Pros: Does justice to the book; excellent acting; good special effects.
Cons: Not suitable for very young children; confusing storyline for those who haven't read the book(s).
Need I write about the plot, when all four of the Harry Potter books have done so well and have been devoured by children and adults alike? To briefly enlighten those of you who, for some reason, (weren't you at least curious???) haven't even opened a Harry Potter book...
Harry Potter is an 11-year-old orphan who is admitted into the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, mostly because his parents, who were killed by an evil magician when he was a baby, graduated from there.
Each book of the series focuses on one academic year in the life of young Harry. The reader 'grows' with the character.
The first book, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, is more of an introduction than a book on its own, a sketch, rather than a complete painting. That is why, in my opinion at least, it shouldn't have been made into a movie in the first place. You would think a 2 1/2 hour-long adaptation should be sufficient. But it's not. Although it does justice to the book, especially in the portrayal of the characters (they're exactly as you would picture them to be!), it skips out many parts of the book. And since the book itself wasn't 'complete', how can you expect a movie adaptation to be completely fulfilling? I think the movie is almost incomprehensible to most of those who haven't read, not the book, but the entire series! The beginning must have puzzled them a great deal, and the ending was obviously rushed. The details revolving around the sorcerer's stone itself don't translate well from page to screen. Too many questions are left unanswered. And the satirical fun that made the books such an entertaining read was almost absent in the film.
I can't stress enough on how fine the children's performance was. Daniel Radcliffe IS Harry Potter, at least physically he is. His expressions are very convincing. Unfortunately, director Chris Columbus doesn't allow his 'inner' feelings to surface much, except in one scene when Harry discovers a magical mirror that reflects one's deepest desires. It is only then that we feel Harry's pain for the loss of his parents. Also, the director doesn't succeed much in portraying Harry's miserable life when he is staying with his aunt, uncle and his fat cousin Dudley. In the book, he is the main character because we are allowed into his confused, painful, and sometimes happy feelings, in the movie he is the main character mostly because the title says so. Rupert Grint, who plays Ron, Harry's first and closest friend at school (my favorite character, actually!) was simply magnificent. His mimics when he is scared or confused are just adorable! Emma Watson (the slightly irritating but studious and audacious Hermione) was remarkable in her 'show-off' scenes. The adult characters were fine, but what is more important is that none of the kids were annoying or whiny.
I was very disappointed with He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named/Lord Voldemort though. The magician gave me the chills in the books, but was almost unnoticeable in the film. You would say: "What??? THAT killed Harry Potter's parents? THAT is terrorizing the entire community of magicians that they wouldn't even speak out his name? Puhleeeeeeze! Even a kid watching this wouldn't feel the 'threat' of the character."
The hair and makeup were very well done, especially on Hermione, the gatekeeper Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), Headmaster Albus Dumbledore (an almost unrecognizable Richard Harris, folks!) and all of the female professors. The creatures however, especially the Centaur and the Goblin, looked very fake. Even the centaurs in Xena and Hercules looked more credible, for as much as a mythological character can look real anyway. ;)
The effects involving the indoors of Hogwarts were surprisingly fantastic. I was impressed with the ghosts and the 'active' characters in the paintings.
The setting was great! Hogwarts is THE fantasy place to be; a medieval castle with almost limitless proportions, moving staircases, elegant dormitories with vivid colors...And mouthwatering, well presented dishes for meals, folks! In contrast, the Black Forest has a dark and terrifying ambience, with predominant black and dark blue colors, as well as the inevitable thick mist.
The soundtrack was fantastic; it provided a suitable background for the 'suspenseful' and 'witchy' parts of the movie. However, I could swear I heard an adaptation of the Wedding March in some scenes! Odd...
I'll lighten up now, and conclude by saying that the overall movie was quite enjoyable, entertaining, etc.etc. Suitable for both children (not too young though, some scenes might scare them!) and adults. You will not get bored. But you might get confused. And it might leave you slightly unsatisfied.
Your answer to this would be: "Hey, be thankful that the book had material for at least 8 hours of film, yet it had been compressed into a 2 hour-and-a-half flick." Well then, why make this into a movie at all? Why not make this into a mini-series? That would surely be a success. Every season will cover one of the books. And, as a series, it would seem perfectly normal if many questions were left unanswered during a few episodes.
