Rather Earthbound

Rating: 5/10 (18 November 2001)

Harry Potter was actually not bad; considering the director, I assumed it would be horrid as his other films. It was a trace stodgy at the beginning, with much-too-much time spent with the awful relatives (this could have been a brief, effective montage during the credits--we know he's miserable, we don't need twenty minutes of beating over the head to "get it"). And we could have dispensed with the entire train ride; just because a scene is in a book, does not mean that it MUST be in the movie--movies and books are not the same medium, and a film needs to travel at some sort of a clip. But once Potter got to school, I rather enjoyed myself. With the exception of the ghastly Emma Watson as Hermione (an awful, awful little actress who mistakes enunciation for acting), the performers are enjoyable and funny. Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman are always a delight, and they really set a pace in their scenes that the rest of the movie lacks. Some of the effects are grand, some are rather lumpen, but the movie is by and large trying so hard to charm us that you have to give in or feel like a curmudgeon. I gave in. I had a diverting afternoon. Oddly enough, I took my children (8 & 10) and enjoyed it MUCH MORE than they did. I won't say this isn't a children's movie; it's just too long and there isn't that feeling of awe that the best children's films can evoke in a child. They both thought it couldn't hold a candle to "Shrek"--a movie with more of an and-then-what-happened vibe. Harry Potter needs to soar; this movie doesn't, but is enjoyable nevertheless.