Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone (DVD)

...the fifth DVD in the Harry Potter series Harry Potter and The Order of the Pheonix, I have decided to review the previous four films. This is the first of the four - The 2001 Harry Potter and The Philosopher's Stone (or Sorceror's Stone for our US friends). Before I start I must state that I am a big kid and love Harry Potter but don't worry that doesn't mean that I will babble on inanely about how brilliant the film is despite its flaws. Like anything ...
...stories about the boy wizard Harry Potter. Born to wizard parents, killed when he was a baby by the evil dark lord Voldemort, Harry had been brought up by Muggles (non magical folk) until the age of 11 not knowing who he really was or his significance in the magical world. In the Philosopher's Stone the reader/viewer and Harry begin a journey of discovery into this magical world and discover his past, his new world and glimpse his future.
... more

In the run up to the release of the fifth DVD in the Harry Potter series Harry Potter and The Order of the Pheonix, I have decided to review the previous four films. This is the first of the four - The 2001 Harry Potter and The Philosopher's Stone (or Sorceror's Stone for our US friends). Before I start I must state that I am a big kid and love Harry Potter but don't worry that doesn't mean that I will babble on inanely about how brilliant the film is despite its flaws. Like anything you really love you can forgive the flaws but you can also point them out more objectively.

The Philosopher's Stone is an adaptation of the introductory book to the highly successful J.K.Rowling stories about the boy wizard Harry Potter. Born to wizard parents, killed when he was a baby by the evil dark lord Voldemort, Harry had been brought up by Muggles (non magical folk) until the age of 11 not knowing who he really was or his significance in the magical world. In the Philosopher's Stone the reader/viewer and Harry begin a journey of discovery into this magical world and discover his past, his new world and glimpse his future.

There is always a danger when a well loved book is adapted for the big screen that the essence of the book is lost - it becomes a parody or a simple condensing of scenes into a 2 hour 30 minute slot with all the soul ripped out. This was my biggest fear when I first sat in the cinema preparing to watch it. I remember my husband asking me as we sat there waiting the start of the film if I was excited and yes I was but I was also apprehensive. I was also concerned that the director who had brought us Home Alone, Mrs Doubtfire and Bicentennial Man, Chris Columbus was going to give us either some gooey, misty eyed version of the book or over do the humorous elements of the book and turn them into a Home Alone style slapstick fest. I knew deep down that I would take the film to my heart but I was prepared to be disappointed.

The opening scene calmed my nerves slightly - it was reassuringly accurate as Richard Harris appears as the magnificent headmaster of Hogwarts Albus Dumbledore. And at this point I realised that I had to try and separate my mental images from the books from those of the film so that I could settle back, watch the film objectively and enjoy. To a certain extent I managed it but I then started doing something even more annoying. I started thinking "oh I wonder how they will do this?"

The interesting thing is that my husband had not read any of the books and I was so looking forward to hearing his thoughts on the film as I was hoping that he would have had a little insight into the stories that I enjoy so much. I knew I would be entertained by the film, despite the apprehension but I didn't know if the film would have been enough to entertain him. But I will tell you what he thought of it later.

My overall impression of the film was that it was faithful to the book - Steve Kloves' screenplay even took lines from the book but they were incredibly minor lines. Normally the biggest criticism with an adaptation of a book is how much is left out or how the story is altered. I don't actually see this as a problem as long as the spirit of the story is retained. The feel of the magical world in this film was like something out of a Dickens novel but with much more colour, as were the costumes. This is in stark contrast to the suburban environment that Harry was used to. And really this was how I saw it in my mind so I expect that is how everyone else saw it. The Harry Potter phenomenon was huge before the films so to ensure the film's success you have to keep those who are already familiar with the works happy and yet keep it entertaining for the newcomers. And let's face it Warner Bros would not make a film that they didn't think would make money. The filmmakers knew they had a captive audience but if they got it wrong they risked alienating the fans. So you always felt as if they would play it safe.

And safe they played it but I fear too safe - it all seemed a bit too sterile and contrived and the film industries own form of magic or special effects as they are commonly known didn't seem to be able to bring the magic of the book to the screen. Yes there was an impressive visual feast of the sets, costumes, locations and acting but the real magic of the book - the little unexpected magical things and the idiosyncrasies that surprised Harry in his discovery of his new world and slightly humorous and over the top scenarios which accentuated the book and made the magical world so special - were not there for the outsider to see. All the background, politics, day to day existence of the magical world which is built into the book was converted in a quick one line exposition every so often. Yes they had to leave a lot out but they could also have been more inventive in adding those "in the background" scenes to portray more of the world. You got no sense of the ongoing crisis Harry had in the books of fitting in, failing or being rejected. You didn't get that sense of wanting to belong. A lot of the amusing scrapes they all got into were missed out and yet despite this the film still seemed to plod along from one scene to the other. Even the Quidditch match was not as good as it could have been. And I felt quite sad that people like my husband has missed out. It was really just like a good v evil film but the good and evil were a bit weak rather than the opener to a great story. My husband's impression was one of "what was that all about?" and "was that it?". He couldn't quite work out what I had been evangelising about. I had to spend all dinner afterwards, bus trip home and until bedtime explaining that this happened because of this, that and the other. All in all as much as I enjoyed seeing what could be done out of curiosity I left the cinema a little dejected. I wanted it to be so good and yet it was just OK. But there were some redeeming features of the film in the form of the cast and John Williams' brilliant soundtrack that we both agreed on.

Together with the costumes, make up and acting performances the characters and creatures of both the muggle and magical world really come to life. They may not have had the best script to work with but the characterisations were superb and all the characters were believable. The main flaws only came about in my mind because of the divergence of my imagined characters and the screen personas but from an acting standpoint the adult cast excelled.

As previously mentioned Richard Harris as Albus Dumbledore is just how I imagined him to look but he only captured a few elements of Dumbledore's character from the book. That said for the film this was perfect as there was no point in putting a multi-faceted and eccentric Dumbledore on screen. I felt he was more grandfatherly than grand and that was one of the things I felt was common with all the adult cast - that you felt they were supporting roles in every sense to allow the children's characters to shine through. Maggie Smith gave Professor McGonagall that strict yet fair air that was expected and Robbie Coltrane, although not the half-giant Hagrid of my imagination, did a good job of making this larger than life character on screen seem as normal as the rest. And then we have his royal badiness himself, the wonderful Alan Rickman as Professor Severus Snape. He's cool, he's calm, he's expressionless and he's got it in for Harry. He's the Mr Bronson (for those of us who remember that era of Grange Hill) of Hogwarts. He simply is Severus Snape and if I may say so makes him even better than the books. Ian Hart I felt was a little subdued as Professor Quirrell. That said you could argue that it was the perfect way to play him considering his actual role in the story (I won't spoil it for you if you haven't seen it).

Other key performances which although small parts added a great deal to the film were from stalwarts of British acting - the likes of John Hurt as Ollivander the wand maker - eccentric, intuitive and yet very creepy, David Bradley as the nasty Hogwarts caretaker (and let us not forget his cat), Zoe Wannamaker as Madam Hooch, the flying teacher with the scary eyes and finally Richard Griffiths and Fiona Shaw as Mr and Mrs Dursley, Between these two they delivery a superb performance as the gruff Uncle and prim and proper Aunt of Harry who grudgingly take him in after the death of his parents - totally as I imagined them to be and totally engaging on screen.

So to the kids. Are they any good? Well here is where it gets hard. When the film was made they were 10 and 11 years old so they were great at playing 10 and 11 year olds. Were they any good as the characters? Well the seeds were sown. Daniel Radcliffe with his round glasses is how Harry Potter looks in the books. You feel he is being led a bit in the film but then as a character he is being led into a new world and he is finding his feet. Shots of him gazing wide eyed in amazement is quite possibly how anyone would react in a new and exciting situation. His delivery seemed a bit laboured at times but then trying to speak to an 11 year old boy is like that anyway. But was this acting? Unfortunately this film didn't offer enough to really see how good or bad an actor he was. He just really needed to be there. As for Ron and Hermione well Rupert Grint plays the flame haired sidekick as you would expect him to be played. He's there to support Harry, knowing that he'll never be the hero but revelling in the chance to shine when it comes. He certainly makes him a likeable character. He is the oldest of the three actors and that showed slightly. He seemed to get into character more and although it was still awkward you did have to wonder how much of it was to do with him playing Ron awkward or him just being him. I do have a problem with Emma Watson though - of the three she was by far the worst. She is too pretty to be Hermione who only scrubs up in the fourth book and as for being an insufferable know it all - well yes she may well be but Watson piles it on. She completely overacts and I would like to say it was an age thing but frankly I'm not so sure! Overall though as a trio they work well - Radcliffe and Grint do manage to subdue Watson a little to make her bearable. As for the other child actors, their roles were small in the film but Tom Felton as the nasty Draco Malfoy and Matthew Lewis as the bumbling incompetent Neville Longbottom deserve a mention. They both showed a good measured performance completely in keeping with their characters and provided some lovely touches to the film. As for the rest, the older ones were fine but a lot of the younger ones were awkward and not many showed any real promise for development.

We didn't see many creatures in this film but the Goblins at Gringotts were excellent. As for the centaurs, Fluffy, Norbert and the appearance of Lord Voldemort this was completely CGI and although it was good even 6 years on it looks a little worn.

Now for the real winner you only have to hear the soundtrack. John Williams really is the king of all things movie theme related. From Star Wars, Jaws, Indiana Jones, Superman, Jurassic Park (shall I go on), this man has created music on the grandest scale for everyone to enjoy. How often do I turn on Classic FM and hear one of his themes? Quite a few I tell you. The themes and orchestration are wonderfully magical and capture the subject of the film beautifully. It supports each scene providing a lot of the emotion and suspense which is not so much lacking from the actors but from the way the scenes are set. The music alone is worth listening to and will I am sure be counted amongst the best of his work in years to come.

I suppose the best way I can describe this film overall is like a snapshot - it does not have the depth of the book and yet it is still nice to watch and look at. The ever enthusiastic fans will be pleased with it as it doesn't include any unforgivable errors and yet I felt that it could just have done that bit better to capture the essence of the book and the world it was portraying. The characters came alive and in a way the actors have now become inextricably linked with their characters in the imagination of the reader which is a shame. But on the other hand if it encourages those who watch the film to go and read more of the series and books in general then we cannot really complain. I do like the film though - it's a bit sickly sweet in places but it is a kids film (honest!) after all and would recommend it to anyone especially children who may now be old enough to appreciate it. This is very much one of my curl up on the sofa when I'm not feeling very well films and for all its flaws it's still a good watch. It can be quite scary in places for a child and has a little mild swearing and therefore it is rated PG but there is nothing too bad in it. If anything they will be captivated for all 152 minutes of it as will their parents even if they don't want to admit it. 

...less