Cons: Not suitable for very young children; confusing storyline for those who haven't read the book(s).
Need I write about the plot, when all four of the Harry Potter books have done so well and have been devoured by children and adults alike? To briefly enlighten those of you who, for some reason, (weren't you at least curious???) haven't even opened a Harry Potter book...
Harry Potter is an 11-year-old orphan who is admitted into the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, mostly because his parents, who were killed by an evil magician when he was a baby, graduated from there.
Each book of the series focuses on one academic year in the life of young Harry. The reader 'grows' with the character.
The first book, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, is more of an introduction than a book on its own, a sketch, rather than a complete painting. That is why, in my opinion at least, it shouldn't have been made into a movie in the first place. You would think a 2 1/2 hour-long adaptation should be sufficient. But it's not. Although it does justice to the book, especially in the portrayal of the characters (they're exactly as you would picture them to be!), it skips out many parts of the book. And since the book itself wasn't 'complete', how can you expect a movie adaptation to be completely fulfilling? I think the movie is almost incomprehensible to most of those who haven't read, not the book, but the entire series! The beginning must have puzzled them a great deal, and the ending was obviously rushed. The details revolving around the sorcerer's stone itself don't translate well from page to screen. Too many questions are left unanswered. And the satirical fun that made the books such an entertaining read was almost absent in the film.
I can't stress enough on how fine the children's performance was. Daniel Radcliffe IS Harry Potter, at least physically he is. His expressions are very convincing. Unfortunately, director Chris Columbus doesn't allow his 'inner' feelings to surface much, except in one scene when Harry discovers a magical mirror that reflects one's deepest desires. It is only then that we feel Harry's pain for the loss of his parents. Also, the director doesn't succeed much in portraying Harry's miserable life when he is staying with his aunt, uncle and his fat cousin Dudley. In the book, he is the main character because we are allowed into his confused, painful, and sometimes happy feelings, in the movie he is the main character mostly because the title says so. Rupert Grint, who plays Ron, Harry's first and closest friend at school (my favorite character, actually!) was simply magnificent. His mimics when he is scared or confused are just adorable! Emma Watson (the slightly irritating but studious and audacious Hermione) was remarkable in her 'show-off' scenes. The adult characters were fine, but what is more important is that none of the kids were annoying or whiny.
I was very disappointed with He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named/Lord Voldemort though. The magician gave me the chills in the books, but was almost unnoticeable in the film. You would say: "What??? THAT killed Harry Potter's parents? THAT is terrorizing the entire community of magicians that they wouldn't even speak out his name? Puhleeeeeeze! Even a kid watching this wouldn't feel the 'threat' of the character."
The hair and makeup were very well done, especially on Hermione, the gatekeeper Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), Headmaster Albus Dumbledore (an almost unrecognizable Richard Harris, folks!) and all of the female professors. The creatures however, especially the Centaur and the Goblin, looked very fake. Even the centaurs in Xena and Hercules looked more credible, for as much as a mythological character can look real anyway. ;)
The effects involving the indoors of Hogwarts were surprisingly fantastic. I was impressed with the ghosts and the 'active' characters in the paintings.
The setting was great! Hogwarts is THE fantasy place to be; a medieval castle with almost limitless proportions, moving staircases, elegant dormitories with vivid colors...And mouthwatering, well presented dishes for meals, folks! In contrast, the Black Forest has a dark and terrifying ambience, with predominant black and dark blue colors, as well as the inevitable thick mist.
The soundtrack was fantastic; it provided a suitable background for the 'suspenseful' and 'witchy' parts of the movie. However, I could swear I heard an adaptation of the Wedding March in some scenes! Odd...
I'll lighten up now, and conclude by saying that the overall movie was quite enjoyable, entertaining, etc.etc. Suitable for both children (not too young though, some scenes might scare them!) and adults. You will not get bored. But you might get confused. And it might leave you slightly unsatisfied.
Your answer to this would be: "Hey, be thankful that the book had material for at least 8 hours of film, yet it had been compressed into a 2 hour-and-a-half flick." Well then, why make this into a movie at all? Why not make this into a mini-series? That would surely be a success. Every season will cover one of the books. And, as a series, it would seem perfectly normal if many questions were left unanswered during a few episodes.