Release Date: July 11, 2007 (conventional theaters and IMAX)
Studio: Warner Bros. Pictures
Director: David Yates
Screenwriter: Michael Goldenberg
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Helena Bonham Carter, Robbie Coltrane, Ralph Fiennes, Michael Gambon, Richard Griffiths, Jason Isaacs, Gary Oldman, Alan Rickman, Fiona Shaw, Maggie Smith, Timothy Spall, Imelda Staunton, David Thewlis, Emma Thompson, Julie Walters

Review By Peter Veugelaers ©2007

Harry bleddin’ Potter cries the collective Hogwarts teaching staff. In all the Harry Potter films the title character is always getting in a spot of bother for breaking the rules. From the unforgivably small presence (in this film) of Alan Rickman’s irritable lecturer to the new teacher (Imelda Staunton) on the block: a charming punisher who seems to have a secret.

Hogwarts is under threat from evil and there’s an inside job going on, some people mentioning loveable Professor Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) in the fray. No, it can’t be. The Ministry of Magic is under insurrection from the Devil character Voldermort, a scarily impressive Ralph Fiennes made-up like a bus flattened his facial features and a pig resurrected from the ashes. It’s pretty weird.

Harry Potter is chastised for using magic out of the school quarters during summer holidays. Using magic illegally sets the story going.

Why do these black ghouls spike Harry to the throat when he uses his wand on his uncle’s son for pushing Harry’s buttons? Harry’s an orphan and family ties are important to the story – that’s why Harry retaliates. He is still emotionally immature; growth has to take place in further Potter stories.

There’s hope he’ll get his family back. But evil lurks for Potter for no other reason but power (what else haven’t we seen?) and revenge. The battle between “light and dark” and “good and evil”, in the same person for added depth, is mechanised through plenty of wand waving and roving special effects standing in for chaotic spiritualised who knows what.

But there’s an emotional centre to that, and Harry’s personal emotional troubles (this takes so much of screen time) and the quest for Harry’s family, which all seems to give an eight-year old girl the sobs, at least at my screening. It depends on how emotionally committed one is.

It gets progressively darker. Cast onto the Potter wallpaper are typical Potter idioinsincrasies and humour, such as paintings of cats that move and goblin-like butlers who are grumpy, which we’ve come to expect, but the processor is Harry’s dreams, conflict with the establishment, and challenging his classmates to join forces against the Ralph Fiennes villain, which leads to an awe-inspiring visual effects finale not to be beat. Except the story is so obvious you may as well fall asleep for two hours before you get there and hope someone wakes you up. Except everyone seems just too enthralled for that with two eyes on the screen and one hand in the popcorn. Oh well.

Back to movie front