The Potter Supremacy

Daniel Radcliffe and Michael Gambon in ‘Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.’

As franchises go, the Harry Potter series has been a study in dependability. And in the spirit of the Independence Day weekend just past, we take the following to be self-evident: When it opens next Wednesday, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince will rule the box office for one week, maybe two.

Before it is done, the latest adaptation of J.K. Rowling's juggernaut will gross around $300 million domestically and about $1 billion worldwide. In doing so, it will set the stage nicely for the two-film finale of the final book in the series. (Parts one and two of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows are currently slated to be released late 2010 and mid 2011, respectively.)

At a time when truly execrable follow-ups of excellent originals abound (Pirates of the Caribbean, I'm looking at you...as much as I can stand to), the Potter films have arguably gotten better while maintaining a stratospheric, deep-in-the-black financial consistency that every studio head covets.

How exactly has the series maintained such consistency? It's certainly not because of the vision of one director. By series' end, the franchise will have had four different directors. What began as a conservative, paint-by-numbers approach on the first two films under Chris Columbus, went darker and more stylized under Alfonso Cuarón, and lightened up a bit under Mike Newell, will finish its run with David Yates at the helm.

(Yates may lack the name recognition of his predecessors, but one viewing of his award-winning work at the helm of the 2003 BBC mini-series State of Play, shows he's no novice.)

In fact, while much has been made of critic-proof films — most any Michael Bay-helmed movie will serve as an example — the Potter franchise may be director-proof.

That's not to say it hasn't had some important things going for it. First, there's been the continued flow of A-list talent into the adult roles, large and small. Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Ralph Fiennes, Gary Oldman, Emma Thompson — it's a list too long to recount.

At the same time, the original cast of children, both the central trio of Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson, as well as their classmates, have had almost a decade to mature as actors. (One imagines there has been no shortage of mentoring available from the aforementioned A-listers.)

Meanwhile, with each book, the source material has gotten darker and intrinsically more dramatic while the viewers' familiarity with the characters and world of Potter has allowed for less and less of that killer of film adaptations — onscreen explication.

It's not necessarily a formula easy to repeat. Few books will get the attention and studio resources of the Potter series. Nonetheless, it means Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince will likely be worth your time and, more importantly, your money.

Though, if you wish to see it in 3D, you'll have to wait two weeks due to an IMAX contractual obligation to Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.


Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Directed by: David Yates
Written by: Steve Kloves with original novel by J.K. Rowling
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Michael Gambon, Helen Bonham Carter, Jim Broadbent, Alan Rickman, Tom Felton, Helen McCrory
Time:153 minutes
Rating: PG
Our view: The battle between the Boy Who Lived and He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named will continue to make Those Who Make Film very rich.