The Trouble With Harry (Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (DVD))

Member Name: MykReeve

Product:	Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (DVD)
Date:	29/11/01 (182 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Great adult actors, A beautifully realised world, A lot of fun

Disadvantages: Overlong, Child actors, Weak plot

Somewhat intentionally, I managed to avoid the all-pervading pressure to read the Harry Potter books, making the decision to wait until all seven have been published to read them - neatly circumventing the unbearable wait for each new book. The story had always seemed to me, based on what little I had read about it, to be little more than a combination of elements from other works of fantasy and children's fiction, which led me to be somewhat cynical about the series.

The very idea of a boy going to a school of wizardry is far from a new idea - Neil Gaiman wrote a comic book in a similar vein in 1991 ('Books of Magic'), and Diana Wynne Jones wrote a children's novel along similar lines in 1982 ('Witch Week') - and even, then they weren't the first writers to consider the idea.

So, I wasn't in any great hurry to rush to the cinema to see 'Harry Potter', least of all because I wasn't that enthusiastic to share my experience with dozens of screaming children whining about the absence of Peeves the poltergeist, or moaning that Dumbledore doesn't look quite how they imagined him to. I was curious, however, to find out what all the fuss was about, and so headed along to the cinema for the 9pm showing, a good week and a half after the film's release, and shared the "magic" with only a few other patrons.

THE PLOT

Umm... somehow I expect you already know most of this, so I'll try and keep it brief. The orphaned Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) has spent the first ten years of his life living in the cupboard under the stairs, in the house of his wicked aunt and uncle. On the day of his eleventh birthday, a giant named Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) arrives to take Harry to study at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Harry swiftly discovers that there are two worlds - the boring world of the magicless "Muggles", and an exciting world of magic and fantasy where Harr
y is already well known...

THE FILM

Well, I must say that overall, I was extremely impressed with 'Harry Potter' the movie. It is a very involving, impressively presented, and (dare I use the word?) magical experience. That's not to say that I wasn't able to find fault with it, but overall, the problems I found were relatively minor, and wouldn't reduce the enjoyment of most cinemagoers.

- THE PROBLEMS

Firstly, it struck me that director Chris Columbus's dogged adherence to the plot of the book, along with the influence of J. K. Rowling herself in the film's production, did mean that it was overlong. Some plot elements seemed to have been incorporated simply because they were in the book - but were largely irrelevant to the plot. Obviously, if you're a raving fan of the series of books, you'll lap this up... but if you've not read the books, then the largely irrelevant subplot involving Hagrid's pet dragon (which the screenwriter, Steve Kloves, admits that he had trouble with) seems unnecessarily tangential.

Having said that, the length of the film wasn't unbearable, it just seemed to drag in a couple of places. I admit that if a child was into Harry Potter enough to get through a 700-page novel, then they'll probably not have any trouble sitting through a two-and-a-half hour film, but I can't see any reason why this film needed to be quite so long.

My second minor gripe concerns the child actors. Having seen the trailer for the film more times than I care to recount, I expected to find Rupert Grint's portrayal of Ron Weasley unbearable ("She needs to sort out her priorities" indeed). However, upon seeing the actual film, I found Rupert's performance the stronger of the three main child actors. His facial expressions and mannerisms seemed to suit his character extremely well, and apart from the odd poorly-delivered line, he puts in a very e
ntertaining performance. Sadly, the same cannot be said of young Emma Watson's Hermione Granger. Her whining voice and stilted wooden delivery rendered her on-screen appearances wince-inducing. She did improve as the film went on, to be fair, but I found her performance as irritating as Harry and Ron initially found Hermione.

Finally, Daniel Radcliffe, Potter himself, is merely adequate. His performance lurches between good and acceptable, with him frequently delivering his lines emotionlessly. Perhaps some of the problem with this is that the Potter character is charged with the responsibility of plot exposition for the viewing audience - inevitably meaning that his dialogue is frequently fairly dry.

Having said this, it's very easy for the viewing audience to adapt to the uneven performances of the child actors, not least because the rest of the film more than compensates for their shortcomings... but we'll come to that later.

The third, and final, problem that I had with the film concerned the direction. Throughout the film, it was very difficult to tell how much time had passed between scenes. The film details Harry's first year at Hogwarts School, and at times, several months seem to pass between scenes without comment. For example, one moment the ground's covered with snow and most of the students are absent for the Christmas holidays, and the next, Weasley is concerned about the approaching end-of-year exams. It's only a minor point, but I can't help thinking it's one that could have been easily addressed by a few lines of dialogue here or there - it would also have helped to give the climactic events driving the story seem a little more urgent than they actually do.

