This cash cow's still mooing (Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (DVD))

Member Name: ben_83

Product:	Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (DVD)
Date:	13/11/01 (66 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: J.K. Rowling's story but slightly less unwieldy, the child actors and most of the adult cast are very good, Hogwarts and Diagon Alley stunningly realised, the soundtrack complements the film perfectly

Disadvantages: Not everything from the book is crammed in (despite the two-and-a-half hour running time), Columbus's direction is poor

I have read the book, listened to Stephen Fry's superb audio rendition and now, finally, I have seen the long-awaited film version of J.K. Rowling's 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone' which will surely break all the records 'Titanic' set at the box office (and ensure that Ms. Rowling's bank account remains suitably replete). 'Titanic' was dreadful, as was it's predecessor as the most profitable film ever, 'Independence Day', but what is 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone' like?

For those who haven't read the book, the story goes thus:

Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is a young wizard whose parents were killed when he was just a baby by Lord Voldemort, perhaps the most evil wizard who ever lived. Voldemort tried to kill Harry too but was somehow thwarted by the toddler and reduced to a mere soul floating from place to place looking for a host body. As a result, Harry Potter is one of the most famous people in the wizarding world but, thanks to his nasty Uncle Vernon (a miscast Richard Griffiths) and Aunt Petunia (Fiona Shaw) (who acted as his guardians when his parents copped it), he doesn't know this. Until, that is, an innocuous-looking letter drops through his letter box.

Most people will tell you that a film of a book is never as good as the book. They are probably right in the vast majority of cases but I've always thought, despite her excellent ideas, that Rowling has never been a great writer so there was a very real opportunity for the screenwriter and editors to make this film better than the book. And, in some respects, they have improved it, most notably in the tasks Harry, Ron and Hermione have to perform at the end of the film (the flying key challenge has been toughened and Snape's potions have been cut) and in the reduction of the rather bumbling subplot involving Norbert the Norwegian Ridgeback.

However, inevitably, change
s and cuts have been made that have had a detrimental effect on the film. For example, there is little made of Uncle Vernon's frustration at the letters from Hogwarts and no explanation as to how the Dursleys and Harry ended up on the rock in the middle of the sea. Also, the rules of Quidditch seem to have changed. Apparently, it?s okay to commit fouls now. Quite significantly, when Voldemort makes his cameo his appearance is far from serpentine as the book would have us believe (and, seeing as snakes seem to play such an important role in the saga, this is rather a large oversight). The Sorting Hat's song has been omitted too, which is surprising given that it explains the characteristics of each Hogwarts house, a vitally important part of the saga. Much of the dialogue has been altered too. I had an inkling that Rowling's claim that the film was very British was bending the truth slightly (after all, it was made with American money by an American studio and an American director) and I was correct: 'bathroom' is used instead of 'toilet' and 'mail' instead of 'post'. The Forbidden Forest has also become the Dark Forest.

The cast is full of big-name British actors of the type who are recognisable and accepted by American audiences (God forbid the film include people who are stars here but unknown there) and, for the most part, is very good. Daniel Radcliffe, the boy who was chosen for one of the most sought-after roles in film history, is excellent, as is Emma Watson (Hermione) who has got the bossy little girl thing down to a tee. Rupert Grint (Ron) has the task of being 'the funny one' and, while he seems like he has attended the Matthew Perry School of Comedy Acting, he is bearable for the most part. Alan Rickman as Professor Snape (an inspired piece of casting) was the performance I was most looking forward to but I was slightly disappointed as he goes a little over the top with the sliminess. Robbie Co
ltrane, Maggie Smith and Richard Harris (Hagrid, Professor McGonagall and Professor Dumbledore respectively) are all good but I'd say the standout performance comes from John Hurt as Ollivander the wand-seller, even though he only appears in one scene. Conversely, I was very disappointed with Ian Hart as Professor Quirrell who overacts throughout the film.

Chris Columbus's direction, I'm afraid, is poor. While the Quidditch scene (yes, singular - one has been cut) is excellent, the rest of the film is handled hamfistedly. This is particularly evident when Columbus is attempting a scene with gravitas. Whenever something important to the story happens (Hagrid letting slip about Nicolas Flamel and Fluffy, Snape's first appearance, when it is revealed who is trying to steal the Philosopher's Stone, etc.), people who haven't read the book could be forgiven for not realising the significance of it. Still, would you expect more from a man whose finest hour was 'Home Alone'?

An aspect of J.K. Rowling's books that has come in for particular praise is Hogwarts itself and, in its rendition of the legendary school, the film does not disappoint. The exterior (which was put together on a computer using parts from a number of different buildings) is spectacular and the interior is just as I imagined, the exquisite Great Hall standing out especially. Elsewhere in the world of 'Harry Potter', Diagon Alley is stunningly realised too and, like Hogwarts, faithful to Rowling's descriptions in the books (even down the impossibly-shaped buildings).

The aural side of things is often neglected in films but, as (to finger two recent examples) 'The Matrix' and 'Gladiator' proved, a good soundtrack can enhance a film no end. 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone' sports an excellent score which sounds classical and magical at the same time and does a lot to counter Chris Columbus's po
or direction. The impact of the music is particularly evident in the pivotal Forbidden Forest scene. A triumph.

Overall, I was extremely impressed by 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone'. While not a classic picture by any means, it is far better than most literary adaptations and is very watchable for children and adults alike. The narrative of the book, undoubtedly its best feature, is left relatively untouched and this is no doubt the secret to this film's success. Of course, it would be impossible to fit everything from the book in (although if the rumoured four hour DVD version comes out I will buy it) but two-and-a-half hours is long enough to be sitting down for and the maximum book content has been crammed into this. Not only an excellent novel-to-film conversion but an excellent standalone film.

Summary: