In comparison to the books, the film was a complete let down. I suppose I shouldn’t have been too optimistic, as I can’t recall ever having been bowled over by a film adaptation of a book which I have read and enjoyed, but knowing that J. K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter books, had been fully involved throughout the making of the film, I still had high hopes for this adaptation.

Although the film does follow the storyline of the book (no major changes to the plot such as the one in the film adaptation of Thomas Harris’s Hannibal!), large sections of the story are missed out, presumably for reasons of timing (even the abridged story runs to two and a half hours as a film). Although the story is still coherent, and probably fairly entertaining for people who have never read the book, I was disappointed not to see some of the scenes I had envisaged whilst reading the story, and felt that people who hadn’t read the book would be missing out on its glorious detail and involved plotlines. Other things are changed or omitted for no apparent reason: Harry’s pet owl is never given a name in the film, although we all know she is called Hedwig in the book – something which could prove awkward in sequels where she features more prominently in the story. Also, in the book, Neville Longbottom is Harry’s accident prone classmate, whose magic spells always go wrong. In the film, Neville is a bit accident prone, but the disastrous spells are carried out by another boy, Seamus Finnigan. There seems to be no apparent reason for this change! A sub-plot involving a pet dragon adopted by Hogwarts Gamekeeper Hagrid is initiated, but then gets conveniently forgotten and never followed through. Ron Weasley’s twin brothers, Fred and George, who are both practical jokers, always playing tricks on their friends, hardly feature at all. Fred and George play an integral part in later stories, so it would have been good to develop their characters at this early stage. The same goes for Ron’s pompous brother Percy the Prefect, who once again takes only a minor role in the film. The omission of some of these characters, who are not integral to the story, but nonetheless play entertaining roles in the book, means that some of the humour is lost, meaning that the film probably has less appeal to adults than the books, which have been read and enjoyed by countless children and adults alike.

The majority of the acting in the film was at best little more than mediocre, and at worst downright wooden! Daniel Radcliffe, who plays Harry, seemed to have only one facial expression, one of gazing in awe at whatever happened to be in front of him at the time. This could be enhanced with a smile if it was something good, or could remain solemn as a shocked expression. Several of the child actors involved, in particular Emma Watson who played Harry Potter’s friend Hermione Grainger, and who I found particularly irritating, delivered their lines as if they were in an elocution lesson or taking part in a school play. Of the three main child actors, Rupert Grint, who played Ron Weasley, was probably the most natural, but even he was nothing outstanding. Harry’s enemy, Draco Malfoy, played by Tom Felton also deserved a mention as one of the more talented young cast members, although I felt that he was slightly mis-cast as he was far too angelic to be the sneering Malfoy – he had a more appealing face than Harry in many ways - and simply slicking down his hair did nothing to make him seem more evil!

Despite my disappointment, I am glad I have seen the film, because if I hadn’t I would still have been wanting to go and see it, and the only way to satisfy myself was to go along! Perhaps the fact that I have read all the books several times has clouded my judgement, as nothing would ever quite match up to the mental picture I had generated for myself, nor they great detail of the stories on paper, most of which had been tucked away in my memory and was conspicuous by its absence in the film. I am sure that for children, or perhaps people who haven’t read the book, it would be an enjoyable experience, but for me it was not what I was expecting after all the hype and rave reviews the film has been receiving. I hope that any sequels which hit our screens may be better – after all, the child stars are very young and need to grow into their roles and develop their acting skills, but I must say I would be very surprised if Daniel Radcliffe is still playing Harry Potter in film sequels by the time he is 18!