- THE GOOD THINGS

Nonetheless, despite these minor problems, the film is outstandingly good - it's enjoyable, it's exciting, the story is reasonably involving, the adult actors are excellent, and the sets are stu
nning.

The plot itself isn't really anything that special. Someone who has read a lot of books, or been to the cinema a fair amount, will smell the standard "misdirection" plot elements a mile off. However, despite this, the story is internally consistent, it's well developed and progresses nicely as the film goes on. Perhaps the story isn't really enough to sustain a two-and-a-half hour long film, but as I say above, the impressiveness of the film's presentation more than makes up for the relative slightness of the plot - continually presenting us with impressive views of the world of Harry Potter.

Yes, if there's one thing to recommend Harry Potter, it's unquestionably the stunning realisations of the locations from the books. Obviously, as I haven't read the books, I had no a priori assumptions about how these locations would look, and hence no expectations to be confounded. There are numerous visually stunning scenes - the night-time boat journey over to the school, the moving stairwell, the dining hall with its floating candles, the Dickensian-looking Diagon alley, Platform 9¾, Gringotts Bank, the Quidditch field, and more - all of which serve well to immerse the viewer into the world of Potter.

Although occasionally, the computer graphics are all too obvious, such as when schoolchildren fall from the sky (Neville's first broomstick lesson, or in the Quidditch game) or when the troll runs amok in the girls' bathroom, it's easy to overlook such minor issues - and the majority of the computer graphics are extremely well rendered.

The adult actors, representing a 'Who's Who?' of great British actors, are first class. You get the impression that they've relished the opportunity to ham it up, but have managed to restrain themselves from becoming too cartoonish. Richard Harris is great as Hogwarts headmaster, Professor Dumbledore, injecting a stately grace to the rol
e. Maggie Smith is extremely good as the austere Professor McGonagall, the school's deputy headmistress, who manages to be commanding without ever seeming excessively stern. Alan Rickman provides his mellifluous gravel-voiced charm to the role of the insidious Professor Snape, professor of potions at Hogwarts, and Ian Hart portrays the anxious, stuttering Professor Quirrell.

However, praise must unquestionably be heaped upon Robbie Coltrane's portrayal of the school's groundskeeper, Hagrid. Coltrane was particularly anxious about the part, which Rowling had always had in mind for him from the start, joking in interviews before the film's release that he was worried about being beaten up by schoolchildren - "They're chasing me up Fifth Avenue. 'There's the guy who ruined Hagrid! Let's get him!'" However, in the event, Coltrane puts in a superb performance as the kindly giant, combining his gruffness with his friendliness and approachability, to provide a character that children will love.

There are numerous great cameos too - John Hurt appears as Ollivander, the wand seller in Diagon Alley, Richard Griffiths is Uncle Dursley, Julie Walters appears briefly as Ron's mother, and Warwick Davis and Zoe Wanamaker play other professors at the school. Oh, and listen for the incomparable voice of Leslie Phillips as the sorting hat.

The overall atmosphere of the film is very good, director Chris Columbus has managed to resist the temptation (quite possibly thanks to J. K. Rowling's involvement) to make the story too saccharine - something that his previous work ('Home Alone', 'Mrs. Doubtfire' and 'Bicentennial Man') might have led the audience to expect. John Williams's score also adds to the atmosphere, incorporating a nice 'Box of Delights' musical box-style tune.

CONCLUSIONS

'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone' is a wonderf
ully realised film with some extremely beautiful and eye-catching scenes. There are flaws in the film if you're really looking for them, but overall, they're minor enough not to affect your enjoyment - this is a fun film that all the family will enjoy. There are some slightly scary scenes towards the end that might be inappropriate for very young viewers, however.

I did feel, to a certain extent, that the film had been made primarily for people who are already fans of the books. However, it's difficult to separate the film completely from the hype, and judge it independently from its media coverage. Someone who has, like myself, deliberately avoided reading the books or indeed reading much media coverage about the film, will still enjoy it - however, perhaps not as much as someone aching to see the locations they've read about on the silver screen.

Certainly, I enjoyed 'Harry Potter' a lot more than I expected to, mainly due to the beautiful locations, and the outstanding realisation of the magical world around Hogwarts School into which the audience is immersed. The story isn't as strong as it could be, and seems to have been stretched somewhat to fill the full two-and-a-half hours - but the presentation is so impressive that you really won't notice. Just sit back, relax, and let the magic of Harry Potter surround you.

Summary: