I'd rather watch my tortoises humping than sit through that film again! (Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (DVD))

Member Name: Judgee

Product:	Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (DVD)
Date:	04/03/02 (231 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Good old actors, One good young actor

Disadvantages: Bad child actors, Poor visuals

Two films received the most hype last year, Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. Both adapted from books but oh so different. Lord of the Rings, a timeless classic suitable for all ages and beautifully adapted for the big screen. It was years in the making and an excellent viewing experience when it finally arrived. Harry Potter, questionably a great book, rushed to the screens in a hurry, the end product was very disappointing and will no doubt soon be long forgotten. In case you haven,t guessed it yet, I hated Harry potter and I will tell you why.


The Cast/Characters

Daniel Ratcliffe - Harry Potter
Rupert Grint - Ron Weasley
Emma Watson - Hermione Granger
Alan Rickman - Professor Severus Snape
Robbie Coltrane - Hagrid
Richard Harris - Headmaster Dumbledore
Maggie Smith - Deputy Head. McGonagall
Zoe Wanamaker - Madam Xiomara Hooch
Richard Griffiths - Uncle Vernon
Fiona Shaw - Aunt Petunia
John Hurt - Mr Ollivander


Harry Potter is a child somewhat more gifted than the norm (although he doesn't know it yet!). Forced to live under the stairs by his adoptive parents Uncle Vernon and Aunt Petunia. His real parent's disappearance is a mystery, although rumour of them dying in a car crash is the generally accepted story. Treated badly by these vile grown ups, Harry's life looks like it will continue on this depressing track until he reaches his eleventh birthday and a letter arrives.

The letter is from Hogwarts school of Witchcraft and Wizardry and it is delivered by Hagrid, a huge scruffy bear like man. Hagrid is Hogwarts' Gamekeeper, he explains to Harry that his parents were in fact a powerful Witch and Wizard, murdered by the evil Wizard Voldemort. Harry was also injured in the attack and bears a lightening-shaped scar on his forehead from the incident.

Due to the nature of his heritage and being more than a little naturally gifted in the art of magic, the t
eachers of Hogwarts invite him to begin training at their prestigious school of magic. Harry is more than willing to give up his life of cruelty and is soon on his way to this new school, full of hope and curious to find out more about his parents.

The teachers welcome him with open arms and the rest of the students flock around him. Even though a new arrival, he is already quite a celebrity from all the stories and rumours of his miraculous brush with death as an infant. He eventually forms a friendship with two other students in particular. Ron Weasley, whose brothers attended Hogwarts also and who is not really as gifted as his siblings in the magic department, and Hermione Granger. Hermoine is a very studious girl who knows all the theories of magic off by heart, but is not so hot when it comes to putting the theoretical into practice.

The three young students become suspicious when the potions master, Severous Snape starts behaving strangely and set out to find the reason behind his unusual behaviour. This is where the story really begins to take off and I will say no more on the plot.


As for the acting performances, well with one exception there were no surprises. Packed full of big names from the British television and filming industry, they all perform to their usually high standard. Alan Rickman is my all time favourite actor when it comes to playing villains. In every role he plays, he sneers his way through each scene with ease and perfection. In this film he adds to that list of great performances. Personally I would have watched this film just because he is in it (truth be told I was forced into it anyway, but that's another story!).


Richard Harris, well it's nice to see the great man stay off the booze long enough to deliver his few simple lines as the headmaster. Zoe Wanamaker, so underrated as an actress in my opinion, it would nice for the big boys in the film world to give her a major role s
ometime. She makes her mark as the teacher in charge of "flying brooms" class. Maggie Smith, gave a subdued performance as Deputy headmistress. Last of the noticeable old school, but by no means least Robbie Coltrane. Virtually type cast once again, be it Cracker or any other role it is hard to tell them all apart. Still he is good at what he does and he does it once again as the grumpy yet soft at heart gamekeeper.


Now, the child actors. Separated from the grown ups because, well if I have to be brutally honest, they were pants! With that one exception that I mentioned earlier. Daniel Ratcliffe in the title role showed no emotion or feeling for the part. I would have made a more believable Harry Potter and I am 30 years of age!. Some would argue that he was lacking in emotion because that's what the role required. What complete and utter tosh. He was rubbish, just accept it. Hermione Granger played by Emma Watson, she wouldn't be related to Bonnie Langford in some way by any chance? Overacting at its worst and with that "someone please shake her before I throw her off the top of a very tall building" factor. Now, nastiness out of the way, let's go back to that one exception from the child actors. Rupert Grint played Ron Weasley and outshone the rest of the youngsters by a mile. Perfect performance, the boy will go far (a lot further than his young co-stars anyway!)


The film was directed by Chris Columbus, the man that inflicted us with MacCaulay Culkin in Home Alone, all those years ago (1990). Another one of those "hit and miss" directors. He apparently got the job after Steven Spielberg turned it down and Columbus promised to film the project solely in England with a purely British cast. Well the directing is ok but nothing special. The flying scenes looked cheap, the special effects looked dull and dated. There is a scene with a three headed dog in it and the animation would look more fitting
in that old, old film Jason and the Arganauts! Could it be down to a lack of time? Maybe? Or just sloppiness?


J. K. Rowling wrote the story (as I am sure most people know!) and to be honest, I cannot really fault the story. In the book she shows great originality and imagination. Unfortunately, when Steven Coves adapted the screen play he left out a lot of the details that really made the book a success. Yes he kept the main aspects in but took away alot of the feeling. I admit that once again this was probably down to a lack of time in both preparation prior to filming and the final overall film length (the film is 2 hours 32 minutes long).


I went to see this film with my girlfriend and also took along my mother for a change (I like to take my mother out at least once a year for an airing otherwise she starts smelling of mothballs!). To be honest, my girlfriend (who is a big fan of the books) thought it was ok. My mother fell asleep about half an hour in (and started snoring, honestly you can't take her anywhere!) I struggled though it til the end whilst continuously fidgeting in my chair. I was slightly biased from the start, as a hater of hype, but I tried to be as impartial as I could. It just didn't work for me, I'm afraid. Swap a couple of the child actors for some better ones, beef up the special effects and it could be a half-decent film. I can see why children enjoy the story and indeed the film. So if you were going to take your kiddies to see it, don't let me put you off. Adults, well I guess it is very much down to personal taste, but I can assure you I will not be going to see any of the sequels!


Would have rated it lower, but for the fact that I think most children will enjoy it!



.

Summary: