Wild about ‘Harry Potter’ No. 5

Voldemort’s perfunctory appearance late in the film is a bit of a letdown, as are the familiar wizardly fireworks (presented in 3-D in IMAX theaters) that are meant to liven up the concluding action sequences. Yates and Goldenberg are clearly more interested in the shifting relationships between Harry and his friends, especially Hermione, who declares at one strained moment that one of her pals has “all the emotional range of a teaspoon.”

Also contributing to the ambiguous nature of the final scenes are Alan Rickman as the cranky Severus Snape and Gary Oldman as Harry’s godfather, Sirius Black — who sometimes makes himself visible to Harry and occasionally appears as the voice of animated ashes in a fireplace.

Will this fifth “Harry Potter” enjoy the same success as previous installments? Unlike such franchises as “Lord of the Rings,” the Potter series has lost audiences since the first film appeared six years ago. No. 3, Alfonso Cuaron’s “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” (2004) — the most acclaimed and personal entry — made about $200 million less than the first film, Chris Columbus’ “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” (2001).

Yet the No. 4 film, Mike Newell’s “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” (2005), reversed the downward trend, by doing better than No. 2, Columbus’ “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets” (2002), and performing almost as well as No. 1. At this point, it’s difficult to tell exactly what Potter fans are looking for.

A film that’s faithful to the source? No. 1, for all its cinematic stodginess, seems to have won that round. More interested in dynamic filmmaking than pleasing the base of devoted readers? No. 3 is clearly the winner, even if it lost at the box office. Most successful as a compromise? That would be Newell’s No. 4.

Best villain? My guess is that No. 5 will win that one hands-down. Voldemort may be showcased as the ferocious madman of No. 4 and No. 5, but he’s more abstract bogeyman than genuine menace. He just never seems as dangerous as the quietly terrifying Miss Umbridge, who suggests a Cheshire-cat terrorist.

MORE FROM AT THE MOVIES

Don’t misunderestimate ‘W.’

Don’t misunderestimate ‘W.’ ‘Secret Life of Bees’ thrives on sap ‘Body of Lies’ deserves a swift burial Keep driving past ‘City of Ember’ ‘RocknRolla’ will run you over ‘Happy-Go-Lucky’ is a sprightly delight ‘Blindness’ assaults audience with metaphor Movie review archive Casting notes   Add At the movies headlines to your news reader: