Brilliant... in parts... but sloooooooow

Rating: Null/10 (25 November 2001)

First let me set the scene. I went to see this film with my near seven-year-old. I hadn't read the book first, though subsequently I have, if only to confirm my thoughts.
Well, firstly there's no doubt that Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone will be the highest-grossing fim of all time, so if that's all that Warner Bros intended, then they've done a fabulous job. It'll win a hatful of Oscars too, some of which it'll actually deserve. But for all of that, the film's got its own serious weaknesses - and I just don't see why almost to a man, every professional critic has waxed so lyrical about it... I guess that the hype juggernaut has a lot more momentum than I first expected.
Let's deal with the movie's many good points first. The sets are both breath-taking and beautifully executed, the cinematography simply wonderful and the casting director needs a medal, so inspired was the choosing of the actors. Amongst the adults, Maggie Smith is just perfect as the Jean Brodie-esque Professor McGonagall, Robbie Coltrane an endearingly gruff Hagrid, and Alan Rickman as ever steals every scene as the venomous Professor Snape in worryingly threatening jet-black wig. Even Richard Harris, who is rather prone to going way over the top, makes a pleasant Headmaster Dumbledore. This is exactly the type of movie that British actors do so well, and much credit to J.K. Rowling for insisting on a British cast.
But the child stars excel as well, and Chris Columbus shows a sure touch and empathy with his understanding direction of them. Daniel Radcliffe is the embodiment of Harry Potter, even if all he has to do is look suitably amazed most of the time. He is utterly outdone by the totally natural Rupert Grint as the down-to-earth Ron Weasley, and the equally superb take no nonsense Emma Watson as Hermione Granger - everyone knew kids just like these at school. They are completely believable as characters, and not once does their acting lapse into the cutesey or irritating. Much applause again here for there not being some precocious Hollywood bratlet in the cast. That would have entirely destroyed the chemistry.
So after all this praise, what are the problems? It's simple... pace. It's been widely reported that the original director's cut was over 4 hours long, but even at 153 minutes, this film drags. I was clock-watching from half an hour in. There seems to have been a desire to methodically film every last page and scene in the novel - and so the movie is paced like a novel - slow and laborious. But hey, we're talking MOVIE here - it's not a novel. The eye gets to do most of the work in a movie and it's instant. That's why novels need to be ADAPTED when they're filmed, and not religiously and slavishly followed. Plus because this was the approach taken, the essential editing to cut this film down to bearable lengths then has left out chunks of important plot and motivational background. Just to pick two points at random... did anyone actually get the impression that we were watching a whole school year? Could anyone guess *why* Snape hated Harry? I guess we'll need to wait for the "Director's Cut" DVD.
Don't get me wrong. The film has plenty to its credit. But its eventual released execution definitively has major pacing issues... it drags. Everyone seems to have got very over-excited about the whole Harry Potter phenomenon as something massively innovative and brand-new. It's not. It's all been done many times before, just not in the last 40 years or so, and so people have forgotten typical English children's literature from that period dealing with "public school" and "jolly good chums" and "riproaring adventure". But maybe it was time for its revival. Next time, please... make it pacier.