"Disappointed" is too strong a word

Rating: 8/10 (19 November 2001)

It would be churlish to say I was disappointed. I've been wondering for a couple of days what the right word is, and I think I've come up with "crestfallen". One comment I heard (from an adult) was "great - when can we see the full-length version?" and I think that about sums it up.
Effects and cinematography were immaculate and the casting was inspired in at least one case. Robbie Coltrane was born to play Rubeus Hagrid! Sadly Coltrane was one of the few performers allowed to show their talent.
Scenes like Diagon Alley were just as I imagined them and this is a superb Hogwarts Great Hall (I *loved* the floating candles). Other effects like the wall into Diagon Alley and the unicorn blood were reminiscent of some of the effects seen in "The Matrix". Thanks Dolby Labs for inventing the surround sound system - quidditch balls flying overhead added the final touch to a fantastic action scene. The only scene that didn't fit was, to
me, The Leaky Cauldron (a medieval drinking hole in central London would be crammed with tourists - this should have been a dusty rundown neo-Victorian place, in my view).
So why "crestfallen"? It seemed to me that to fit this movie into a viewable length (152 minutes) all too much was squeezed out. The plot was extremely linear and, in some cases, would have made very little sense to anyone (if there *is* anyone!) who hadn't read the book. Though this is, of course, a childrens' film the book on which it's based has much richer subplot and characterisation.
Some important characterisation went by the wayside (it was never mentioned, for instance, that Ron was an excellent chess player although he and Harry were seen playing chess at one point) and plot lines like Norbert (Hagrid's Norwegian Ridgeback dragon) were so trimmed as to become almost incomprehensible. John Cleese's Nearly Headless Nick was just about completely headless.
This applies to characterisation as well as plot- the only characters who seemed to be developed were Hagrid and Hermione (Emma Watson) - everyone else, including Harry, were played in a fairly emotionless way. I felt for instance that some of Snape's (Alan Rickman) best sarcasm had ended up on the cutting room floor.
Apart from a severely trimmed plot, this movie lacked emotion. The book is warm - this was rather cold. I found myself not caring very much what happened to Harry.
One thing does worry me. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's (or Sorceror's) Stone is 223 pages long. If the book has been compressed this much is anything beyond two films practicable? Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (the fourth book) is over 600 pages with a complex plot; how much of it would survive?