← Back to Reviews
in
You've read the reviews: some good, some bad, and others somewhere in the middle. Here's a review from an ideal source: someone who's read all four books, loves the series, but wasn't drooling over it, and wasn't declaring it a 5-star movie before it had even come out.
I'd like to begin by saying that, yes, the hype is justified. The story of Harry Potter is an amazing story. It is "classic" in many ways, and the books do a wonderful job of teaching several lessons, without the reader even realizing it, thanks to wonderful writing, and some clever symbolism at times. The movie portrays this general theme fairly well throughout.
The acting is very good, but not perfect. Richard Harris is sub par as Albus Dumbledore, a character that is supposed to be stronger than Harris' mumblings and whispers may indicate. There are a few lines which he delivers superbly, but on the whole, someone such as Patrick McGoohan would have been better suited to this role. Dumbledore is old, but not weak. He is wise, but not frail. He commands attention and authority. Less grandpa, more Gandalf. Of the three children, Emma Watson barely out-acts her two male co-stars, but only thanks to a few over-done lines from each of them. The three of them are as good as you could hope for, realistically.
Amazingly, there are several characters that are handled with near perfection. These include Oliver Wood, the Weasley twins (both Wood and the twins are sadly under-used), Hagrid, Filch, Neville Longbottom, The Sorting Hat, and even Ollivander, played superbly by John Hurt. I won't look for these characters to improve at all...they've left themselves no choice but to match, or fall short, of their perfect performances here. Somebody get Hurt an Oscar nomination for this...who cares if he's only on screen for a few minutes? Malfoy is played quite well (by Tom Felton), even though some of the lines Tom is given sound a bit, well, dumb. Oh, and I mustn't forget Uncle Vernon, Aunt Petunia, and Dudley: they are played very well. Dudley, overall, is the best of the three. He has you hating him within 10 seconds...just the way it's supposed to be.
The sets are amazing. In fact, aside from some semi-cheap looking staircases in a couple of scenes, I only have one truly significant complaint: The Great Hall. The Great Hall hardly lives up to its name in this flick. It's far too narrow, and it does not have room for the 1,000 students that are supposed to attend Hogwarts. On screen, it's far too cramped. It's essentially exactly what The Great Hall should look like, if you were to cut it in half. This is frustrating, as several scenes take place there. It's something I, and likely any other moviegoer, however, can live with.
The effects are just as good. The Mountain Troll looks better than I had expected it to. Some of the outdoor scenes, judging by the previews, looked a tad on the cheesy side...however, seeing them now, they fit quite well. They're not supposed to look completely real. This becomes evident (and is acceptable) during the Quidditch match, which is truly a sight to behold. Seeing Quidditch come to life is truly an amazement. My only complaint would be that it was odd to have quick shots of Harry's face simply reacting to the rest of the players playing, seeing as how he himself was supposed to be playing. It appeared as if he was just sitting there, watching them score/be scored upon, making happy/mad faces accordingly.
Concerning accuracy, the movie does quite well. A few things are taken out here and there (it's inevitable), but on the whole, I'd have to give it a thumbs up in this department. My one legitimate gripe, however, is that the ending (well, a part of it) as it's explained on screen is a bit hokey, and disappointing. In the book, the ending is explained in a way that is much less sappy, and more believable overall.
The plot, however, does leave me with some concerns. I had less problems with it after my second viewing, but I still think that more emphasis should have been placed on their sneaking about. The book gets you so caught up in the many small subplots, and their constant breaking/bending of the school rules to learn about this, or do that, that you, at times, nearly forget what the central plotline is all about. It was almost refreshing in that sense: if you were a child at such a school, wouldn't you be doing all sorts of things? Wouldn't you get distracted? I thought the book's "diversion" of sorts with it's subplots is what made it's main plotline all the more realistic. In the movie, Harry suddenly realizes something over halfway through the film, and goes to ask Hagrid about it. In the book, I had the impression that the only reason he didn't think to ask earlier was that he was too busy sneaking about the school each night, and studying for his classes the next day.
That last sentence leads right into another problem: you see virtually nothing of what their classes are like. Snape's class, also, looks pretty much all wrong. Sunlight coming in the window? This is supposed to be a dungeon, right? You also don't see a whole lot of the other kids at the school. I thought some more name dropping and such would have gone a long way to giving you an idea of what the school is really like.
My last real gripe would be that the movie, partially as a result to not showing much of their classes and conversations with other students, has no real sense of time. It's quite possible that some people watching it may have forgotten that the movie is supposed to take place over the course of months and months...an entire Hogwarts school year. To the audience, however, this increase in time is only represented by some holiday decorations, or something of the sort. It needs to be shown in other ways, so that when Harry starts to look comfortable in his surroundings, it fits. As it stands now, he appears to get too comfortable, too soon, considering the outrageous world he's thrown into.
Another thing I feel compelled to mention is the scene concerning the mirror (you'll know what I mean when you see the movie). It's a very well-done scene, and a fabulous portrayal of a great concept. There are a couple fabulous lines in this scene...one of the two moments (roughly) that Harris shines. Looking back on it, this scene reminds me more of "The Chronicles of Narnia" than it does anything else concerning Harry Potter's world. It has the same feeling about it...and I think it sends a great message.
Here's hoping that the second movie ("Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets," already in production, and due out in November of 2002) keeps what's right (mind if I praise The Sorting Hat, Ollivander, the Weasley twins, and Wood once more?), and improves on what's wrong. I highly recommend this movie to any child out there, and even to any adult, even though children will likely enjoy it far more. If you're a fan, this movie is, honestly, the best cinematic conversion you can reasonably hope for. If you're not a fan, prepare to become one. See this movie, no matter what. Above all, see it, if you can, soon, and with a large crowd around you. A movie like this moves from "very good" to "truly great" with a crowd present. Four out of five stars; perhaps the best movie I've seen this year.
