that is likely to be as befuddling to the uninitiated as Eowyn and Faramir's hand-holding at Aragorn's coronation in Return of the King.

At least Ginny has plenty to do here. Indeed, proportionally speaking, we probably actually see more of her in the movie than in the book, since the film has her palling around with Harry, Hermione and Ron constantly, almost making their trio a quartet. She comes across as fairly quiet but unafraid of asserting herself, as she demonstrates most humorously during the dizzying tryouts for the Gryffindor Quidditch team. It's fun to see her right there in the thick of things, though it lessens the romantic tension since she and Harry sort of slide into their relationship with each other. Fans of the book may be disappointed to see that the dramatic moment in which they finally put an end to all that painful longing is entirely omitted, though it's replaced with a scene that is more intimate and subtly sensuous. Additionally, Arthur (Mark Williams) and Molly Weasley (Julie Walters) appear briefly, with Molly the centerpiece of the hilarious and beautifully shot scene in which Harry arrives at the Burrow before the start of term. They also are on hand to witness the film's strangest departure from the book. I guess this mid-movie disaster supposed to drive home the fact that, despite the frivolity occurring within school walls, these are dangerous times, but it could mean a major change for the seventh movie. I'll be curious to see how the aftermath is handled.

Among the adults, Maggie Smith has a stronger presence here than she's probably had since the first movie. That's not to say that she's in the movie much; we never see a Transfigurations class, and a couple of McGonagall's best scenes are eliminated. But though Smith is looking even frailer than usual, she never leaves us in any doubt as to this professor's formidability, and with a silent gesture in the film's last moments, she sparks one of the most moving visuals the film series has given us. I continue to be thoroughly pleased with Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid, my favorite character in the Potterverse. Though I would have liked to see some reference to the Trio dropping Hagrid's class, the fallout from that was brief, and the incident had little bearing on the plot, so I can see why it was cut. I was worried that somehow Harry's final attempt to gain the critical memory from Slughorn might be altered to exclude Hagrid, but thankfully, though a few details are different, it remains as much a showcase for the huge-hearted half-giant as before. Though elements of this scene are sad, it offers Coltrane, Radcliffe and Broadbent each the opportunity to give some of the strongest comedic performances in the movie.

I'm still bewildered by the decision to change Professor Flitwick (Warwick Davis) from congenial and elderly to young and cranky, but while he barely appears in the movie at all, he gets a throwaway line that made me laugh harder than almost any other moment in the film. Argus Filch (David Bradley) gets a funny moment or two as he eagerly performs wand searches on students, but sour librarian Madam Pince, who has only appeared in one of the films, doesn't return, so there's no opportunity for hints of romance between them. While Professor Sprout is mentioned, she isn't seen, but the one absence at the teachers' table that really stings is Professor Sybil Trelawney (Emma Thompson). Though she only appears in a few scenes in the book, one provides Harry with some pretty crucial information.

Few characters in the Harry Potter series have inspired as much study and debate as Severus Snape, and the arrival of Rickman in 2001 to color fans' interpretation of the character seems to have increased interest considerably. After a rare glimpse of him in his home environment in a scene that helped turn the question of Snape's loyalties into one of the central issues of the series, we see much less of the surly professor than many would like, but as usual, Rickman commands the audience's attention every time he appears. Snape's deliberate way of speaking, caressing each word as deep-seated emotions struggle to express themselves in his inscrutable face, makes him riveting to watch. I was especially impressed with his performance during his nearly wordless taking of the Unbreakable Vow with Narcissa Malfoy (Helen McCrory). I do find it a shame, however, that we are unable to watch Snape in action in Defense Against the Dark Arts, the post he craved for so long, and that we don't even see much of a reaction from him or anyone else to the announcement that he has attained the position at last. I also find it laughable that we're expected to believe that after he bursts in on the aftermath of a duel between Harry and Draco in which Harry does significantly more damage than he intended, our bespectacled hero is simply able to make a break for it with no repercussions.

Incidentally, this scene would seem a lot more logical if Moaning Myrtle had been there to alert the whole castle to the attack; as it is, Snape's sudden presence seems a little too convenient. Unfortunately, magical beings really get the short end of the stick here. No ghosts, centaurs or mermaids appear or are even referenced, nor are such creatures as Hagrid's brother Grawp, his bowtruckles or his hippogriff Buckbeak (newly christened Witherwings). Most egregious of all, however, is the complete omission of House Elves. Three of them play a fairly significant role in the sixth book, and two are critical to the seventh installment. We haven't seen Dobby since the second movie, and I fear that by the time he turns up in the seventh or eighth, half of the filmgoers who haven't read the books will have forgotten all about him.

While this film boasts a few fresh faces, the most important newcomer by far is Broadbent, and his performance as vain but accomplished Slughorn is nothing short of masterful. There is much humor to be mined from this professor who at times acts almost as silly as Gilderoy Lockhart, the self-absorbed ninny from Chamber of Secrets, and Broadbent wastes none of these opportunities, but he also gives us genuine emotion, whether it's terror at the thought of a long-ago tete-a-tete connecting him with some of Voldemort's most heinous crimes or grief as he tenderly recalls Harry's mother Lily, one of his favorite students. I found one recollection about Lily added for the film especially touching. Whether the scene calls for jocularity or solemnity, Broadbent rises to the occasion, giving the strongest all-around performance of the movie.

I've had my share of complaints about Michael Gambon as Albus Dumbledore, so I was concerned about how he would pull off this movie, in which the headmaster is so central. While I still wish that Richard Harris could have portrayed him, I found myself mostly happy with Dumbledore here. I still think he's too abrupt, though part of that is down to Kloves; in the book, Dumbeldore makes Harry much more aware of what is going on from the beginning. He sends notice that he'll be arriving to pick him up and when to expect him; he doesn't just show up on the street and whisk him away without even warning him they're about to Apparate. I was sorry to see the Dursleys excised from the movie when Dumbledore's visit with them is one of my favorite chapters in the book, and I was annoyed by the gruff behavior of Gambon's Dumbledore. Similarly, I found it pretty irresponsible of him to drop Harry off in the middle of the night in a swamp half a mile from the Burrow when Death Eaters are roaming the countryside freely. However, I loved his interaction with Slughorn, and in his ensuing conversations with Harry he not only toned down the bark but managed a bit of humor. Moreover, Gambon's haggard performance in the cave and polite conversation with Draco are just about perfect.

It is in connection with Dumbledore that we see the 11-year-old Tom Riddle, the boy who will grow up to become Lord Voldemort. We witness his conversation with this creepy child played by Fiennes' nephew, Hero Fiennes-Tiffin, and it says a lot both about Dumbledore's class and compassion and Voldemort's early sociopathy. The film doesn't delve as deeply as the book does, but it shows us a boy who steals and takes grim pleasure in hurting others. I think the scene could have gone on a bit longer, but it's effective as it is. So is Slughorn's memory, in which he uncomfortably discusses Horcruxes with the smarmy teenaged Tom, played by Frank Dillane.

Dumbledore and Harry's Pensieve-peering sessions are greatly reduced in number, with only two memories examined, though as the memories are shown as being stored in marked vials in a cabinet, we are left with the possibility that Harry could peruse other memories at a later date. It almost seems he would have to, for as the movie concludes, we have no reason to think he has any idea what he is looking for, other than the locket, and he doesn't know what that looks like or what its history is. It irked me a bit that Dumbledore made a remark about how a Horcrux could be the most commonplace of objects, almost the opposite of what he said in the book. Essentially, movie Dumbledore has given Harry almost nothing to go on.

