A gentle introduction to a captivating world

Rating: 5/10 (12 July 2014)

With billions upon billions of pounds in revenue generated from book sales, film adaptations and all other mediums, and with the hysteria surrounding the series now all but gone, it seemed the perfect time to re-visit the Harry Potter film franchise. I'll state outright that I'm a fan of the books: they are hardly ground-breaking pieces of literature, but they are a meticulously crafted and widely imaginative set of novels, maturing with it's progression and with the age of it's characters and readers. The movie adaptations were consistently average, fiercely loyal to J.K. Rowling's prose but always somewhat lacking in substance.
Shut away in the cupboard under the stairs by his adoptive parents (Richard Griffiths and Fiona Shaw), 11 year-old Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) lives an unhappy life. But there's something different about him, as he learns when he talks to a snake at a zoo and makes the protective glass disappear, causing his vile cousin Dudley Dursley (Harry Melling) to fall into the tank. His life changes when he is invited to enroll at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. The invitations are burned by the Dursleys, and they go to great lengths to stop him going to a place that will teach him magic, until he is rescued by a hairy giant named Reubus Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane).
When introduced into the magical world with Hagrid, Harry learns that he is famous. His parents were killed by an evil wizard named Lord Voldemort (generally referred to as You-Know-Who), but Harry survived the attack, seemingly killing Voldemort and inflicting Harry with a lightning bolt scar on his forehead. When he gets to Hogwarts, he is befriended by the bumbling Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and the precocious Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), and the three are quickly embroiled in a plot involving murdered unicorns, a mysterious artefact known as the philosopher's stone, and a giant three-headed dog.
Philosopher's Stone is almost defiantly faithful to the books. Sure, lines are altered here, and minor characters are snipped out there, but this is as close as literally 'bringing a book to life' gets. Yet while this works in it's favour in terms of visualising Rowling's creations, it doesn't even try to develop any ideas of it's own that would have only worked in a visual medium. Much of Rowling's silly and charming sense of humour is lost in simply filming whatever happens on the pages. One of the main criticism's I have for the books is that a lot of the major characters are little more than archetypes, so a lot rested on the three young leads' shoulders in making us interested enough to stick with them.
Sadly, two of the three fall rather flat, with only the gurning and hang-dog Rupert Grint showing a natural gift for appearing on the big screen. Potter is a simple enough character anyway, at least he is at this point of the story, shy, naive but brave, but Radcliffe gives an incredibly one-note performance, encapsulated in the scene in which he discovers he can perform magic. "I'm a... wizard?" he says, lacking anything resembling a facial expression. Watson also struggles to bring much likability to her self-satisfied bookworm, her eyebrows constantly rising and falling as she struggles to perform her lines with any conviction.
For the rest of the cast, director Chris Columbus has rounded up a smorgasbord of British and Irish talent, a collection of well-trained thespians who steal the entire film from it's leads. Richard Harris plays Professor Dumbledore, Hogwarts' headmaster, Maggie Smith is Professor McGonagall, head of Gryffindor, the house Harry is chosen for, Alan Rickman is Professor Snape, Harry's greasy-haired Potions teacher, and John Hurt makes a small appearance as a wand-maker. Coltrane probably steals the film as the beast-loving grounds-keeper Hagrid. It's an amazing line-up that would consistently grow both in talent and in numbers as the films progressed.
Ultimately, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is a success, weaving an interesting enough story about the possible return of the dark lord Voldemort, with Harry's wide-eyed introduction to the world of hocus pocus. John Williams' Oscar-nominated and now widely recognisable score captures some of the giddy movie magic of early Spielberg, and the attention to detail is often remarkable. But like the book, it ultimately suffers from being too kid-friendly, spoon-feeding lessons in morality without giving much for adults to chew on. It's little more than a well-told children's story, something that would change as the novels became darker and more complex, but at this point, it's a gentle introduction to a captivating world.