And the award for "Miscasting of the decade" goes to...

Rating: Null/10 (12 February 2015)

...the director, Chris Columbus!
Apparently, according to "Trivia" section on IMDb, the only reason Columbus got the gig of directing "Harry Potter", essentially a satirical piece, was his previous experience in working with child actors. According to the same section, the first choice for directing was none other than Terry Gilliam, the master of satire, and all I can say is "why the hell didn't they go with him???".
After carefully avoiding the whole craze about "Harry Potter" serial ever since its inception, I finally got to see this first movie upon a recommendation. I don't like fantasy and sorcery themes, so I didn't read the novels either, but I appreciate a good spoof and satire of anything. So, despite not being entirely familiar with the concept, I could immediately recognize satirical elements, because of the dialogue and the way situations and scenes were written - in a specifically dark and humorous English manner. What I also noted is how distant and restrained and overly superficial the direction is, which brings me back to the choice of director.
Was experience with child actors really, really the most important requirement for a director's seat here? Sure Columbus had plenty. He was also hugely successful with "Home Alone" flicks. However, while his superficial, distant, flamboyant style was effective and quite suitable in a Christmas flick - here it brought nothing but disinterest in this viewer. Harry Potter is not physical comedy, nor is it meant to be a cookie-cutter, family oriented cinema. Columbus made it exactly that. Perhaps he has no clue or interest to do things otherwise, perhaps producers didn't want him to. And perhaps all he had to do is to bring the camera a little closer and more personal, and maybe edit it with more pace.
That's what Gilliam knows how to do. He may be an American, like Columbus, but he knows all about the quirks of British humour. He is also long-proved expert in satirical approach to themes, just take a look at his Monty Python opus, or the "12 Monkeys" blockbuster. I can't help but think what could have become of this series if he, or somebody like him, took charge. No doubt a good and memorable film, perhaps even a masterpiece and certainly not a forgettable "Goonies in England" borefest. The absence of satirical angle ruins the whole effort and turns it into a clichéd "quick-cash-in", while the original intent was to toy with clichés and make fun of them. But I guess Columbus' experience with child actors is what counts, right?
Mind you, that experience doesn't show here at all. The young cast is borderline annoying, naturally inexperienced and obviously poorly guided. The film was saved by veteran adult supporting cast, especially Alan Rickman and Kenneth Brannagh. Anyway, failing to cast Gilliam as the director of "Harry Potter" is for me somewhere up there in the top ten of colossal Hollywood blunders, along with failing to cast Kevin Kline as Peter Pan in "Hook", Tom Selleck as Indiana Jones in "Raiders of the Lost Ark", or Sissy Spacek as Princess Leia in "Star Wars".