It also irritated me that after having it drilled into our heads time after time that you can't Apparate or Disapparate on Hogwarts grounds, Dumbledore and Harry do both. Granted, Harry questions it, and Dumbledore replies with a quip about how it's good to be him sometimes. But it still didn't cut it for me, especially since it allowed the omission of yet another character, Madam Rosmerta, who owns The Three Broomsticks, a popular Hogsmeade pub. In the book, it is she who tips Draco off that Dumbledore has left the school; in the movie, it seems like just another all-too-convenient coincidence that he happens to decide that this is the night to put his plan into action. There's also no real explanation for why Draco seeks Dumbledore on the Astronomy Tower. Additionally, allowing such an instant getaway from the cave to the school truncated the time in which Harry had to help his ailing mentor, to the point that there was no opportunity for Dumbledore to utter my favorite line of the book: "I am not worried, Harry. I am with you." Maybe I shouldn't have been surprised, since its sister line from the beginning of the book, in which Dumbledore tells Harry not to worry because "you are with me," is also absent, but it's such an iconic quote I felt sure it would be included.

I worry that my favorite line from Deathly Hallows will suffer a similar fate. It's less iconic, and it hinges on the character of Stan Shunpike, who has not been mentioned in the movies since the third film. Which brings me to another complaint. The Ministry of Magic is scarcely discussed at all in the film. We are never introduced to the new Minister, Rufus Scrimgeour, or even told that Cornelius Fudge has lost his job, unless it was in an article in The Daily Prophet that I missed. There's no direct indication that the Ministry is ineffective or corrupt; Order of the Phoenix pointed us in that direction, but it still seems like Kloves is leaving himself an awful lot of ground to cover in the next installment. On the other hand, I think it was probably a wise move to open the film not with a conference between the Minister of Magic and the Prime Minister but with an in-the-moment shot of Bellatrix LeStrange (Helena Bonham Carter) and her crew (which includes vicious werewolf Fenrir Greyback (Dave Legeno), on whom we never really get any background) wreaking havoc on London, shooting across the sky with black smoke in their wake like a band of escapees from Smallville's Phantom Zone. It's a visually arresting opening to a film whose cinematography never failed to wow me. This is Bruno Delbonnel's first time as cinematographer for a Harry Potter movie, and I was most impressed with his efforts.

Potter fans know to expect that significant plot threads and characters will be dropped from the films, so I'm not sure how much I should sigh over the loss of certain elements, but there are two more I feel compelled to mention. While Harry does Apparate in the movie, it is only by grabbing onto Dumbledore's arm. There's nothing to indicate that he has any idea how to do it himself. The ability to Apparate is a significant milestone for a young witch or wizard, similar to the acquisition of a driver's license, and considering how much Harry, Ron and Hermione have to do it in the seventh book, it seems like this movie ought to have given us a glimpse of their lessons. The biggest omission, though, is the battle that members of Dumbledore's Army and the Order of the Phoenix launch against the Death Eaters. After Harry drinks his luck potion, the camera seems to linger for a moment on the tiny bottle, just to assure us he still has a fair amount left. I assumed that this was a set-up for the moment when Harry passes it on to his friends, asking them to patrol the corridors and share the luck amongst themselves, but that moment never comes, and thus all of Harry's protectors are robbed of their chance to demonstrate their valor.

I knew that re-reading the book shortly before I saw the movie would lead to me nit-picking even more than I might have otherwise. I was acutely aware of all the departures, and the purist in me did quite a bit of grumbling. I definitely disagree with some of the directions that were taken. However, while I would venture a guess that only about half the scenes in the film had a direct counterpart in the book, most of the new material felt very true to the characters and often managed to condense many pages worth of conflict into a minute or two. In terms of comedy and teen romance, I think Kloves and Yates absolutely got things right. I laughed aloud many times, both at the dialogue and the expert way in which it was delivered, not to mention the purely nonverbal moments that tickled my funny bone. It's in the more serious part of the movie that I have issues. Though my concerns are enough to make me wonder if the proper groundwork for the last two movies has been set down, when I step back and look at the movie as a whole, especially after removing my purist goggles and acknowledging that no two fans are likely to be in complete agreement as to what should go into an adaptation, I see what may well be the best Potter film yet. May Deathly Hallows be even better.

