'Harry Potter' Ends With a Bang

More

The Deathly Hallows: Part 2 serves up a satisfying finale to the Potter franchise

hp_orr 615.jpg

Warner Bros

I began reading the Harry Potter books in 2000, between the publication of the third and fourth installments—which is to say that I was a late adopter of J.K. Rowling’s magical oeuvre, though not as late as some. The first three novels went by in a merry rush, each pegged to the rhythms and rituals of a school year at Hogwarts School of Wizardry, where Harry and his adolescent co-conspirators Ron and Hermione untangled one meticulous mystery after another. In the fourth book, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Rowling dialed it up, as Nigel Tufnel might say, to 11, delving into deeper, darker territory, as Harry’s nemesis, Lord Voldemort, returned from a spectral afterlife with murder on his mind.

That was for me, however, the series’ printed-word apogee. The final three books—perhaps inevitably, perhaps even wisely—gradually dispensed with Rowling’s original formula. In place of the sequential yet self-contained conundrums of the early books, the saga entered a longer narrative arc, as the war between good and evil that had lurked in the wings gradually assumed center stage. The epic sweep (and increasingly epic length) of the final books proved, at least for myself, less congenial to Rowling’s talents than the taut plotting and drawing-room deduction of the earlier installments. By the time I reached the conclusion of the architecturally scaled final tome, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, with its multiplying MacGuffins—seven Horcruxes, three Deathly Hallows, two turtle doves —I confess I was glad to be done. And that’s even before I arrived at The Epilogue That Must Not Be Named.

The films, however, have followed an alternative trajectory. The first two, directed by Chris Columbus (of Home Alone and Mrs. Doubtfire fame) resembled cinematic books on tape, loyal yet somehow lifeless. The third, by contrast, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, was directed by Alfonso Cuarón, who gave himself the space and latitude to inject a bit of humanity into the furiously plotted proceedings . Alas, Cuarón had other fish to fry—notably two of the best films of 2006: Children of Men, which he adapted and directed, and Pan’s Labyrinth, which he co-produced. The fourth film, Goblet of Fire, was ably but unmemorably directed by Mike Newell (who, in a truly odd coincidence, is scheduled in 2012 to become, with Cuarón, the second Potter director to release an adaptation of Great Expectations). For the final four films—the seventh book having been split in two for reasons that assuredly have no relation to the box office—BBC veteran David Yates (State of Play) took the helm, and over the course of numbers five and six, the (again, for me) diminishing returns were much as expected.

But last summer, as I steeled myself for the moderate disappointment of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1, I was happily confounded by what proved to be the fiercest, most grownup entrant in the series so far. Not all literary virtues are cinematic ones—and vice versa—and the sense of a world teetering toward Armageddon that had seemed largely expository on the page acquired newfound weight and immediacy onscreen.

Which brings me to the proximate cause of this review, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2. Circumstances have to some degree usurped the traditional role of the critic here: those who have seen the films, or read the books, or both, will have a pretty clear idea of what to expect. (And for those who haven’t—well, if you insist on breezing in for the final chapter, expect no sympathy for your befuddlement.) The cast, in particular young principals Daniel Radcliffe (Harry), Emma Watson (Hermione), and Rupert Grint (Ron), have wormed so deep into their roles that it will be a wonder if they can ever find their ways out again. Director Yates has, over the course of four Potters, made the film series his own: spare, earnest, and unforgiving. And the plot hews closely, of course, to Rowling’s cataclysmic blueprint.

Jump to comments
Presented by

Christopher Orr is a senior editor and the principal film critic at The Atlantic. He has written on movies for The New Republic, LA Weekly, Salon, and The New York Sun, and has worked as an editor for numerous publications.

Get Today's Top Stories in Your Inbox (preview)

Why Are Americans So Bad at Saving Money?

The US is particularly miserable at putting aside money for the future. Should we blame our paychecks or our psychology?


Elsewhere on the web

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register. blog comments powered by Disqus

Video

The Death of Film

You'll never hear the whirring sound of a projector again.

Video

How to Hunt With Poison Darts

A Borneo hunter explains one of his tribe's oldest customs: the art of the blowpipe

Video

A Delightful, Pixar-Inspired Cartoon

An action figure and his reluctant sidekick trek across a kitchen in search of treasure.

Video

I Am an Undocumented Immigrant

"I look like a typical young American."

Video

Why Did I Study Physics?

Using hand-drawn cartoons to explain an academic passion

Writers

Up
Down

More in Entertainment

Just In