Only a (mug)gle could like this

Rating: 5/10 (27 November 2008)

I'm in a rather embarrassing position when it comes to the world of Harry Potter. I'd never heard of the books, much less read any until the films came out. Shows how unaffected I was by the whole Potter phenomenon. JK Rowling's tales of a boy wizard at a magic school is one of the most amazing things to hit the world of children's fiction since Roald Dahl was alive and kicking.
But what I'm about to say will probably incur the wrath of everyone on this site. What exactly is all the fuss about Harry Potter? I've taken the time to read the books, and I can't say there's anything special about them. Rowling's writing is adequate. But there's nothing in her words that truly comes alive. The characters are flat. They're not at all memorable. And despite the setting of a magic school, the books are not very...well...magical.
I get the impression JK Rowling wants to be another Roald Dahl or a Terry Pratchett. But she doesn't have Pratchett's rich imagination, nor Dahl's wicked humour. What she has is a very simplistic view of the world, where people are split into two camps. Good vs bad. And the stilted, one-dimensionality of her writing ensures the outcome is never in any doubt. That her books have entranced so many people is the one real act of magic they've had. I can't explain they're success.
When Warner Bros bought the rights to the first book, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, the result was a runaway sensation. Between it and The Lord of the Rings, they rekindled fantasy film-making in a major way. But the film had the unfortunate luck of having Chris Columbus as its director. He's as bland a director as Rowling is as a writer. I would have preferred to see the film directed by Terry Gilliam, which was the plan at one point. He could have brought a real enchanting magic to it.
But under Columbus' hand, the film is just banal. Its not all his fault. He has Rowling's writing to go from after all. But that's largely the problem with the film. He's too faithful to the book. Another complaint I have of JK Rowling is she's not too adept when it comes to plot. The Philosopher's Stone works as a slowly unfolding mystery, but when examined closely, there are plot holes everywhere, as if she didn't know herself. The characters perform some extraordinary leaps of deductive reasoning. But its reasoning that doesn't always ring true.
Columbus tries to hide this deficiency by overkilling the film with extravagant sets and special effects, hoping you won't notice. He even has John Williams contribute a blaring musical score as a backup in case the set design fails. But the main problem I have with Harry Potter is he's not much of a hero. It seems to have escaped the notice of many, but Harry has a lot of his victories given to him. For example, he's given the broom for the Quidditch match. He gets the Invisibilty Cloak handed to him from an unknown source that is never explained. And a lot of the times when he's in danger, he's often bailed out by Hermione Granger. She saves him from falling off his broom. She comes up with the method to defeat the Ogre and Devil's Snare. And the Philosopher's Stone just magically lands in Harry's lap.
Harry is worshipped at Hogwarts because he survived an encounter with Voldemort, the wickedest wizard of them all, but his reputation seems entirely unfounded. Another thing that annoys me about JK Rowling is the way she telegraphs plot developments well in advance. You know that learning to ride a broom will be integral to the plot later on in the story. And so will the Invisibility Cloak.
One positive aspect about the Harry Potter series is the insistence on an all British cast. It may have American backing, but there's not a single American to be found in front of the camera. The film has some of Britain's finest veterans, including Richard Harris as Dumbledore, Maggie Smith as Professor McGonagle and Alan Rickman as Professor Snape. We even have Robbie Coltrane who makes a wonderful Hagrid, and cameos from John Hurt, John Cleese and Julie Walters. More importantly, there's a real British feel to the film. Columbus does a fine job of making Hogwarts akin to a boarding school. The common rooms, dorms and rival Houses are all present and correct.
Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint are a precocious lot, but they fill out their roles nicely enough. But the cast is really the film's only saving grace. The rest is not especially brilliant. Surprisingly, even with the backing of The Jim Henson Company, a lot of the effects in the film are rather poor. The centaur and Fluffy the three headed dog are obviously just CGI. The whole Quidditch match is clearly happening in front of blue screens instead of actual backdrops. The artificiality of the film completely cancels out any magic.
As things draw to a close, the film becomes something akin to an Indiana Jones adventure. Fluffy, vines, and the flying keys are all a bit lacklustre, but the gigantic chess set is impressive. In fact its the best bit in the whole film. Harry, Ron and Hermione have to play their way across a vast chess game to get to the Philosopher's Stone. Its very gripping, and helped no end by the edgy music score. Much more exciting then the much more famous Quidditch match.
But the film is almost certainly overrated. Just like the books. Its hard to get worked up because Rowling's writing is so unimaginative. There's nothing strikingly original about the world of Harry Potter, and the heroes and villains are just walking clichés. A poor start to a progressively better series.