Goblet of Fire Has Me All Fired Up For More Harry

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows comes out this year. I hope. Profusely. Of course, once it does, that means there will be no more Harry Potter books left, and I will most likely find myself in a state of depression after I finish the concluding volume. But that's all months away, so I'm much more occupied with the anticipation than the looming specter of the eventual letdown, though it's probably just as well if I must wait until summer because if I had to juggle Smallville, LOST and Harry Potter all at once, my head would probably explode. That being said, it's nice to have a little something to whet my appetite, and that came in the form of a Christmas present that arrived belatedly in the mail last week. The goods: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Which, true to my unfortunate tradition, I never saw in the theater. So I was in for a treat.

Goblet of Fire is a long book. I remember when I got it, after much rigamarole due to the fact that we accidentally had it sent to my grandpa when we ordered it on Amazon; it was well into the summer when we collected it, just before embarking on a week-long trip to Ocean City, Maryland. Whenever we piled into the van, I read aloud to my brother Nathan, though I made him take the reins whenever a house elf was speaking. I missed those elves in the movie, but only when I stopped to think about it. So many details were left out, subplots drastically shortened or cut entirely, and upon reflection I ruminated that it was a shame they couldn't be included. But the film centers on the Tri-Wizard Tournament, the overblown competition uniting Hogwarts with magical schools Beauxbatons and Durmstrang for the year, and I think it was in the best interests of the movie for screenwriter Steve Kloves and director Mike Newell to keep that fairly narrow focus.

Not only are the elves missing here, there are no Dursleys whatsoever, but I can't say I miss them, though Mrs. Weasley's absence is sadly noted. (At least there are hints of her in the dreadful dress robes Ron is forced to wear.) Instead of watching Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) suffer through another miserable summer with his inhospitable relatives, we see him whisked away to a massive Quidditch match with the Weasleys. Hogwarts has a very ancient air about it, so it's strange to witness an event so filled with modern touches, such as the fanfare with which the teams arrive and the elaborate profile of star player Viktor Krum (Stanislav Ianevski) that flickers across half the stands at one point. (Later scenes have a more contemporary feel to them as well, like the end of the Yule Ball, when the sedate classical music gives way to the hard-rocking tunes of a popular young wizarding rock group.) The score in these Quidditch World Cup scenes is especially nice, all Celtic-flavored to go with the Irish team the Weasleys so ardently support, and the whole proceedings tingle with joy and exhilaration until Voldemort's cronies come in and ruin everything, setting a dark tone for the rest of the film.

Goblet of Fire has an epic feel to it, what with the three Herculean tasks the students must perform, but it also seems more ordinary than the others, largely because there are many scenes in which we see Harry and his friends in regular clothes rather than robes. They're growing up before our eyes, most notably gangly Ron (Rupert Grint) and luminous Hermione (Emma Watson). Teenage emotions run rampant as Ron spends close to a third of the movie furious with Harry, thinking he somehow maneuvered his way into the Tri-Wizard Tournament and kept it from him. Ron, who is rendered a babbling nitwit whenever he nears Fleur Delacour (Clemence Poesy), the seductive siren serving as the Beauxbatons champion, feels like enough of an also-ran as it is; he's not enthusiastic at the prospect of sitting in the sidelines while Harry attains eternal glory. He and Harry make up eventually - just in time for him to have a falling-out with Hermione over her acceptance of Durmstrang champion Viktor's invitation to the Yule Ball (which Professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith) amusingly describes as an evening of "well-mannered frivolity"). Poor hot-headed, misguided Ron... Harry's got his eyes on someone too: Cho Chang (Katie Leung), who happens to be the girlfriend of the other Hogwarts champion, golden boy Cedric Diggory (Robert Pattinson). (Looking back over the fourth and fifth books fresh off five seasons of Smallville crammed into one year, I find this relationship incredibly similar to Clark's and Lana's. We see so little of Cho in the film, though, that we tend to forget she exists.)

