海角大神

Thursday at midnight is the beginning of the end for the big-screen life of the Boy Who Lived as 鈥�Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1鈥� opens, with Part 2 scheduled for next summer.

Advance ticket sales have outstripped the previous film, but as the franchise begins its move from theatrical exhibition into Netflix and family DVD libraries, the question arises: how good are the movies 鈥� really 鈥� and how will they hold up over time? Do the cinematic versions have the same cultural oomph that propelled J.K. Rowling鈥檚 ink-on-paper universe to such global popularity?

The general consensus seems to be that one or two of the films 鈥� most notably the third installment, 鈥�Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban,鈥� will achieve independent status as a good if not great film. The rest of the canon 鈥� still unfolding as it is 鈥� is more problematic.

The first two films were just plain not good, says author Philip Nel, a Kansas State University professor who teaches graduate courses on Harry Potter and has written extensively about the relationship between the films and the books.

鈥淭he director Chris Columbus essentially made costume dramas in an effort to be really faithful to the books,鈥� he says. As a result, he notes, 鈥渉e has the inverse achievement, particularly with the second film, of making a boring movie that sucks all the life out of what is actually a really good story in the book.鈥�

Alfonso Cuar贸n, a director with some very adult films on his resume, however, breathed life into the filmic world in the third installment by moving away from such scrupulous re-creationism, says Mr. Nel. Instead, the creator of the R-rated, Spanish language 鈥�Y Tu Mam谩 Tambi茅n" took the themes and emotional journeys of the "Potter" characters and re-imagined the whole world, including mussing up the obligatory robes the Hogwarts pupils don during the day and allowing them to appear in civilian outfits.

鈥淎lfonso Cuar贸n created an artistic experience in the third film, even though it didn鈥檛 have all the plot elements that the first ones did,鈥� Nel says.

New Zealand director Peter Jackson鈥檚 treatment of the J.R.R. Tolkien's 鈥�Lord of the Rings鈥� (LOTR) trilogy is the most frequent comparison for book-to-film creations. The award-winning blockbusters generally leave the Harry Potter films on the sidelines, both in the critical and popular imaginations. Mr. Jackson had the advantage of adapting a completed work, so the issue of what to include or leave out for later relevance didn鈥檛 trip him up.

This particular issue has bedeviled some of the first six Harry Potter films, because in addition to being a coming-of-age serial tale, it鈥檚 also an unfolding mystery. 鈥淚t鈥檚 hard to know if you are deleting something really important if you don鈥檛 know for sure where the story is headed,鈥� points out Greg Garrett, author of 鈥淥ne Fine Potion: The Literary Magic of Harry Potter.鈥�

Which plot points, characters, and even whole subplots to trim or weave into a screenplay is a challenge for any director who takes on a well-known book. Despite the fact that it won a best picture Oscar, there are still LOTR fans who can鈥檛 forgive Jackson for completely excising a loved secondary character, Tom Bombadil from the first film. The LOTR franchise itself benefited greatly from having a single creative vision for all three films, notes Rob Weiner, an associate librarian at the Texas Tech University Library.

Ms. Rowling reportedly encouraged screenwriters on the sixth film to retain the cranky house elf, Kreacher, because he would be important to the final film. These are the sort of potential missteps that can tarnish the films for even the most generous book and movie lovers.

Texas middle-schooler David Carstens says the studio should have begun splitting the books into two films with the fourth book, when the page-length nearly doubled.

鈥淭hey just had to start leaving out so many important things,鈥� he says via cell phone between an art class and study hall. He insists he is not one of those book-purists who wants everything to stay the same when a written work moves to the screen. The 12-year-old Mr. Carstens says he understands the difference and actually 鈥減retty much likes most of the movies.鈥� But, he says, when they lose important themes, not just little details, then that makes the overall film worse.

Carstens points to the fourth book, 鈥淕oblet of Fire,鈥� in which two characters, Dobby the house elf 鈥� who is also critical to the final book 鈥� and Cedric Diggory help Harry in key moments. But, he says, when the fourth film came out, the elf is completely gone, and Diggory鈥檚 role in aiding Harry is greatly underemphasized.

This, he adds, is more than just losing a costume detail or eye color (many fans complained that Harry Potter鈥檚 eye color in the book was green, while Daniel Radcliffe鈥檚 eyes are blue). 鈥淧eople helping each other in hard times is an important part of the book鈥檚 message and they shouldn鈥檛 have cut it out,鈥� he says.