I’m a huge Harry Potter fan. I own all 4 books plus the 2 supplements, I keep track of the date of release of Book # 5, and I religiously follow all latest J.K. Rowling news. When I heard that the movies were going to come out, I was, quite frankly, disappointed.
The HP books are so charming, so magnificent, that, if not treated carefully, their very ambience is destroyed. Being a diehard HP fan, I decided to boycott the movies - I didn’t want them ruining the pictures I’d painted in my mind - of the locations, the characters, everything.
But I succumbed. I don’t know why, or how, but I broke down and watched the movie. My first words after coming out of the theatre were, ’’I hated it’’.
At that moment, it seemed as if the entire mood and magic created by JKR had been destroyed - all by one movie. It seemed awfully tragic at the time - but a few months later, it mellowed down, and now, when I gaze back at the movie, I still don’t like it - but I don’t hate it.
Direction
Let’s start with the direction. I’ve always associated Chris Columbus with directing childish, lighthearted movies like Home Alone and Mrs. Doubtfire. This notion held true for the HP movie as well. It seemed too kiddish, too superficial - unlike the JKR books, which don’t make you seem as if you’re stepping inside a marshmallow land. More on this follows.
Chris Columbus, in several interviews, stated that he wanted nothing more than to be true to the books. I certainly appreciate the effort, but I really think he could have done a lot more. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but the movie is just not deep enough. It doesn’t create a lasting impression on you - in fact, a few weeks after I’d watched the movie, I could barely remember any great one-liners or memorable scenes. It’s just too superficial.
To people who are not HP fanatics, the movie will seem brilliant. In fact, if you are one of those people, you’re probably shaking your fist at me right now, wondering why I’m being such a nitpick about things. The fact is, if you’re really into the books, you can’t help but be picky about anything else that might possibly tarnish them - and this movie is no exception.
Casting
Onto the cast. I was quite disappointed in this category, and I know that many of you will not agree with me. Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter, in my opinion, was awful - through no fault of his own. He doesn’t look anything like I imagined him to be - and his appearance in the movie doesn’t really correspond with his description in the book. Where was the messy hair, the startlingly green eyes? Where was the small, wiry kid, with the thin face and bony knees? I don’t know. Daniel Radcliffe seemed too...un-Harry like. His face was too round, he wasn’t really wiry, his hair was too neat, and he didn’t have enough character. He looked like he was 9 instead of 11.
Rupert Grint was lost as Ron. He wasn’t the insecure youngest-boy-in-the-family anymore. Instead, he was a sort of smart-aleck sidekick, with one constant expression throughout the movie, and nothing else to say except ’’Bloody’’ something or the other. I adored his character in the books, but I didn’t like it in the movie at all.
Emma Watson, on the other hand, did quite a good job of Hermione, in my opinion. She was just snotty enough to pull it off well. In the overall scheme of things, however, she seems diminished and invisible - not how I imagined Hermione to be at all.
Very quickly, the other cast members were just about okay. Snape was not very well done, in my opinion - too crude and the stereotypical mean teacher. He had no character. McGonagall was pretty good, as were most of the other teachers. Hagrid was just okay - he looked the part for sure, but I was rather surprised by his speech - too much like a drawl than guttural and British-sounding.
That brings me to two important characters - Professor Dumbledore, and Professor Quirrell. Played by the late Richard Harris, Dumbledore is the headmaster of Hogwarts, and the greatest wizard in the world. With all due respect to Richard Harris, (who, as I have heard, was a fantastic actor) he really didn’t seem right as Dumbledore. In the books, Dumbledore is described as a rather fun-loving, eccentric, energetic old man. In the movie, however, Dumbledore speaks agonizingly slowly, he seems rather slow and sleepy, and he just doesn’t have Dumbledore’s spark.
Professor Quirrell, played by Ian Hart, wasn’t really very convincing - especially in his final scenes deep under Hogwarts. He is completely lost on the viewer in light of everything else.
Set and effects
This was one area that I thought was pretty good, considering. The Great Hall was almost exactly as I imagined it, with some minor exceptions, as was the Gryffindor Common Room and some of the classrooms and corridors. The castle was a perfect setting. Privet Drive, however, looked far too modern and contrived to really fit in with the ambiance.
The effects were okay, although a bit too fast-moving. By this I mean that the much-raved about Quidditch scene was fairly disappointing. The actual flying is what I had a problem with - it looked too artificial and computer-generated. I’m sure the team could have come up with some more realistic ways to make it fit in. Again, I can’t quite describe it, but it was fairly disappointing.
The ending scenes, in my opinion, were pretty bad. The entire Voldemort-Quirrell scene looked kind of unbelievable - in a bad way. It didn’t have that element of fear. The chess scene, on the other hand, was quite well done, I thought.
To Conclude...
You must be wondering how I have the audacity to whine about this movie as much as I did. When a book is turned into a movie, it has to be handled very carefully. Yes, the movie is a different class in itself, and can’t translate the book into celluloid literally. I understand that very well. I know that not every scene can be included, and not everyone can be developed as well as in the books - and I have allowed for that.
I don’t think Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone was handled carefully enough. It was treated as if a grown-up was making the movie, but trying to make it appeal to kids. It doesn’t work that way - the books did not segregate the ages - why should the movie? Book-to-movie comparisons are inevitable in cases like this, and I find that the first movie failed in most areas.
I’d love to hear any comments, criticisms, and challenges that you can come up with. Ciao!
PS: The title is from the song that Peeves sings in the second book. :)