Speaking of reduced roles, Snape (Alan Rickman) gets precious little air time, though his few scenes are memorable, particularly one in which he boxes Ron and Harry's ears for chattering in class. McGonagall's dancing lesson with Ron is another shining moment, as is the shot of crusty groundskeeper Argus Filch (David Bradley) waltzing contentedly with his cat, Mrs. Norris, at the Yule Ball. Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) remains fairly prominent, mostly cultivating a romance with Beauxbatons headmistress Madame Maxime (Frances De La Tour), while Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) has the helm in many scenes, though I can't get used to this new, robust version of a wizard I see as wise and ethereal, with an ever-present twinkle in his eye. He seems to bark out much of his dialogue, coming across as more intimidating than understanding, especially when he demands to know whether Harry put his name in the goblet somehow. Other characters - most regrettably Nearly Headless Nick (John Cleese) - don't make an appearance at all.

Of the younger set, Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) doesn't show up a whole lot, though he is the centerpiece of a most amusing little scene involving the inappropriate use of Transfiguration. Moaning Myrtle (Shirley Henderson) shares a rather uncomfortable scene with Harry, and Parvati (Shefali Chowdhury) and Padma Patil (Afshan Azad) giddily anticipate spending the Yule Ball as Harry and Ron's dates until they realize what wallflowers the two are. Fred and George Weasley (James and Oliver Phelps) actually are fairly prominent here despite the lack of Quidditch matches, which is grand because those two scallywags always bring a smile to my face. I'm also a fan of nebbish Neville Longbottom (Matthew Lewis), so it's nice to see him have some time in the spotlight as well.

Several new characters are introduced, most notably Mad-Eye Moody (Brendan Gleeson), the cantankerous but ever-so-helpful Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher. His methods are sometimes dubious, but he seems to be incredibly competent despite the rumors that he has lost his mind. We also meet prominent wizard Barty Crouch (Roger Lloyd-Pack), who carries a dark secret under all his professionalism, and Rita Skeeter (Miranda Richardson), an exceptionally irritating journalist who is milked for much comic relief, though her role is also significantly decreased, which is rather a shame. Then, of course, there is Voldemort, who we see for the first time in this form, a supremely sinister, noseless, scarcely human incarnation whose raspy vocals are nonetheless clearly recognizable as Ralph Fiennes'.

It's a perpetual problem with Harry Potter that Rowling has so many incredibly well-realized characters, and they just can't all be fleshed out in the course of a few two-and-a-half-hour films. We get little sprinkles of side characters here and there, but the primary focus is always on Harry and, to a slightly lesser extent, Ron and Hermione. Because so much attention is paid to the Tri-Wizard tournament, which Harry must handle on his own, we don't have nearly as many scenes featuring the three of them together as we do in other installments. Frankly, I always thought the tournament was a rather silly idea, throwing three schools' worth of students into a tumult so that three individuals (or, as it turns out, four) can perform ridiculously complicated and dangerous tasks, mostly unseen by spectators, in order to attain everlasting fame. Dumbledore puts it into perspective at the end of the film, stressing the value of the experience as a way for students from all three schools to build relationships with one another, but I still think the tournament itself is a little over-hyped. Still, we get to see a lot more of the competition than the students do, and the three tasks, particularly Harry's death-defying, largely aerial battle with the Hungarian Horntail, make for absolutely exhilarating cinema.

The film is darker and more grown-up; it earns the PG-13 rating with a smattering of profanity (usually coming from Ron) but mostly with violence and frightening images. If not for the climactic showdown with Voldemort, Goblet of Fire probably could have squeaked by with a PG, but as devastating as that scene is, it is beautifully realized and a crucial midpoint to the series. Voldemort is gaining strength, but there's hope for Harry yet. I do think that just what happens to Harry when he locks wands with Voldemort is explained poorly, if at all; just when Dumbledore seems about to provide some essential insight, we're on to the next scene, and this was a bit of exposition that probably should have been provided to those who are coming into the film without having read the book. Otherwise, however, the movie comes to a satisfying but bittersweet close, setting us up for the oppressive Order of the Phoenix. That was my least favorite of the books, so I don't know how much I'll like the movie. Goblet of Fire, however, is golden and just what I needed to remind me how much I'm looking forward to the final installment in J. K. Rowling's brilliant series.

