It's fun, I'll give it that

Rating: 6/10 (7 September 2003)

Having not read the Harry Potter series of books, I'm possibly not the best and most-enlightened person to comment on the film adaptation, but at the same time, I won't be emotionally clouded to adore everything Harry Potter no matter what it's really like, so can provide an objective viewpoint.
So, the film is fun. It has its high points and those high points are very enjoyable, but the low points almost completely make up for them. The fact I would assume is that the fun comes from the imagination of J K Rowling in her books rather than the film-makers, and unlike such great children's book adaptations as Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory or even Mary Poppins, the film doesn't seem to add anything enjoyable to the story. It's just fun to see the book come to life on the screen.
Personally I'm not much of a fan of the three main actors. Daniel Radcliffe overacts all his pleasant emotions and underacts all his negative emotions while Emma Watson really needs to cut out the exaggerated head movements. Rupert Grint is a shade better, he has a certain credibility in his performance and should really get more credit. He's a touch above your average child actor.
The biggest fun for me is all the great actor cameos from the likes of John Cleese, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, John Hurt and, of course, Richard Harris as Dumbledore. They are definitely the highlight of an otherwise hammy cast.
Overall the plot is fairly well-driven and the special effects are nicely handled. John Williams' musical score complements the action well and the script, while presumably taken almost straight from the book, is good, but not great. For non-lovers of the books, it's fun, but nothing more. *** / *****