|
|
|
| HOME | REVIEWS & RATINGS | BEST & WORST | FAQ | CONTACT | LINKS | FUN STUFF | POSTERS | DVDs |
| "Survey says...." Click here! And put in your two cents worth! |
Joanne Rowling (a.k.a. J.K. Rowling) revolutionized the world of children's books publishing with the first installment of the Harry Potter series in 1997. Since then, she has not only broken numerous records in book sales, but she has gained a cult following made up of millions of children – and adults – around the world for whom "Harry Potter" are the two most magical words in existence. So, it should be no surprise to see that the first movie based on the Harry Potter novels broke records of its own. It shattered the three-day record with its $90.3 million opening weekend (beating the $72.1 million record held by The Lost World: Jurassic Park). Harry proved to be stronger than the force, since the movie also set a new record for the best single-day gross in Hollywood history: $33.5 million, beating the $28.5 million earned in 1999 by Star Wars: Episode I. It also tied the five-day record set in 1999 by that same film as the fastest film to reach the $100 million box office mark. Okay, so now we know that people have flocked to theatres to see the movie. But is it any good? First, I must admit that I have yet to read a Harry Potter novel, which means that my review is purely on the entertainment and artistic value of the movie, and NOT on how well the book was adapted for the screen. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (or Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, as it is known in the United States, don't ask me why) is an entertaining movie and it should please the younger viewers. I was enchanted to discover the wonderful world of magicians, along with everything it contains, such as the fictional "Quidditch" sport or the "9 3/4" train gate.
The biggest flaw of the movie is that it is too long. Its 152-minute running time could have been shortened by at least 20 minutes in order to improve the pace. The part that drags on the most is the introduction. I understand that we need to have some background information about the main character, but there's no need to have it drag on as long as it did. That being said, director Chris Columbus (Home Alone, Mrs. Doubtfire, Bicentennial Man) has found the fairly good pace for the rest of the movie, with an appropriate balance of action and dialog scenes. The novel was adapted for the screen by Steven Kloves, who has a knack for black comedies and dramas, such as the wonderful (but rather unknown) Flesh and Bone, and the underappreciated Wonder Boys. From what I've been told by Potter fans, Kloves has done a wonderful job in both respecting the novel and choosing carefully the parts that wouldn't make their way to the silver screen.
The casting directors (all four of them) need to be applauded for the choices that they have made. Almost all of the actors chosen seem to have been made to play their parts. I say almost because there is one actor who has been typecasted into the "evil" role: Alan Rickman (Die Hard, Sense and Sensibility, Dogma), as Professor Severus Snape. Rickman plays with his usual talent, but unfortunately, he has played the vilain too many times.
The title role is played by the young Daniel Radcliffe, whose only previous film experience was the 2001 comedy/drama/thriller The Tailor of Panama. For a young actor, he was quite impressive, as he conveyed a wide range of emotions with conviction. However, his performance was not quite as good as one of his co-stars: Emma Watson. Watson, who plays Hermione Granger was simply amazing, especially considering that this is her acting debut. Then again, I also found her character to be a bit more interesting than that of Potter. Rupert Grint completes this trio of friends as Ronald 'Ron' Weasley. His performance was decent, but nothing to get excited about.
A good dose of experienced actors were also recruited to keep the yin and the yang balanced. My favorite of all was Richard Harris (Gladiator, Unforgiven, Patriot Games). The 71-year old actor is hardly recognizable as Headmaster Albus Dumbledore, but there's no denying that he's still at the top of his game. Other experienced actors include John Hurt (Alien, The Elephant Man, Contact) as Mr. Ollivander and Maggie Smith (Richard III, The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie, A Room with a View) as Professor Minerva McGonagall. A few more well-known actors make appearances, such as Warwick Davis (Willow, Return of the Jedi, Labyrinth) as Professor Filius Flitwick and my personal favourite: John Cleese (Monty Python and the Holy Grail, A Fish Called Wanda, The World Is Not Enough) as Sir Nicholas De Mimsy-Porpington (aka Nearly Headless Nick).
One the biggest strenghts of this movie is the combination of the wildly-imaginative art direction/set decoration/costume design with state-of-the-art special effects. Everything in the movie seems authentic and believable, whether it's the "magic city" within the city, the memorable life-size Chess game or the Return-of-the-Jedi-like Quidditch game. However, I would have liked if there had been more scenes about magic, especially by the young Harry Potter. In fact, I wondered more than a few times if Potter was indeed a wizard. Several times in the movie, his friends and admirers tell him what a great wizard he is, yet he hardly performs any tricks, even in his classes. Hermione Granger, on the other hand, performs way more magic than he does, but she seems to be in awe of him. But I do realize that this is just the first chapter of a longer story, and that Potter's talents will likely grow as time goes by. Overall, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is enjoyable both for children and adults. What's even more important however is that it has set a wonderful tone for the series and one can only hope that subsequent movies will stay true to its artistic vision while keeping the same entertainment value. Reviewed on December 9, 2001 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ABOUT MOVIECRITIC.CA | AWARDS | FAQ | CONTACT US | PRIVACY POLICY | USER SURVEY |
|
This page was last updated on: Sunday, 21-Mar-2004 16:21:39 CST © 1998-2004 Luc-Rock Paquin. All Rights Reserved. All movie images © by their respective owners. Used with permission. Before "borrowing" something from my site, please ask me. "Reel Canadian Movie Critic" logo by FranclyGraphic.com. 
|
