The book is superior

Rating: 4/10 (31 January 2005)

I saw the film in summer 2002 on video, and have recently read through the entire series in less than a month. Upon reading the Philosopher's Stone, I learned how the film doesn't match up the this great book. Several characters are diminished or removed. The sorting hat sequence is shown to be much shorter as well. Yes, Susan and Draco's sorting is shown, but Lavender, Millicent and Neville are left out. Are there only five first years coming to Hogwarts this year? Are the others sorted privately? At the end of this sequence, Dumbledore's "Few short words" are sadly absent. Fred,George and Percy's parts are reduced and Bill is absent, leaving Norbert to be taken quietly and mysteriously during a scene change. Lee Jordan is cast much too young and basically becomes "Quidditch Announcer boy," and his ad-libbed commentary is gone. Countless other changes are made to reduce time, yes, but rather sloppily. At times I could tell it was a Chris Columbus film. How about Harry and the gang screaming Kevin-style at the sight of Fluffy, or the lackluster job at adapting the British humor? As for the casting, most of it is well done, with some exceptions. Daniel Radcliffe is OK as Harry, but Rupert Grint's Ron isn't too great. Emma Watson is one of the prettiest child actresses I can think of, but therein lies the problem. I envision Hermione to be a bit of a weird cross between Asimov's Susan Calvin (plain, shy and book-smart) and Alexander's Elionwy (pretty, VERY talkative and oddly intelligent), having tiny bits of each. She's decent looking, but not as much as, say, Parvati or Lavender. She's a buck-tooth, remember. John Cleese's Nearly Headless Nick is poorly adapted, but he strangely receives top billing. All in all, it's better for those who have read the books. Prisoner of Azkaban is said to be a bit more accessible. I have yet to see this... I now wait for July and November.