Enjoyable, but hardly brilliant.

Rating: 6/10 (17 December 2001)

I came to the film without having read the books. I had heard the movie followed slavishly to the novel but I reckoned if the movie was good enough, that shouldn't matter. So did the film feel like the adaption of a novel? Yes, very much so. It's obvious director Chris Columbus was scared of doing anything too radical with the material and so the movie tends to get bogged down at times. Certain elements in books do not translate well to movies unless done with a bit of flair - Columbus doesn't do this and so there is a certain weakness to the movie's structure. The acting isn't outstanding either among the kids. Daniel Radcliffe left as much of an impression on me as a battering with a soft feather would. It's not like he's from the dreadful Jake "Phantom Menace" Lloyd school of acting but he's entirely unremarkable all the same. Very forgettable performance. Rupert Grint (Ron) and Emma Watson (Hermione) are similarly perfunctionary and nothing more. The best performance is probably shared by Alan Rickman (Severus Snape) and Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid) who really come across exactly what I would imagine from a kids book. The directing is perfectly competent and some of the action scenes are handled well - the quidditch match stands out most of all. Obviously Columbus was constrained by the material at hand and the target audience - I was hardly expecting to see Darren Aronofsky split-screen images of Hermione and Harry talking... The whole thing ends up like a well-done but by-the-numbers piece. No innovation here, no gambles. It was made to be as inoffensive as possible while trying to please as many. It's too long and could do with some pruning but in the end you're still left with an enjoyable movie. Just not a particularly brilliant one. 6.5/10