Special effects instead of magic, and the flat performance

Rating: 7/10 (11 December 2001)

Well, I would expect more from the most expected movie of the year. But if I start thinking what EXACTLY I would expect, I would hardly find an answer. The technical capabilities of the film-makers allow to create very astonishing and exciting special effects, but when it comes to magic, something even more special has to be done about it. I mean, I didn't really see a lot of magic on the screen - rather the special effects. The magic objects are acting on their own, not by the magic forces. A "magic" seen in a circus is more real than that seen in the "Harry Potter", most likely because the actors' play and the special effects are filmed separately and then mixed together. Consequently, the actors (mostly children) have to perform "as if", i.e. standing in the green room or somewhere and imagining a magic happening next to them and expressing emotions to the void. For me, this is the explanation why the characters are not that "live" and made up mostly of the cliches: a wicked guy always grins, a smart girl always manifests her outstanding knowledge, a clumsy boy would always fail to cast the spells. As I didn't read the book, I can't tell if the characters in the book are same flat and stereotypical, but I have an impression that it's the easiness of reading that contributed to the great popularity of the book. And I really doubt about the success of the movie because the flatness of the book would offer one to imagine what is not described, while the flatness of the movie leaves the "imagination tanks" in one's mind filled but partly.