The kind of film you get when standards are exacting but not high

Rating: Null/10 (13 December 2001)

What a lifeless film. It's not exactly that Chris Columbus is too faithful to the book - although he fails to make changes that ought to have been made, like removing (or better still, drastically altering) that end-of-term dinner scene at the end, with its vulgar celebration of cheap success -; rather, he transfers material from page to screen with no clear idea of why he's doing so. The entire film comes across as a cut-and-paste job.
I did wonder, at first, if the lack of screen tension was due to the fact that I'd read the book. (Everyone else I know who read the book and then saw the film wondered the same thing.) But I'm reasonably sure that reading the book has nothing to do with it. Lifelessness, the "cut-and-paste" feeling, needless detail presented flatly rather than alluded to artfully - these are things intrinsic to the film; we'd notice them even if the books had never been written. The only difference is that if the book hadn't been written it would be more of a mystery WHY the film was at once mildly entertaining and flat. As it is, we know. The director wanted to transfer (and "transfer" is the right word) as much as possible of the book to the screen because (a) he had no clear idea WHY he was transferring any of it, (b) the world's most powerful author and the world's largest media company were either breathing down his neck, or in a position to start breathing down his neck if they wanted to, and (c) the film would be harshly judged by a huge fan base consisting in large part of children - who are the worst possible judges of literary adaptions.
(I know this is beside the point, but what IS the deal with the Potter books? I mean, I enjoy them, and I'll eagerly read the next, but surely it's obvious that they can't hold a candle to other fantasy works which children can or used to be able to appreciate: Lewis's Narnia books, Tolkein's "The Hobbit", Ende's "The Neverending Story" and "Momo" ... and others too, I'm sure. Only by knowing little about fantasy is it possibly to feel strongly about Rowling either way.)
Mind you, I'm not letting Columbus off the hook. He really is an execrable director. ALL his films fall flat; it says a lot that "Mrs. Doubtfire" is easily the best of them. And he has the unique ability to draw weak, dramatically ineffective scores from composer John Williams ("Home Alone", "Home Alone 2", "Stepmom"). This time, in this regard, he failed. Williams has written one of his lesser scores, but it's still enchanting - well, to some degree -; it's one of the things that keep the film more or less chugging along. Then there's the fact that, to be fair, Rowling's world DOES have its pleasing aspects; and also Alan Rickman's performance as Snape, and the LOOK in certain places - the colours captured under overcast English skies are rich and gorgeous. The subtler computer effects (used to create, say, the animated photographs) demonstrate all that's good about modern effects technology. The computer-GENERATED image, on the other hand (like the astroturf-green quidditch arena, or the cutesy three-headed dog, or the wall leading into Diagon Alley), demonstrate all that's bad. They're as lousy as any similar effects anywhere else.