Critical response to the Harry Potter films

Critical response to the Harry Potter films


The Harry Potter film series is distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures, produced by David Heyman and based on the Harry Potter novels by British author J. K. Rowling. The franchise consists of eight fantasy-adventure films. It is currently the highest-grossing film series of all time.[1]

All the films have been a financial success, making the franchise one of the major Hollywood tent-poles akin to James Bond, Star Wars, Indiana Jones and Pirates of the Caribbean. However, opinions of the films generally divide book fans, with some preferring the more faithful approach of the first two films, and others preferring the more stylised character-driven approach of the later films. Some also feel the series has a "disjointed" feel due to the changes in directors, as well as Michael Gambon's interpretation of Albus Dumbledore differing from that of Richard Harris and Professor Flitwick's appearance also changing drastically between the second and third films. Author J. K. Rowling has been constantly supportive of the films,[2][3][4] and evaluated Deathly Hallows as her favourite one in the series. She wrote on her website of the changes in the book-to-film transition, "It is simply impossible to incorporate every one of my storylines into a film that has to be kept under four hours long. Obviously films have restrictions – novels do not have constraints of time and budget; I can create dazzling effects relying on nothing but the interaction of my own and my readers' imaginations".[5]

Contents

Chris Columbus' films

Chris Columbus directed the first two films in the series. His involvement as screenwriter on the 1985 film Young Sherlock Holmes, as well as his experience directing child actors in the first two Home Alone films and Mrs. Doubtfire, encouraged Warner Bros. to select him as director.

Philosopher's Stone

Philosopher's Stone received generally positive reviews from critics, garnering a 80% "Fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes,[6] as well as a score of 64 out of 100 at Metacritic representing "generally favourable reviews".[7] Roger Ebert called Philosopher's Stone "a classic," giving the film four out of four stars, and particularly praising the visual effects used for the Quidditch scenes.[8] Praise was echoed by both The Telegraph and Empire reviewers, with Alan Morrison of the latter naming it the "stand-out sequence" of the film.[9][10] Brian Linder of IGN.com also gave the film a positive review, but concluded that it "isn't perfect, but for me it's a nice supplement to a book series that I love".[11] Although criticising the final half-hour, Jeanne Aufmuth of Palo Alto Online stated that the film would "enchant even the most cynical of moviegoers."[12]

USA Today reviewer Claudia Puig gave the film three out of four stars, especially praising the set design and Robbie Coltrane's portrayal of Hagrid, but criticised John William's score and concluded "ultimately many of the book's readers may wish for a more magical incarnation."[13] The sets, design, cinematography, effects and principal cast were all given praise from Kirk Honeycutt of The Hollywood Reporter, although he deemed John Williams' score "a great clanging, banging music box that simply will not shut up."[14] Todd McCarthy of Variety compared the film positively with Gone with the Wind and put "The script is faithful, the actors are just right, the sets, costumes, makeup and effects match and sometimes exceed anything one could imagine."[15] Jonathan Foreman of the New York Post recalled that the film was "remarkably faithful," to its literary counterpart as well as a "consistently entertaining if overlong adaptation."[16] Richard Corliss of Time, considered the film a "by the numbers adaptation," criticising the pace and the "charisma-free" lead actors.[17] CNN's Paul Tatara found that Columbus and Kloves "are so careful to avoid offending anyone by excising a passage from the book, the so-called narrative is more like a jamboree inside Rowling's head."[18] Nathaniel Rogers of Film Experience gave the film a negative review and wrote: "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is as bland as movies can get."[19] Ed Gonzalez of Slant Magazine wished that the film had been directed by Tim Burton, finding the cinematography "bland and muggy," and the majority of the film a "solidly dull celebration of dribbling goo."[20]

Chamber of Secrets

Chamber of Secrets was reviewed generally positively; it currently garners an 82% "Certified Fresh" approval rating at Rotten Tomatoes (the fourth most favourably reviewed Harry Potter film on the site)[21] and a score of 63 out of 100 at Metacritic representing "generally favourable reviews" (the least favourably reviewed Harry Potter film on the site).[22] Roger Ebert called The Chamber of Secrets "a phenomenal film" and gave the film 4 out of 4 stars, especially praising the set design.[23] Entertainment Weekly commended the film for being better and darker than its predecessor: "And among the things this Harry Potter does very well indeed is deepen the darker, more frightening atmosphere for audiences. This is as it should be: Harry's story is supposed to get darker".[24] Richard Roeper praised the directing and the films faithfulness to the book, saying: "Chris Columbus, the director, does a real wonderful job of being faithful to the story but also taking it into a cinematic era".[25]

Variety also said the film was excessively long, but praised it for being darker and more dramatic, saying that its confidence and intermittent flair to give it a life of its own apart of the books was something The Philosopher's Stone never achieved.[26] A. O. Scott from The New York Times said: "instead of feeling stirred you may feel battered and worn down, but not, in the end, too terribly disappointed".[27] Peter Travers from The Rolling Stone condemned the film for being over-long and too faithful to the book: "Once again, director Chris Columbus takes a hat-in-hand approach to Rowling that stifles creativity and allows the film to drag on for nearly three hours".[28] Kenneth Turan from The Los Angeles Times called the film a cliché which is "deja vu all over again, it's likely that whatever you thought of the first production – pro or con – you'll likely think of this one".[29]

Alfonso Cuarón's film

Alfonso Cuarón, director of Prisoner of Azkaban.

Alfonso Cuarón was initially nervous about accepting the role of director as he had not read any of the books or seen the films. After reading the series, he changed his mind and signed on to direct as he had immediately connected to the story.[30] Producer David Heyman found that "tonally and stylistically, [Cuarón] was the perfect fit."

Prisoner of Azkaban

Prisoner of Azkaban achieved notable universal acclaim, garnering a 91% "Certified Fresh" approval rating and another 90% "Top Critics" ranking at Rotten Tomatoes.[31] The film also received a score of 82 out of 100 at Metacritic, signifying "universal acclaim."[32] Peter Travers of Rolling Stone gave the film three-and-a-half out of four stars: "Not only is this dazzler by far the best and most thrilling of the three Harry Potter movies to date, it's a film that can stand on its own even if you never heard of author J.K. Rowling and her young wizard hero."[33] The Hollywood Reporter called the film "a deeper, darker, visually arresting and more emotionally satisfying adaptation of the J.K. Rowling literary phenomenon," especially compared to the first two instalments.[34] Stephanie Zacharek of Salon.com asserts it to be "one of the greatest fantasy films of all time."[35] Director Terry Gilliam, whom Rowlings had originally favored for film adaptations of the Harry Potter series but had been rejected by studio executives[36] and who had called the first two Harry Potter films by Chris Columbus "just dull. Pedestrian."[37], praised Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban as "really good...much closer to what I would've done."[38]

Roger Ebert gave the film three-and-a-half out of four stars saying that the film "is not quite as good as the first two," but still called it "a delightful, amusing and sophisticated instalment."[39] Claudia Puig from USA Today praised the film as "a visual delight,"[40] while Richard Roeper called the film "a creative triumph."[41] Sean Smith from Newsweek said: "The Prisoner of Azkaban boasts a brand-new director and a bold new vision," he also called the film "moving," praising the performances by Radcliffe and Watson,[42] while Entertainment Weekly praised the film for being more mature than its predecessors.[43] Some of the negative criticism came from The Washington Post: "Put delicately, this is one long sit, made all the more so by a turgid story, a dour visual palette and uninspiring action."[44] Rex Reed, of The New York Observer, also pointed out some over the top style changes, calling it "the silliest, as well as the most contrived – and confusing – of them all."

Mike Newell's film

Mike Newell, director of Goblet of Fire.

Due to the fact that the production of Goblet of Fire had to be initiated before the release of the third film, Cuarón rejected the possibility of returning as director. Mike Newell was then selected to helm the entry. Newell aimed to condense and transform the book (which he described as "big as a house brick") into a bombastic thriller.[45]

Goblet of Fire

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was released to critical acclaim. As of July 2011, the film holds an 87% "Certified Fresh" overall approval rating at Rotten Tomatoes.[46] Likewise at Metacritic, the film received a score of 81, which indicates "universal acclaim". The New York Daily News praised the film for both its humour and its dark tone.[47] The young actors were praised for demonstrating a "greater range of subtle emotions",[48] particularly Daniel Radcliffe whom Variety described as delivering a "dimensional and nuanced performance".[49]

New cast members were also praised: Brendan Gleeson's portrayal of Mad-Eye Moody was described as "colourful";[49] Miranda Richardson's scenes as Rita Skeeter were described as "wonderful";[47] and Ralph Fiennes's portrayal of Lord Voldemort was described as "sublime villainy".[50] The maturity of Harry, Ron, and Hermione, among others, impressed most critics. While the major characters were portrayed as children in the previous films, "they have subtly transitioned into teenagers (in Goblet of Fire)" according to one USA Today reviewer. Harry has also physically matured since Prisoner of Azkaban. In the scene in the prefects' bathroom, Daniel Radcliffe's character is shown with significant axillary hair and muscle growth. Negative criticism included the film's pace which The Arizona Republic described as being "far too episodic",[51] while CNN.com described the film as "clunky and disjointed".[52] Another criticism was that the many supporting characters did not get enough screen time.[49][52] Some fans criticised the film for changing and leaving out too much of the source material, particularly those parts that developed character[53] and set-up events that occur later in the series.[54]

David Yates' films

David Yates, director of Order of the Phoenix, Half-Blood Prince and the two-part Deathly Hallows.

In an interview with the Directors Guild of America, British director David Yates commented on the producers' decision to appoint him as director for the final films, declaring that "they wanted to do a Harry Potter that felt realer, and more grown up. What’s smart about the studio and the producers is they have always wanted to push it a bit. Chris [Columbus] did a wonderful job of casting and making this world incredibly popular. But rather than do more of the same, they said, 'Let's bring in Alfonso Cuarón and let him run with it. Then later, let's bring in David Yates, who’s done all this hard-hitting stuff on TV. It's a testament to their ambition to try and keep the franchise fresh. The bizarre thing is, I did one and they asked me to stay for three more, so obviously they liked something."[55] Yates ultimately won the BAFTA Britannia Award for Excellence in Directing for his four Harry Potter films, becoming the only director to win such an accolade for his work on the series.[56][57]

Order of the Phoenix

Order of the Phoenix received generally positive reviews. The film holds a 78% "Certified Fresh" approval rating at Rotten Tomatoes. The site's general consensus states that "It's not easy to take the longest Harry Potter book and streamline it into the shortest HP movie, but director David Yates does a bang up job of it, creating an Order of the Phoenix that's entertaining and action-packed". It also has a score of 71 out of 100 on Metacritic, the fifth highest rated after Deathly Hallows Part 2, Prisoner of Azkaban, Goblet of Fire and Half-Blood Prince.[58][59] Charles Frederick of The Telegraph headlined their review "Potter film is the best and darkest yet".[60] Colin Bertram of the New York Daily News gave the film four out of four stars, calling it the best Potter film yet and wrote that "die-hard Potter addicts will rejoice that Yates has distilled J. K. Rowling's broad universe with care and reverence".[61]

Mark Adams of The Sunday Mirror, while giving the film four out of five stars, called it "a dark and delicious delight [and] a must-see movie".[62] Rene Rodriguez of The Miami Herald gave the film three stars out of four and wrote that the film "is the first instalment in the soon-to-be series-of-seven that doesn't seem like just another spinoff capitalising on the money-minting Harry Potter brand name. Instead, Phoenix feels like a real 'movie'".[63] Imelda Staunton's performance as Dolores Umbridge and Helena Bonham Carter's as Bellatrix Lestrange were widely acclaimed; Staunton was described as the "perfect choice for the part" and "one of the film's greatest pleasures", "coming close to stealing the show".[64] The Daily Mail described Staunton's portrayal of Umbridge as a "refreshing addition", with the character herself described as "a cross between Margaret Thatcher and Hyacinth Bucket".[65] Bonham Carter was said to be a "shining but underused talent".[66] Variety praised Alan Rickman's portrayal of Severus Snape, writing that he "may have outdone himself; seldom has an actor done more with less than he does here".[67]

Newcomer Evanna Lynch, playing Luna Lovegood, also received good word from a number of reviewers including the New York Times who declared her "spellbinding".[68] Peter Travers of Rolling Stone also lauded the three principal actors' achievements, especially Radcliffe: "One of the joys of this film is watching Daniel Radcliffe grow so impressively into the role of Harry. He digs deep into the character and into Harry's nightmares. It's a sensational performance, touching all the bases from tender to fearful". Rolling Stone's review also classified the film as better than the previous four instalments in the series, by losing the "candy-ass aspect" of the first two and "raising the bar" from the "heat and resonance" of the third and fourth.[69] Peter Travers of Rolling Stone called the film "the best of the series so far, [with] the laughs, the jitters and the juice to make even nonbelievers wild about Harry".[69] Leo Lewis of The Times (London) expressed disappointment that the three main actors were not able to fully advance the emotional sides of their respective characters, weakening the film.[66] The San Francisco Chronicle complained about a "lousy" storyline, alleging that the first twenty minutes of the film, when Harry is put on trial for performing magic outside of school and threatened with expulsion, but is cleared of all charges, did not advance the plot.[70] Kirk Honeycutt of The Hollywood Reporter wrote that Phoenix is "quite possibly the least enjoyable of the [series] so far", and that despite "several eye-catching moments", "the magic – movie magic, that is – is mostly missing". The review also criticised the under use of the "cream of British acting", noting the brief appearances of Helena Bonham Carter, Maggie Smith, Emma Thompson, David Thewlis, Richard Griffiths, Jason Isaacs and Julie Walters.[71]

Half-Blood Prince

Half-Blood Prince received critical acclaim from film critics; it holds an overall approval rating from critics of 84% on the film review aggregate website Rotten Tomatoes with 213 "Fresh" reviews,[72] and an overall approval rating of 88% among the site's "top" critics.[73] The site's general consensus categorises the film as "dark, thrilling, and occasionally quite funny, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is also visually stunning and emotionally satisfying". By comparison, Metacritic, which assigns a normalised rating out of 100 based on individual reviews from critics, the film received an average score of 78 ("generally favourable") based on 36 reviews.[74] The film scored 87/100 from professional critics at the Broadcast Film Critics Association[75] and is the only entry in the franchise to gain a nomination for an Academy Award for Best Cinematography.

BBC News's Tim Masters has praised the film's cinematography, visual effects, production design, improved acting and darker plotline.[76] The first review of the film came three weeks before the official release. Paul Dergarabedian of Hollywood.com ranked the film with The Lord of the Rings film trilogy and called the film a "possible Oscar contender". He highly praised the performance of Sir Michael Gambon, Alan Rickman and Daniel Radcliffe. He commented, "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is a tour-de-force that combines style and substance, special effects and heart and most importantly great performances from all of the actors young and not-so-young".[77] Another early review came from the UK tabloid The Sun, whose anonymous reviewer called the film "masterful" and "very emotional". The reviewer praised David Yates' directing and called Jim Broadbent's portrayal of Horace Slughorn "perfect".[78] Devin Faraci of Chud.com called the film not only the best Harry Potter film yet, but also one of the best films of the year.[79] Andrew Pulver of The Guardian wrote a positive review, and gave the film 3.5 out of 5 stars rating.[80]

Todd McCarthy of the trade magazine Variety said that the film is "dazzlingly well made" and "less fanciful than the previous entries". He praised Alan Rickman's performance and he described Helena Bonham Carter as "mesmerising" and Jim Broadbent as "grand eccentric old professor".[81] The Hollywood Reporter's Kirk Honeycutt noted that the film's first half is "jerky and explosive", but in the second half, the film finds better footing. He adds, "Composer Nicholas Hooper, cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel and designer Stuart Craig deliver a singularly muscular and vigorous chapter".[82] Screen Daily called the film "[s]tunningly shot by Bruno Delbonnel in metallic hues leavened by buttery tones and the thumping beats of Nicholas Hooper’s score bear little resemblance to the original and the overall effect is much less tween, much more grown-up".[83]

Deathly Hallows – Part 1

Part 1 of Deathly Hallows received positive reviews. Film review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reports that 79% of critics gave the film a positive review based on 235 reviews, with an average score of 7.2/10. The consensus is "It can't help but feel like the prelude it is, but Deathly Hallows: Part I is a beautifully filmed, emotionally satisfying penultimate instalment for the Harry Potter series."[84] On Metacritic, which assigns a normalised rating out of 100 based on reviews from critics, the film has a score of 65 (citing "generally favourable reviews") based on 41 reviews.[85] The film scored 87/100 from professional critics at the Broadcast Film Critics Association.[86] Among other reviews, Variety gave the film a positive rating, stating, "[...] Having made it this far, the Potter faithful won't be deterred by "Part 1's" bleak, inconclusive tenor, spelling phenomenal returns and raising expectations for a truly spectacular finish."[87]

The UK's Daily Telegraph also gave the film a positive review, remarking, "For the most part the action romps along, spurred by some impressive special effects," adding, "It’s just slightly disappointing that, with the momentum having been established so effectively, we now have to wait until next year to enjoy the rest of the ride."[88] Roger Ebert awarded the first part three out of four stars, praising the cast and calling it "a handsome and sometimes harrowing film... completely unintelligible for anyone coming to the series for the first time".[89] Scott Bowles of USA Today called it, "Menacing and meditative, Hallows is arguably the best instalment of the planned eight-film franchise, though audiences who haven't kept up with previous chapters will be hopelessly lost", while Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly likewise praised the film as "the most cinematically rewarding chapter yet." In a review for the Orlando Sentinel, Roger Moore proclaimed Part I as "Alternately funny and touching, it's the best film in the series, an Empire Strikes Back for these wizards and their wizarding world. And those effects? They're so special you don't notice them." However, Newsweek had a negative review in its 15 November issue, saying that "They’ve taken one of the most enchanting series in contemporary fiction and sucked out all the magic...while Rowling’s stories are endlessly inventive, Potter onscreen just gives you a headache."[90]

Deathly Hallows – Part 2

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 opened to universal critical acclaim; on the film review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an overall approval rating of 97% based on 260 reviews, 100% from the site's top critics, and an average score of 8.4/10. The site's consensus describes the film as "Thrilling, powerfully acted, and visually dazzling, Deathly Hallows Part II brings the Harry Potter franchise to a satisfying – and suitably magical – conclusion."[91] On Metacritic, which assigns a normalised rating out of 100 based on individual reviews, the film achieved an average of 87 which signifies "universal acclaim".[92] The film received a "Critic's Choice" certificate and a score of 93 from professional critics at the Broadcast Film Critics Association; it is their highest rated Harry Potter film.[93]

The first review of the film was released on 5 July 2011 by The Daily Telegraph. Philip Womack commented, "This is monumental cinema, awash with gorgeous tones, and carrying an ultimate message that will resonate with every viewer, young or old: there is darkness in all of us, but we can overcome it." He further expressed that David Yates "transmutes [the book] into a genuinely terrifying spectacle."[94] Another review was released on the same day, this time from Evening Standard, who rated the film 4/5 and stated "Millions of children, parents, and those who should know better won't need reminding what a Horcrux is – and director David Yates does not let them down. In fact, in some ways, he helps make up for the shortcomings of the final book."[95] The Daily Express remarked that the film showcases "a terrifying showdown that easily equals Lord of the Rings or Star Wars in terms of a dramatic and memorable battle between good and evil."[96] First Stop News gave the film a rating of 9.6/10 calling the film a "truly magical ending" to the series that "will become the most-discussed and praised film of the year."[97]

Roger Ebert gave the film 3 1/2 out of four stars and said that "The finale conjures up enough awe and solemnity to serve as an appropriate finale and a dramatic contrast to the lighthearted (relative) innocence of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone all those magical years ago."[98] Mark Kermode said that the film is a "pretty solid and ambitious adaptation of a very complex book", but he criticised the post-converted 3D.[99] Christy Lemire of the Associated Press gave 3 1/2 out of four stars and said "While Deathly Hallows: Part 2 offers long-promised answers, it also dares to pose some eternal questions, and it'll stay with you after the final chapter has closed."[100] Richard Roeper gave the film an A+ rating and said that "This is a masterful and worthy final chapter in one of the best franchises ever put to film."[101]

References

  1. ^ "All Time Worldwide Box Office Grosses". Box Office Mojo. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/. Retrieved 14 September 2009. 
  2. ^ "Potter Power!". Time For Kids. http://www.timeforkids.com/TFK/specials/potter/0,12405,184807,00.html. Retrieved 31 May 2007. 
  3. ^ Puig, Claudia (27 May 2004). "New Potter movie sneaks in spoilers for upcoming books". USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2004-05-27-potter-movie-book_x.htm. Retrieved 31 May 2007. 
  4. ^ "JK "loves" Goblet Of Fire movie". BBC Newsround. 7 November 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4410000/newsid_4415400/4415454.stm. Retrieved 31 May 2007. 
  5. ^ Rowling, J. K.. "How did you feel about the POA filmmakers leaving the Marauder's Map's background out of the story? (A Mugglenet/Lexicon question)". J. K. Rowling Official Site. http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=94. Retrieved 8 October 2007. 
  6. ^ "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone) (2001)". Rotten Tomatoes. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/harry_potter_and_the_sorcerers_stone/. Retrieved 8 July 2007. 
  7. ^ "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone". Metacritic. http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/harrypotterandthesorcerersstone. Retrieved 20 July 2007. 
  8. ^ Ebert, Roger (16 November 2001). "Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone (PG)". Chicago Sun Times. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20011116/REVIEWS/111160301/1023. Retrieved 8 July 2007. 
  9. ^ Hiscock, John (4 November 2001). "Magic Is the Only Word for It". The Telegraph (London). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/11/05/npot105.xml. Retrieved 21 September 2007. 
  10. ^ Morrison, Alan. "Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone (PG)". Empire. http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/ReviewComplete.asp?FID=7458. Retrieved 21 September 2007. 
  11. ^ Linder, Brian (17 November 2001). "Brian Linder's Review of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone". IGN. http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/316/316273p1.html. Retrieved 9 June 2007. 
  12. ^ Aufmuth, Jeanne. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone". Palo Alto Online. Archived from the original on 12 October 2007. http://web.archive.org/web/20071012152346/http://paloaltoonline.com/movies/moviescreener.php?id=000743&type=long. Retrieved 20 July 2007. 
  13. ^ Puig, Claudia (16 November 2001). "Visually stunning 'Potter' falls short of pure magic". USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/2001-11-16-harry-review.htm#more. Retrieved 9 October 2010. 
  14. ^ Honeycutt, Kirk (9 November 2001). "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 17 October 2010. http://web.archive.org/web/20070804013520/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1099973. Retrieved 21 September 2007. 
  15. ^ McCarthy, Todd (11 November 2001). "Also Playing: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone". Variety. http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117916310.html?categoryid=31&cs=1. Retrieved 19 October 2010. 
  16. ^ Foreman, Jonathan. "Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone". New York Post. Archived from the original on 12 October 2007. http://web.archive.org/web/20071012153708/http://nypost.com/entertainment/movies/35119.htm. Retrieved 22 September 2007. 
  17. ^ Corliss, Richard (1 November 2001). "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone: Movie Review". Time. http://www.time.com/time/2001/harrypotter/review.html. Retrieved 29 July 2007. 
  18. ^ Tatara, Paul (16 November 2001). "Review: "Potter" Well Acted, Heavy Handed". CNN. http://edition.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/Movies/11/15/hol.tatara.potter/index.html. Retrieved 21 September 2007. 
  19. ^ Rogers, Nathaniel (December 2001). "Harry Potter & the Sorceror's Stone". TheFilmExperience.net. http://www.thefilmexperience.net/Reviews/lordoftherings.html. Retrieved 24 November 2010. 
  20. ^ Gonzalez, Ed. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone". Slant Magazine. http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=191. Retrieved 21 September 2007. 
  21. ^ "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)". Rotten Tomatoes. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/harry_potter_and_the_chamber_of_secrets/. Retrieved 22 September 2007. 
  22. ^ "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets". Metacritic. http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/harrypotterandthechamberofsecrets?q=Harry%20Potter%20and%20the%20Chamber%20of%20Secrets. Retrieved 22 September 2007. 
  23. ^ Ebert, Roger (15 November 2002). "Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets". Chicago Sun Times. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20021115/REVIEWS/211150304. Retrieved 22 September 2007. 
  24. ^ Schwarzbaum, Lisa (13 November 2002). "Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets". Entertainment Weekly. http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,389817~1~0~harrypotterandchamber,00.html. Retrieved 22 September 2007. 
  25. ^ Roeper, Robert (15 November 2002). "Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets". Ebert & Roeper. http://apps.tvplex.go.com/ebertandthemovies/audioplayer.cgi?file=021111_harry_potter_chamber_secrets. Retrieved 22 September 2007. 
  26. ^ McCarthy, Todd (15 November 2002). "Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets". Variety. http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=review&reviewid=VE1117919275&categoryid=31&cs=1. Retrieved 22 September 2007. 
  27. ^ Stevens, Dana (15 November 2002). "FILM REVIEW; An Older, Wiser Wizard, But Still That Crafty Lad". New York Times. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CE0DB1730F936A25752C1A9649C8B63. Retrieved 22 September 2007. 
  28. ^ Travers, Peter (15 November 2002). "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets". Rolling Stone. http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/5948587/review/5948588/harry_potter_and_the_chamber_of_secrets. Retrieved 22 September 2007. 
  29. ^ Turan, Kenneth (15 November 2002). "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 11 October 2007. http://web.archive.org/web/20071011073414/http://calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-et-turan15nov15,0,1767241.story. Retrieved 22 September 2007. 
  30. ^ "Alfonso Cuaron: the man behind the magic". Newsround. 24 May 2004. http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/tv_film/newsid_3758000/3758101.stm. Retrieved 10 October 2007. 
  31. ^ "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)". Rotten Tomatoes. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/harry_potter_and_the_prisoner_of_azkaban/. Retrieved 13 September 2010. 
  32. ^ "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban". Metacritic. http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/harrypotterandtheprisonerofazkaban?q=harry%20potter. Retrieved 21 September 2007. 
  33. ^ "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban". Newsround. 27 May 2004. http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/6071754/review/6071752/harry_potter_and_the_prisoner_of_azkaban. Retrieved 21 September 2007. 
  34. ^ "Harry Potter: Prisoner of Azkaban". Hollywood Reporter. 28 May 2004. Archived from the original on 17 April 2007. http://web.archive.org/web/20070417220804/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000521350. Retrieved 21 September 2007. 
  35. ^ Zacharek, Stephanie (3 June 2004). "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban". Salon.com. http://dir.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2004/06/03/prisoner_azkaban/. Retrieved 17 November 2010. 
  36. ^ IMDb: Biography for Terry Gilliam. Accessed 22 April 2007.
  37. ^ "Terry Gilliam Bitter About Potter". Wizardnews.com. 2005-08-29. http://www.wizardnews.com/story.20050829.html. Retrieved 2011-06-01. 
  38. ^ "Terry Gilliam Tilts at Hollywood Yet Again". MTV.com. http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1543143/terry-gilliam-tilts-at-hollywood-yet-again.jhtml. Retrieved 2011-10-21. 
  39. ^ Ebert, Roger (3 June 2004). "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban". Chicago Sun Times. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040603/REVIEWS/406030301. Retrieved 23 September 2007. 
  40. ^ Puig, Claudia (3 June 2004). "Azkaban wizard Cuaron casts an artful spell". USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/reviews/2004-06-03-harry-potter-3_x.htm. Retrieved 23 September 2007. 
  41. ^ Roeper, Richard (3 June 2004). "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban". Ebert & Roeper. http://tvplex.go.com/buenavista/ebertandroeper/mp3/040607_harry_potter_azkaban.mp3. Retrieved 23 September 2007. 
  42. ^ Smith, Sean (31 May 2004). "The Harry Potter books have finally gotten the wondrous movie they deserve. The Prisoner of Azkaban boasts a brand-new director and a bold new vision.". Newsweek. Archived from the original on 5 November 2007. http://web.archive.org/web/20071105061557/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/redirect.aspx?to=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5040564/site/newsweek/&from=http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5040564/site/newsweek/. Retrieved 23 September 2007. 
  43. ^ Gleiberman, Owen (3 June 2004). "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban". Entertainment Weekly. http://www.oregonlive.com/movies/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/entertainment/1086090938246590.xml. Retrieved 24 September 2007. 
  44. ^ Hornaday, Ann (4 June 2004). "Harry-Raising Adventure: Only Fans Will Love Potter 3, Hogwarts and All". Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14361-2004Jun3.html. Retrieved 24 September 2007. 
  45. ^ BBC: Mike Newell, GOF Nov 2005
  46. ^ "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire Movie Reviews, Pictures". Rotten Tomatoes. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/harry_potter_and_the_goblet_of_fire. Retrieved 10 June 2007. 
  47. ^ a b "A blistering Goblet of Fire". New York Daily News. http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/moviereviews/story/366595p-311840c.html. Retrieved 10 June 2007. 
  48. ^ Zacharek, Stephanie (17 November 2005). "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire". Salon.com. http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/movies/review/2005/11/17/potter/index.html?pn=2. Retrieved 10 June 2007. 
  49. ^ a b c McCarthy, Todd (9 November 2005). "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire". Variety. http://www.variety.com/ac2006_review/VE1117928818?nav=reviews&categoryid=1986&cs=1. Retrieved 10 June 2007. 
  50. ^ Dargis, Manohla (7 February 2005). "The Young Wizard Puts Away Childish Things". The New York Times. http://movies2.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/movies/17pott.html?ei=5070&en=480281ca8b81316b&ex=1156651200&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1156485942-Jmioa5Gb9JG62Z4/tviEug. Retrieved 10 June 2007. 
  51. ^ Muller, Bill (18 November 2005). "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire". The Arizona Republic. http://www.azcentral.com/ent/movies/articles/1118harrypotter1118.html. Retrieved 10 June 2007. 
  52. ^ a b Clinton, Paul (21 November 2005). "Review: New Potter tries to do too much". CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/11/18/review.potter/index.html. Retrieved 10 June 2007. 
  53. ^ "The Harry Potter Podcast". PotterCast. http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/pottercast/?mode=transcript&eid=20&on=1. Retrieved 10 June 2007. 
  54. ^ "Who's seen GoF and what did everybody think?". Fiction Alley. http://forums.fictionalley.org/park/showthread.php?s=&threadid=100226. Retrieved 10 June 2007. 
  55. ^ David Yates on Potter Direction
  56. ^ "BAFTA Honors John Lasseter and David Yates 11/30". Broadway World (Los Angeles). 28 June 2011. http://losangeles.broadwayworld.com/article/BAFTA-Honors-John-Lasseter-and-David-Yates-1130-20110628. Retrieved 28 June 2011. "The worldwide success of Mr. Lasseter for Walt Disney and Pixar Animation Studios and Mr. Yates' contribution to the final four parts of the ‘Harry Potter' franchise makes them global wizards in their own right, and are delighted to honor these remarkable filmmakers with this year's Britannia Award." 
  57. ^ "John Lasseter and David Yates set to be honored by BAFTA Los Angeles". Los Angeles Times. 28 June 2011. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/awards/2011/06/john-lasseter-and-david-yates-set-to-be-honored-by-bafta-los-angeles-.html. Retrieved 28 June 2011. 
  58. ^ "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)". Metacritic. http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/harrypotterandtheorderofthephoenix?q=Harry%20Potter. Retrieved 23 August 2008. 
  59. ^ "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)". Rotten Tomatoes. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/harry_potter_and_the_order_of_the_phoenix/. Retrieved 25 July 2007. .
  60. ^ Frederick, Charles (27 June 2007). "Potter film is the best and darkest yet". London: The Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/29/wpotter129.xml. Retrieved 1 July 2007. 
  61. ^ Bertram, Colin (8 July 2007). "Phoenix hot for Harry". New York Daily News. http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/2007/07/08/2007-07-08_phoenix_hot_for_harry.html. Retrieved 8 July 2007. 
  62. ^ Adams, Mark (1 July 2007). "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix". The Sunday Mirror. http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/showbiz/movies/tm_method=full%26objectid=19386975%26siteid=98487-name_page.html. Retrieved 1 July 2007. 
  63. ^ Rodriguez, Rene (10 July 2007). "Like Harry, movie has matured". The Miami Herald. Archived from the original on 27 September 2007. http://web.archive.org/web/20070927225957/http://www.miamiherald.com/213/story/165548.html. Retrieved 10 July 2007. 
  64. ^ McCurry, Justin (29 June 2007). "Japan goes wild about Harry". The Guardian (UK). http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/jun/29/film.business. Retrieved 1 July 2007. 
  65. ^ Cox, Tom (1 August 2007). "Harry Potter's growing pains stretch the magic in Order Of The Phoenix". Daily Mail (UK). http://news.homesandproperty.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/reviews.html?in_article_id=468093&in_page_id=1924#StartComments. Retrieved 16 August 2007. [dead link]
  66. ^ a b Lewis, Leo (28 June 2007). "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix: the first review". The Times (UK). http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/film_reviews/article2000948.ece. Retrieved 30 June 2007. 
  67. ^ McCarthy, Todd (29 June 2007). "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix". Variety. http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117934037.html?categoryid=31&cs=1. Retrieved 1 July 2007. 
  68. ^ Scott, A. O. (10 July 2007). "Hogwarts Under Siege". New York Times. http://movies.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/movies/10harr.html. Retrieved 29 July 2007. 
  69. ^ a b Travers, Peter (29 June 2007). "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix". Rolling Stone. http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/15087359/review/15289225/harry_potter_and_the_order_of_the_phoenix. Retrieved 8 July 2007. 
  70. ^ LaSalle, Mick (10 July 2007). "Harried Harry: In his fifth outing, the wizard matures – and faces plenty of grown-up problems". San Francisco Chronicle: p. B1. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/10/DDG3IQSIV91.DTL. Retrieved 10 July 2007. 
  71. ^ Honeycutt, Kirk (30 June 2007). "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 6 July 2007. http://web.archive.org/web/20070706204940/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film/reviews/article_display.jsp?&rid=9447. Retrieved 1 July 2007. 
  72. ^ "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Movie Reviews, Pictures – Rotten Tomatoes". Rotten Tomatoes. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/harry_potter_and_the_half_blood_prince/?name_order=asc. Retrieved 11 August 2009. "T-Meter Critics" 
  73. ^ "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Movie Reviews, Pictures – Rotten Tomatoes". Rotten Tomatoes. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/harry_potter_and_the_half_blood_prince/?critic=creamcrop. Retrieved 26 July 2009. "Top Critics" 
  74. ^ "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince reviews at Metacritic.com". Metacritic.com. http://www.metacritic.net/film/titles/harrypotter6. Retrieved 20 July 2009. 
  75. ^ "BFCA: Half-Blood Prince". Broadcast Film Critics Association. http://www.bfca.org/movie/movie.php?id=2816. Retrieved 26 November 2010. 
  76. ^ Masters, Tim (8 July 2009). "Review: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince". BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8133379.stm. Retrieved 1 August 2009. 
  77. ^ Dergarabedian, Paul (26 June 2009). "Mr. Potter, Meet Mr. Oscar?". Hollywood.com. http://www.hollywood.com/news/Mr_Potter_Meet_Mr_Oscar/5661142. Retrieved 26 June 2009. 
  78. ^ The Sneak (4 July 2009). "Potter plotter is hotter to trotter". The Sun (UK). http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/film/movie_reviews/2516815/Excluse-review-of-Harry-Potter-And-The-Half-Blood-Prince.html. Retrieved 64 July 2009. 
  79. ^ Faraci, Devin (7 July 2009). "REVIEW: HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE". Chud.com. http://chud.com/articles/articles/20066/1/REVIEW-HARRY-POTTER-AND-THE-HALF-BLOOD-PRINCE/Page1.html. Retrieved 8 July 2009. 
  80. ^ Pulver, Andrew (4 July 2009). "Film review:Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince". The Guardian (UK). http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/jul/04/harry-potter-half-blood-prince-review. Retrieved 4 July 2009. 
  81. ^ McCarthy, Todd (5 July 2009). "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Review". Variety. http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117940610.html?categoryid=31&cs=1. Retrieved 5 July 2009. 
  82. ^ Honeycutt, Kirk (5 July 2009). "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (review)". The Hollywood Reporter. http://www1.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film-reviews/harry-potter-and-the-half-blood-prince-film-1003990567.story. Retrieved 1 January 2011. 
  83. ^ Hannigan, Fionnuala (6 July 2009). "Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince Review". Screen Daily. http://www.screendaily.com/harry-potter-and-the-half-blood-prince/5003198.article. Retrieved 6 July 2010. 
  84. ^ "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I reviews". Rotten Tomatoes. IGN Entertainment. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/harry_potter_and_the_deathly_hallows_part_i/. Retrieved 12 November 2010. 
  85. ^ "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I Reviews, Ratings, Credits, and More at Metacritic". Metacritic.com. http://www.metacritic.com/movie/harry-potter-and-the-deathly-hallows-part-i. Retrieved 23 November 2010. 
  86. ^ BFCA: Deathly Hallows Part 1
  87. ^ Film Reviews Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 Variety.com'.' Retrieved 14 November 2010.
  88. ^ Harry Potter Rekindles the Magic Daily Telegraph'.' Retrieved 14 November 2010.
  89. ^ Ebert, Roger (16 November 2010). "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1". Chicago Sun-Times accessdate=17 November 2010. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20101116/REVIEWS/101119969. 
  90. ^ Setoodeh, Ramin (15 November 2010). "‘Deathly Hallows’? Try Deadly Boring". Newsweek. http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/15/harry-potter-deathly-dull.html. Retrieved 17 November 2010. 
  91. ^ "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2". Rotten Tomatoes. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/harry_potter_and_the_deathly_hallows_part_ii/. Retrieved 26 July 2011. 
  92. ^ "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2". Metacritic. http://www.metacritic.com/movie/harry-potter-and-the-deathly-hallows-part-2/. Retrieved 15 July 2011. 
  93. ^ "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2". BFCA. http://criticschoice.com/movie/3619. Retrieved 13 July 2011. 
  94. ^ "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2, review". Philip Womack, The Daily Telegraph (London). 10:00 pm, 6 July 2011. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/harry-potter/8619487/Harry-Potter-and-the-Deathly-Hallow-Part-2-review.html. Retrieved 6 July 2011. 
  95. ^ "Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows: Part 2". Evening Standard. 6 July 2011. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/film/review-23967831-harry-potter-and-the-deathly-hallows-part-2-in-3d---review.do. Retrieved 6 July 2011. 
  96. ^ "Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows: Part 2". The Daily Express (UK). 6 July 2011. http://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/view/257239/Harry-Potter-And-The-Deathly-Hallows-Part-2. Retrieved 7 July 2011. 
  97. ^ ""Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2" Review". First Stop News (Canada). 15 July 2011. http://firststopnews.blogspot.com/2011/07/harry-potter-and-deathly-hallows-part-2_15.html. Retrieved 15 July 2011. 
  98. ^ Roger Ebert. "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2". Chicago Sun-Times. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110713/REVIEWS/110719994. 
  99. ^ Mark Kermode (15 July 2011). "Wild About Harry". BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/2011/07/wild_about_harry.html. Retrieved 15 July 2011. 
  100. ^ Christy Lemire. "Review: Final Potter film is sad and satisfying". Sify. http://www.sify.com/movies/hollywood/review.php?id=14974542&ctid=5&cid=2426. Retrieved 21 July 2011. 
  101. ^ "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 Review". RichardRoeper.com. http://www.richardroeper.com/reviews/harrypotterandthedeathlyhallowspart2.aspx. Retrieved 24 July 2011. 

