Smoke and Mirrors

Rating: Null/10 (10 December 2001)

In the opening scene of 'Philosopher's Stone,' Professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith) muses that the entire world will one day know the name of Harry Potter. The disturbing thing is, she isn't far from the truth. The 'Harry Potter' books, created by single British mum, J.K. Rowling, are now the most popular and best-selling books in history, their worldwide sales surpassing those of J.R.R. Tolkien's fantasy epic, 'The Lord of the Rings,' which for the last few decades has enjoyed the exalted position of being the highest-selling novel in history. So if you haven't heard the name of Harry Potter by now, you must have spent the last few years buried away in an underground cave on Pluto, with forks in your eyes and your ears stuffed with lead. These days, it's almost impossible to enter a shop without seeing his bespectacled face staring back at you from either a packet of jellybeans, a magazine, a pair of boxer shorts, a kitchen knife, or a tin of lawn mower fuel. Which is why it's no surprise that this is undoubtedly the most hyped film in cinematic history. But the big question on everyone's lips is: does the film live up to that hype? And the answer - yes and no.
Not being an avid Potterite, I went in to watch the film with quite an objective point of view. I barely knew anything of the story, the characters or really what to expect. Two hours and thirty-five minutes later, I'd realised one thing - this is a movie clearly made for the fans, the younger ones at that. Don't get me wrong, it's not that 'Philosopher's Stone' is a bad film, it's just that it's not a particularly good one. Visually, it's stunning. Columbus has truly brought the fantastic imagery of the world of Hogwart's to the big screen, and it really does look spectacular. Costumes, set design and special effects are all amazing, and are certainly some of the film's greatest assets. On the whole, the cast is great, particularly Robbie Coltrane's gentle giant Hagrid, Alan Rickman's deliciously dark Professor of Potions, Snape, and Harry's best friends, ginger-haired Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and know-all Hermione Granger (Emma Watson). As the boy from the cupboard under the stairs, 11-year-old Daniel Radcliffe does an adequate job, but lacks the believability and realism displayed by his child co-stars, required of a film's title character. This, however, may not be entirely his fault - Harry, at times, is given such awkward and cliché-riddled dialogue, that even if delivered by a classically trained thespian, it would still sound strained and uncomfortable. At 155 minutes, the film is overlong, and slow-plotting dilutes the story's action, with a few periods boring one of the friends I sat with to the point of having to repeatedly hit himself on the head with a glass bottle, in order to both stay awake and remain entertained. On the other hand, some scenes manage to be quite exciting - such as Harry's first Quidditch match, and the central trio's encounter with a huge troll - no matter how predictable they may be. The ending, however, is totally anti-climactic, and is an enormous let own - a perfunctory wrap-up that's coated with more sugar than a fat man's Weet-Bix. This left me with the feeling that all of the magic on screen was nothing but simple smoke and mirrors, with some stylish design and special effects not able to make up for a flawed and obvious narrative.
After viewing the film, I re-read 'Philosopher's Stone,' and realised one thing: the film lacked what made the book so special - it's tongue-in-cheek sense of humour. Everything else was there, and the plot follows the book religiously, but that sneaking suspicion that the whole thing was really just having a bit of a go at us simply wasn't conveyed in the film. It does seem to lack the two-leveled humour that supposed `kid's movies' like 'Shrek' and the 'Toy Story' films have shown us recently, and may leave Potter-illiterate parents looking at their watches every three seconds, excusing themselves for their fifth toilet break since the opening titles.
While 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone' is certainly not the greatest film ever made - not even close to the best film of this year - it's obviously going to make more than enough money to pay for the series of Potter films that will inevitably follow, while obliterating every box-office record in history along the way. If you're a fan, you'll love it, and be queuing up to buy tickets to the next session after you leave the cinema. But, for those few among us not familiar enough with the world of Harry and his Hogwart's colleagues to be able to correctly define the term 'animagus,' the film does seem a little hollow. It's an enjoyable enough film to watch, even if only for the sake of seeing what all of the hype is about, but it basically comes down to one thing - the fact that while the books were written by a magic person, the film was obviously made by muggles. Just look out if the Harry Potter franchise ever joins forces with McDonald's - they'd create a power terrifying enough to rival even Lord Voldemort himself.