Not too magical for me...

Rating: 7/10 (2 August 2003)

Consider this review for the Harry Potter epic as a whole...

Perhaps it is because I am not a reader of the books, but I don't understand the Potter hype. Now, when "The Worst Witch" was in good syndication, I never missed a chance to catch that on TV and I've been trying to track down a video of it. In my opinion, "The Worst Witch" runs circles around Harry Potter and his gang. Now I understand that special effects, fancy camera tricks, and that cinematic feel is not necessarily present in "Witch" - BUT - lets do a little comparison, and ignore the distinct differences for right now.
Many of the plot elements and characterization of "Potter" are almost directly taken right out of "Witch" -- the cursed broomstick, the flying lesson, the basic idea of witch school and the customs, the headmistress, and the potion gone wrong... etc... now, I think it's mighty fine for artists to mimic others and combine new slants with old ideas. I just think "Witch" did a much better job.
Now I am a huge fan of simplicity and understated elegance on camera, which is evident in such adventure epics as Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and other classics that are certainly some of my favorites. But I can't stand one-dimensional characters. And unfortunately, to the credit of the younger Harry Potter actor, or his director - but probably his writer, he is as interesting as a molding peace of cheese - maybe somewhat interesting at times, but not at all appealing. And I have a lot of beef with computer generated graphics - because they do not look even remotely authentic. Spielberg's original ET is much more charming and realistic looking than his new digital one in the special release DVD, and I think even Star Wars fans can agree that the characters in the original trilogy are much easier to relate to and appreciate than the new cartoons... and Spiderman's little tricks were not that impressive... Now "Lord of the Rings" did prevail in the digital world... but in general, if you're going digital - get it right, or go digital all the way (like "Toy Story", or "Finding Nemo") --- Any way, I hope I'm getting my point across..
Bottom line - Harry Potter is way to farcical for my taste, and while I may be enveloped in some nice suspense while watching in the theater and I enjoy a lot of the visuals and basic entertainment of it all - that is it. There is nothing below the surface here, and that bores me to death. And if like other fantasies, their was a clearer magic logic, perhaps this movie would go much further for me. For example, "Witch" had such a realism to it, like "Wizard of Oz", "LOTR" and "Willy Wonka" did - but "Harry Potter" just lacks that believability.
If only Spielberg had directed as he was originally going to do with Haley Joel Osmant in the lead - but they had to go British, didn't they?