I'd like to begin by saying that, yes, the hype is justified. The story of Harry Potter is an amazing story. It is "classic" in many ways, and the books do a wonderful job of teaching several lessons, without the reader even realizing it, thanks to wonderful writing, and some clever symbolism at times. The movie portrays this general theme fairly well throughout.
The acting is very good, but not perfect. Richard Harris is sub par as Albus Dumbledore, a character that is supposed to be stronger than Harris' mumblings and whispers may indicate. There are a few lines which he delivers superbly, but on the whole, someone such as Patrick McGoohan would have been better suited to this role. Dumbledore is old, but not weak. He is wise, but not frail. He commands attention and authority. Less grandpa, more Gandalf. Of the three children, Emma Watson barely out-acts her two male co-stars, but only thanks to a few over-done lines from each of them. The three of them are as good as you could hope for, realistically.
Amazingly, there are several characters that are handled with near perfection. These include Oliver Wood, the Weasley twins (both Wood and the twins are sadly under-used), Hagrid, Filch, Neville Longbottom, The Sorting Hat, and even Ollivander, played superbly by John Hurt. I won't look for these characters to improve at all...they've left themselves no choice but to match, or fall short, of their perfect performances here. Somebody get Hurt an Oscar nomination for this...who cares if he's only on screen for a few minutes? Malfoy is played quite well (by Tom Felton), even though some of the lines Tom is given sound a bit, well, dumb. Oh, and I mustn't forget Uncle Vernon, Aunt Petunia, and Dudley: they are played very well. Dudley, overall, is the best of the three. He has you hating him within 10 seconds...just the way it's supposed to be.
The sets are amazing. In fact, aside from some semi-cheap looking staircases in a couple of scenes, I only have one truly significant complaint: The Great Hall. The Great Hall hardly lives up to its name in this flick. It's far too narrow, and it does not have room for the 1,000 students that are supposed to attend Hogwarts. On screen, it's far too cramped. It's essentially exactly what The Great Hall should look like, if you were to cut it in half. This is frustrating, as several scenes take place there. It's something I, and likely any other moviegoer, however, can live with.
The effects are just as good. The Mountain Troll looks better than I had expected it to. Some of the outdoor scenes, judging by the previews, looked a tad on the cheesy side...however, seeing them now, they fit quite well. They're not supposed to look completely real. This becomes evident (and is acceptable) during the Quidditch match, which is truly a sight to behold. Seeing Quidditch come to life is truly an amazement. My only complaint would be that it was odd to have quick shots of Harry's face simply reacting to the rest of the players playing, seeing as how he himself was supposed to be playing. It appeared as if he was just sitting there, watching them score/be scored upon, making happy/mad faces accordingly.
Concerning accuracy, the movie does quite well. A few things are taken out here and there (it's inevitable), but on the whole, I'd have to give it a thumbs up in this department. My one legitimate gripe, however, is that the ending (well, a part of it) as it's explained on screen is a bit hokey, and disappointing. In the book, the ending is explained in a way that is much less sappy, and more believable overall.
The plot, however, does leave me with some concerns. I had less problems with it after my second viewing, but I still think that more emphasis should have been placed on their sneaking about. The book gets you so caught up in the many small subplots, and their constant breaking/bending of the school rules to learn about this, or do that, that you, at times, nearly forget what the central plotline is all about. It was almost refreshing in that sense: if you were a child at such a school, wouldn't you be doing all sorts of things? Wouldn't you get distracted? I thought the book's "diversion" of sorts with it's subplots is what made it's main plotline all the more realistic. In the movie, Harry suddenly realizes something over halfway through the film, and goes to ask Hagrid about it. In the book, I had the impression that the only reason he didn't think to ask earlier was that he was too busy sneaking about the school each night, and studying for his classes the next day.
That last sentence leads right into another problem: you see virtually nothing of what their classes are like. Snape's class, also, looks pretty much all wrong. Sunlight coming in the window? This is supposed to be a dungeon, right? You also don't see a whole lot of the other kids at the school. I thought some more name dropping and such would have gone a long way to giving you an idea of what the school is really like.
My last real gripe would be that the movie, partially as a result to not showing much of their classes and conversations with other students, has no real sense of time. It's quite possible that some people watching it may have forgotten that the movie is supposed to take place over the course of months and months...an entire Hogwarts school year. To the audience, however, this increase in time is only represented by some holiday decorations, or something of the sort. It needs to be shown in other ways, so that when Harry starts to look comfortable in his surroundings, it fits. As it stands now, he appears to get too comfortable, too soon, considering the outrageous world he's thrown into.
Another thing I feel compelled to mention is the scene concerning the mirror (you'll know what I mean when you see the movie). It's a very well-done scene, and a fabulous portrayal of a great concept. There are a couple fabulous lines in this scene...one of the two moments (roughly) that Harris shines. Looking back on it, this scene reminds me more of "The Chronicles of Narnia" than it does anything else concerning Harry Potter's world. It has the same feeling about it...and I think it sends a great message.
Here's hoping that the second movie ("Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets," already in production, and due out in November of 2002) keeps what's right (mind if I praise The Sorting Hat, Ollivander, the Weasley twins, and Wood once more?), and improves on what's wrong. I highly recommend this movie to any child out there, and even to any adult, even though children will likely enjoy it far more. If you're a fan, this movie is, honestly, the best cinematic conversion you can reasonably hope for. If you're not a fan, prepare to become one. See this movie, no matter what. Above all, see it, if you can, soon, and with a large crowd around you. A movie like this moves from "very good" to "truly great" with a crowd present. Four out of five stars; perhaps the best movie I've seen this year.