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Игры ⚽ Поможем сделать НИР

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Music of the Harry Potter films — John Williams, composer of the first three films and creator of Hedwig s Theme. The music of the Harry Potter film series was recorded and released in conjunction with the post production and releases of each of the eight corresponding films.… …   Wikipedia

  • Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows — Part 1 Theatrical poster Directed by David Yates Produced by …   Wikipedia

  • Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film) — Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix Theatrical poster Directed by David Yates …   Wikipedia

  • Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (film) — Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets International poster Directed by Chris Columbus …   Wikipedia

  • Harry Potter (film series) — Harry Potter Harry Potter: Complete 8 Film C …   Wikipedia

  • Religious debates over the Harry Potter series — A page from The Nervous Witch , a tract written by fundamentalist Jack Chick, depicting the purportedly occult dangers of the Harry Potter series. Religious debates over the Harry Potter series of books by J. K. Rowling stem largely from… …   Wikipedia

  • Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series — Since first coming to wide notice in the late 1990s, the Harry Potter book series by J. K. Rowling has engendered a number of legal disputes. Rowling, her various publishers and Time Warner, the owner of the rights to the Harry Potter films, have …   Wikipedia

  • Critical response to the Chronicles of Narnia films — The current logo for the Chronicles of Narnia film series The Chronicles of Narnia film series is distributed by Walt Disney Pictures (1st film) (2nd film)/20th Century Fox (3rd film), produced b …   Wikipedia

  • The Wizarding World of Harry Potter — The Wizarding World of Harry Potter …   Wikipedia

  • Harry Potter — This article is about the fantasy book series. For the titular character, see Harry Potter (character). For the film series, see Harry Potter (film series). For related topics, see List of Harry Potter related topics. For other uses, see Harry… …   Wikipedia

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
… Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”