Muggles Muddle Magical Masterpiece in First Harry Potter Movie

Back in the fall of 2001, once I had recovered enough from 9/11 to think about other things again, my mind was occupied largely with one topic: the upcoming first installment of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, as filmed by Peter Jackson. I had to wait until December for it, and as it turned out the holiday season was so busy that I didn’t see it until early January. But something else came along to stave off my appetite for that long-awaited adaptation. That something was Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone.

Of course, I’d only first met the bespectacled boy with the ordinary name and extraordinary fate a few years earlier; I didn’t have the history with him that I had with steadfast Sam Gamgee or industrious Bilbo Baggins. But the movie was still cause for excitement. Did it live up to its promises? I’m still trying to decide. I don’t have as much invested in Rowling as in Tolkien, but her vision is still more than worthy of being translated into high-quality cinema. The film was certainly a commercial success, but in comparison with Fellowship of the Ring, I would say that it falls considerably short.

The movie begins outside the home of the Dursleys, where a very special delivery is about to arrive. In the space of a few moments, we meet the infant Harry and three magical folk who will eventually play a large role in his life. For the time being, however, he is entrusted to the care of his thoroughly unpleasant relatives: overbearing Uncle Vernon (Richard Griffiths), sniveling Aunt Petunia (Fiona Shaw) and their spoiled son Dudley (Harry Melling). This is where we find Harry (Daneil Radcliffe) ten years later, cowering in a closet and waiting on his reluctant caregivers like a modern-day version of Cinderella. But in this case, it is not an invitation to a ball that has the mistreated youth in a tizzy. It’s an invitation to a school, an invitation to an entirely different way of life. But the Dursleys are even more unwilling to facilitate those dreams than that notorious stepmother. This introductory segment is handled well, though there’s an odd quality to the cinematography that I can’t pin down. I guess it reminds me of the Brit-coms I watch on PBS now and again; something about it just doesn’t seem quite movie-like. Still, we get just as much of the Dursleys as we need, including the beautifully done assault upon the house by a fleet of Hogwarts owls. Even better is the eventual appearance of Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), my favorite character. He makes a big impression at once, and he soon earns Harry’s trust and our affection. Harry’s scenes with Hagrid before he heads off for the Hogwarts Express are perhaps my favorite in the film.

The trouble is, from that point on, everything has a rushed, glossed-over quality to it. We meet Mrs. Weasley (Julie Walters) and her clan, but she only has a couple lines of dialogue in which to establish herself as a significant maternal presence in Harry’s life. Ginny (Bonnie Wright), meanwhile, seems supremely superfluous, standing shyly next to her mother and uttering a mere two words: "Good luck." If that’s all they were going to give her to do, why’d they bother casting her at all? Might as well have just waited until the next movie. Percy (Chris Rankin) gets to strut around campus looking superior and even bark out a couple orders, but Fred and George (James and Oliver Phelps) are tragically underused. They barely fare better than Ginny, which is a darn shame given their immense potential for comic relief. Ron (Rupert Grint) does get a lot of screen time in, of course, and he’s adorable but he’s also slightly pointless most of the time. His dialogue is the worst in the movie; he’s always making useless asides and exclamations as random and irritating as those uttered by Sunny in the film Series of Unfortunate Events. His character is not satisfactorily developed.

Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) at least serves a more practical purpose in the film. She’s a marvelous expository tool; if you ever want to explain something quickly, just have Hermione pipe up and say she’s read something about it. Even at this early stage of the game, there’s an interesting tension shaping up between her and Ron that will become amplified in later installments. Watson plays Hermione as a snotty know-it-all but softens up her performance by the end. She’s probably the character who undergoes the most noticeable change in personality. Several other students stand out in some way, among them disaster-prone Neville Longbottom (Matthew Lewis); Dean Thomas (Alfred Enoch), practically the only dark face among a sea of pasty Brits; loud-mouth Quidditch announcer Lee Jordan (Luke Youngblood); and Irish lad Seamus Finnegan (Devon Murray), whose marble-mouthed manner of speaking annoys me immensely. By far the most notable student, however, is Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton), a sneering, self-important purebred Slytherin who quickly establishes himself as Harry’s pint-sized nemesis. Felton certainly has that obnoxiousness down to a tea, also revealing Malfoy’s cowardice in the scene where they must venture out into the Forbidden Forest.

