A curious mix of good ideas and shocking stereotyping

Rating: Null/10 (24 November 2001)

Hmmmm... I went to this film with a totally objective frame of mind, having not read any of the books or really knowing much about the plot.

Once I saw Chris Columbus was directing it, I wondered whether the fantastical elements the film promised would come closer to the great potential he showed when he wrote 'Young Sherlock Holmes' or when he COMPLETELY lost the plot with 'Stepmom'. Unfortunately, I think the film leans more towards 'Stepmom', though not sentimental it is patchy with little attention to character development. It was an inspired idea to get Steve Kloves to write the screenplay (who wrote 'Wonder Boys' but the film seemed really compromised.
I can see through the ideas that JK Rowling must have put in the book- what an imagination she must have, you can see that readers would be totally transfixed. But it didn't translate well, despite the 11-year old I took with me who said it was just how he pictured it was. In a way, I guess that is where the film succeeded, it's fans weren't disappointed by what they saw, but this is also the problem, because what must have worked well enough in the book to make it such a success seems stilted and full of obvious CGI effects to distract from what is happening. The movie seemed like a series of marvelous set pieces all executed really quickly. It delved right into the story without much notice to time or place. Nothing was left to the imagination- the first-year students see the paintings moving in the hall, a nice background effect, and it must be pointed out, 'Look, the pictures are moving!' Harry, Ron and Hermoine climb some stairs which starts to move: 'Look, the stairs are moving, don't you remember, the stairs move!' What do the filmmakers take the audience for, idiots? I found the preview for Lord of the Rings more enchanting than the film, because it seemed really special, magical, scary and uncompromising. Only time will tell if this is the case.
The casting was very uneven. Ron Weasley was the only one of the three kids who had any real acting skill, Harry and Hermoine were so bland, very one-note actors. You would also think that with Maggie Smith's reputation she would be able to handle a consistent Scottish accent. Robbie Coltrane and Richard Harris had the authority that the others lacked. All those 30-second British actor cameos were distracting... look- its John Cleese... oh, he's gone. Look, it's Julie Walters with 2 lines... she's gone. It would have been more interesting to cast unknowns who look more like what is described in the book, not cameos for the sake of it. Maybe the fact it was backed, adapted and directed by Americans made them feel obligated to cast known actors to make it seem more like a genuine British film?
What was REALLY shocking was the stereotyping. Why do the scary characters all have cockney accents, and what was the story with the bankers who looked coincidentally like the Jews as portrayed in Nazi propaganda films? That was really jarring.
Overall, a conventional, stilted opportunity filled with good ideas that never take off thanks to a magic-free adaptation.