Still Good Seven Chapters Later?

The first installment of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” the film based on the last book in J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series, premiered early this morning at 12:01 in thousands of theatres across the world. Voted the second most anticipated film of 2010 according to an audience poll by Box Office Mojo, the film had a lot of pressure riding on it, and unlike the supposed #1 most anticipated film of the year “Iron Man 2”, “Hallows” is looking like it isn’t set up to disappoint.

Many film buffs argue that series like this, whose sequels have sequels, are destroying Hollywood and eliminating the challenge of thought in classically quality films. To a large extent, Hollywood filmmakers do appeal to the lowest common denominator in audiences in order to gross as much as humanly possible, and often times these universally loved films include abstract fantasy—enter the beloved wizard, Harry Potter. But many argue that the “Harry Potter” films go beyond a moneymaking enterprise to something deeper. Harry Potter books have certainly established themselves as classics, and if anything, the film series is in compliment to them. Sure, Warner Brothers could single-handedly remain afloat on the sheer revenue from the film saga, but many esteemed and educated film critics aren’t so quick to reduce them to simply a blockbuster enterprise.

“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” is receiving fairly glowing reviews for a 7^th installment in a film series. Even die-hard fans are applauding the film for its accuracy to the book, and they aren’t the easiest crowd to please. While some worried that the splitting the film into 2 parts is done sheerly to drag out the finale and make more money, reviews have been surprisingly good. Film critic A.O. Scott says, “’Deathly Hallows: Part 1’ finds notes of anxious suspense and grave emotion to send its fans, into the last round.”

Now my question regarding the Potter films is whether they maintain a sense of thought-provoking challenge into their 7^th installment, for whether they’re just generic entertainment. True, quirky independent films are much more likely to take chances and explore complex topics, but can an abstract movie about witches and wizards do the same? Often placed in the same category, the “Twilight” films are pure garbage if you ask me. But there is something about the Potter series that, cinematically, appeals to me. By no means are these films artistic risks, but I do like that they serve as acceptions to the general rule that blockbuster movies are dumbed-down nonsense. Surely it doesn’t take a scholar or a heart surgeon to understand the films, but they do something more than most moneymaking film series do.

Of course, a film based on one of the bestselling books of the decade is far from an artistic risk. This does nothing to disprove the notion that mainstream entertainment is all too safe and simple. But I do like the fact that a movie can make it to its 7^th installment without losing the motivation to be great. All things considered, 95% of big-budget films are reincarnations of themselves. But these Harry Potter movies – like their literary counterparts – are one thing we’re luck to have.