While many of the child actors have no prior acting experience, the bulk of the adult cast consists of screen legends from the British Isles. There’s so much talent amassed here that it’s a great pity the adults are not used more. Richard Harris puts in an appearance as quirky headmaster Albus Dumbledore, but the only indication of his wit that remains is his disappointing attempt at finding a satisfactory jelly bean. It seems to me that several of his funniest lines from the book could have made it into the film; as it is, he comes across as something between mournful and simply dull. What a shame that in two of his final movies, Harris was given so little to do. Maggie Smith’s Minerva McGonagall is only slightly less strict than her mother superior in Sister Act. She’s a professor to be feared, but she is a reasonable woman and a valuable ally to have. Incidentally, Smith has a distinct Scottish brogue here, which helps this character to stand out from other authoritarian roles she’s assumed. We see more of her and Hagrid than we do of Dumbledore, but it’s still less than I would like.

By far the most intriguing character is Severus Snape (Alan Rickman), who remains awash in ambiguity even five books later. This loathed teacher gives Harry a concrete enemy far more threatening than Malfoy, and though his presence is a bit of a red herring, we’re not entirely sure by the end of the film that Harry’s suspicions were misplaced. Rickman is one of my favorite actors, so I’m not surprised he managed to make the most of his moments on the screen. Snape is silkily sinister, the sort of teacher every student dreads, and Rickman gives him such a commanding presence that I spend most of the movie in anticipation of his scenes, much as I do with Agent Smith in The Matrix. The guy is good.

What isn’t good is the fact that the adaptation tries so hard to be faithful to the letter of the book that it winds up being unfaithful to the spirit. A whole lot of stuff happens, and it’s pretty close to the text, but we don’t really know why it’s going on, nor do we care as much as we should. The pivotal background information and context is glossed over, leaving those unfamiliar with the books confused. Moreover, all this action leaves little room for character development, so none of the characters are realized as fully as they should be. There’s room for that in the sequels, of course, but if I had come into the film unfamiliar with the characters I would feel little of the sense of closeness with them at the conclusion that I felt upon finishing the first book. I don’t agree with all the decisions Peter Jackson made in his adaptation of Tolkien’s masterpiece, but in order to translate a book of that magnitude to the screen, he rightly realized that significant alterations had to be made. Screenplay writer Steven Kloves should have had that degree of faith in himself rather than fearing the wrath of devoted fans for not sticking strictly to the book.

The look of the film is magnificent once we step out of the commonplace world of Muggles and into the wizarding community. The noble educational institution of Hogwarts is especially impressive with its gothic archways, shifting staircases and walls full of paintings whose subjects wander about and talk freely amongst themselves. Some of the effects, however, come across as silly rather than splendid. The whole encounter with the troll in the girls’ bathroom, for instance, is a bit phony-looking, and the gross-out conclusion of the skirmish is accentuated so as to delight younger audience members. I can’t complain about the score, provided by veteran composer John Williams of Star Wars fame. Word has it that Peter Jackson wanted Williams to do the music for Lord of the Rings but that the composer was already committed to this project. I suspect that was for the best on all accounts, as I can’t imagine a better LotR score than Howard Shore’s or a better Harry Potter score than Williams’. It strikes just the right balance between eerie and fanciful, capturing the wonder and terror inherent in Harry’s strange new world.

All in all, it’s a good start, but it needs work. I guess you can think of this film as a practice run for the Harry Potter adaptation team. The biggest problem is with the screenplay, and that’s the easiest area in which to make changes. So far, it seems the second and third films have done a better job with characterization, but there’s still plenty of room for improvement. Let’s hope Goblet of Fire is the best yet!