I would First Like to Appologise to everybody and would like the reviewrs to rerate . Cause this time I ahve written review after watching the film , I hope you all people will find it satisfactory this time , and mind it , this time its not a copy...So here we Begin...
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is as star-studded as the Hogwarts' ceiling, which, incidentally, is one of the movie's most impressive special effects!
From Robbie Coltrane to Richard Harris, Zoe Wanamaker to Maggie Smith and Julie Walters, Alan Rickman and Richard Griffiths, the cast has more big names than a London phone directory. Whether this is enough to make the movie is a moot point. The children are the main characters in this, the first Potter production and sadly they lack the acting panache of their adult counterparts.
Daniel Radcliffe, whose face is going to make him the most famous child in Britain by Christmas, previously played David Copperfield in the 1999 BBC production, but although he looks the part of Potter, his acting talents fall far short of Jamie Bell of Billy Elliott fame and Osment the Sixth Sense boy.
Director Chris Columbus (his parents must have had a sense of humour!) says '' Dan walked into the room and we all knew we'd found Harry.'' It's interesting to compare this to Stephen Daldry's comments on Jamie Bell which were to the effect that the ''Eureka!'' moment just doesn't ever happen in casting this kind of part.
Daniel looks the part, and plays the surprised innocence and paradoxical normality of Harry rather well. It's just that this is really the only emotion he plays well. This character lacks the very real depth of Rowling's writing, as sadly do most of the others.
For those who have never read the books and who have been locked away under the stairs for the best part of the year, the storyline is basically as follows :
Harry Potter, a much neglected child in a horribly ''normal'' family discovers he's a very famous wizard on his 11th birthday. He is whisked away by Hagrid, the gamekeeper at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry to said school where he makes both friends and enemies and ends up getting involved in a rather major adventure....
Ron Weasley, (Harry's best friend) played by Rupert Grint, again looks the part (although there was really no sign of the tatty robes Ron is so ashamed of in the book) but lacks real depth, and his sacrificial act of the final scenes seems to come from nowhere as the character has never really been built up effectively. Grint had done local theatre, but found the part through an appeal on Newsround.
Perhaps the only real surprise comes from a total unknown. Emma Watson plays Hermione in the most part perfectly, but until this movie had acted only in school productions. Hermione comes across as even more of a know-it-all in the movie than the book but shows perhaps more character development than the other children.
Rowling's writing is gripping, funny and at points very moving and profound. The movie was none of these. Much of the humour has been edited out (Rik Mayall as Peeves doesn't even make the movie and John Cleese as Nearly Headless Nick gets a few seconds)and the horror of the scenes with Voldemort has given way to something more akin to ET or a kiddy version of ''The Mummy''. Even the Bloody Baron is reduced to a rather safe-looking spectre.
''Harry Potter and The Philosopher's Stone'' is very much a children's movie in a way that Rowlings books are not simply childrens' books. Rated PG, there is little here that would scare little ones (depending on their level of sensitivity) but this is very much at the cost of the tension and drama so present in the book.
''Harry Potter and the Philosoper's Stone'' as a movie has become like an Enid Blyton book. None of the reasons the children get involved in such a dangerous adventure are adequately explained, and of course everything is all right in the end in a way that Rowling never quite succumbs to in her writing.
Malfoy is simply a bully, Crabbe and Goyle scarcely appear, and Snape looks almost friendly at times. Above all it's difficult to imagine why everyone would be afraid to even whisper the name of Voldemort after his disappointing representation here. The snake-like red eyes and horrific lack of human form described so vividly by Rowling are perhaps more akin to what we might see in a higher rated movie, but this offering remains essentially for the little ones. Evil never quite makes a real appearance and so good never shines as brightly as it otherwise would.
I don't want this to be an unremittingly negative review, and I'm sure that many people will find the movie as amazing as those who gave the standing ovations at its premiere. It was a pleasant afternoon's entertainment, but the anticipation was probably the most exciting part. It is often my experience that the most hyped movies disappoint the most, and this is no exception.
I've a feeling that those who will enjoy this most are the people who have never read and loved the books and have no expectations of the film.
The setting of Hogwarts is impressive and the Quidditch scenes are some of the best in the movie. My personal favourite scenes are the ones we watched being filmed in Bracknell (home of Privet Drive, which is called Picket Post Close in real life!) It's amazing to think that we were actually there watching owls being flown onto (fake) chimney pots. 3 days of filming there produced just a few minutes of film.
I also recognised Alnwick Castle from many of the Hogwarts Quidditch scenes which are definitely one of the movie's highlights. The Hogwarts' Express is wonderful too, and there is a real sense of expectation as the train races North to the mystery location of the school which will become Harry's home.
There is much more I could write about. Coltrane, for example, plays an admirable Hagrid, who somehow does appear as if he might have giant blood in his veins, Dame Maggie Smith is perfect as Mc Gonagall, and David Bradley a particularly nasty Filch.
My feelings are somewhat divided as to Richard Harris as Dumbledore. Somehow the eccentricity has not been captured and some of both his hilarious and most profound lines are sadly missing. For me, the movie has a feel of an essay which has had chunks cut out in order to fit into the prescribed word limit. For example we have Dumbledore ''saying a few words'', but the comic follow up to that completely missing. Poor editing to say the least.
Personally I think the Potter books would do better serialised. Too much that matters is missing here, with next to no character development its' greatest flaw. This is built over a longer period of time in the book than a movie is ever going to have.I am One of the greatest fan of Harry Potter's Books and I find his books to be the best.
When I saw the movie at home yesterday , I didn find such great art as he has shown in his books.
I'd love to know if there's a sense of tension and drama there for people who don't know the final outcome of the story, but for me it was missing. If it feels such a lack in ''The Philosopher's Stone'', what will it be like in Rowling's epic volume ''The Goblet of Fire'' ?!
A final thought - if you want to liven up your time in the cinema, take a pack of Bertie Bott's Every Flavour Beans and eat them during the movie in the dark...I bet you you won't be able to resist at least an agonised whisper when you find a tomato or horseradish flavoured one!
