Nit-pickers Disparatum!!!!!

Rating: 9/10 (22 November 2001)

The hype and the merchandising were always going to add to the cynicism with which some people approached the Harry Potter film itself, as was the overly-reverential preciousness with which certain adults treated the book. (It's excusable in children and young teens, but let's grow up, the rest of us!) So if you set all that aside, you're left with two related questions: does the film capture the essential spirit of the book and is it a successful screenplay it its own right?
My opinion: yes and yes. There were countless moments where the delight I had experienced in reading the book (I'm an English Literature teacher who's excited to see some of his younger pupils reading of their own volition for the first time)came back to me with force. At the same time I was hugely impressed by the way in which Steve Kloves' writing had pared down a potentially vast screenplay to the story's essence. (Yes, it's still long, but that's inevitable with the involved nature of Rowling's plotting.) Comments about favourite bits being left out are understandable, but a film is not a visual book - it has to work in its own terms. WHICH THIS DOES - and the non-Potter-reading friend who accompanied me to the movie agreed completely.
Art design/performances/realisation of Quidditch - it's all been said, so I'll just mention my two favourite bits - The Mirror of Erised: very moving, the final confrontation: as unsettling as in the book.
Well done. Keep it sharp for Harry's second year.