[SPOILERS!] Rather less rushed movie review

[Chris M. Dickson]

I'm back from the Scottish Charity Gala Premiere now. Many, many thanks
to all the Magical Mods for dealing valiantly with my very rushed notes
last night; the backstory there is that I typed them out on a draughty
payphone with primitive e-mail facilities relying on a tiny little metal
keyboard and the most rudimentary of editing facilities. The screen had
been deliberately chipped and partially shattered by vandals, so it was
difficult in places to tell what you had actually typed.

Another problem is that your 20p got you just seven minutes of e-mail
typing time, so I ended up sending four separate short messages. (In
fact, on one message I overstepped the seven-minute limit and it
discarded everything I had typed. Sigh...) Definitely conducive to
typing in a mad rush and aiming for quantity rather than quality. Penny,
did all four sections arrive properly?

However, I'm now back at a proper computer and so can take my time over
a fuller review of the movie, from a fan's eye view . I'll send thoughts
upon the event, rather than the movie, in a separate message. (Mods,
would it be OK if I uploaded some photos to the Photos area of the
Yahoogroup?)

If you'd care to enter the potential spoiler zone, I'll see you down
below:

Y
O
U

O
N
L
Y

L
I
V
E

O
N
C
E

S
O

M
A
K
E

T
H
E

M
O
S
T

O
F

I
T

We live in a world where economics is hard. This forces practical
limitations when making a movie. The "infinite time" and "infinite
money" cheat modes don't exist, cinema owners need to be pleased as well
as existing Potter fans and computer animation ain't perfect. Given
these limitations, this film is about as close to human perfection as it
is possible to achieve. However, seeing the film makes it extremely
clear what an immense challenge it is to turn Philosopher's Stone from
book to film and why JKR was so reluctant about the propspect in the
first place.

Two and a half hours is not a lot of time to get through a wealth of
highlights. On top of the story, the directors have bowed to the
inevitable temptation to show us more of the Potterverse that cannot be
communicated so effectively in a book. (Don't panic - this isn't a bad
thing!) The consequence is the feeling of a slightly breathless sprint
in places.

It also means that the movie has to stay true to the spirit of the book
rather than to the letter of it. There are omissions and there are
changes. (The list at The Dark Mark looked pretty accurate, though the
value judgements therein are a matter of taste.) To have played the
entire story out, scene for scene and exchange for exchange, could
comfortably have filled five or six hours. (But, hey, what hours they
would have been!)

The changes that were made capture and maintain the spirit of the book
better than I had thought possible; indeed, there are places where the
story is more clearly and straightforwardly told in the movie than in
the book. Some aspects of the story are fleshed out on screen and the
additions are delightful, completely in keeping with the flavour of the
world. Maybe there may be more deleted JKR scenes in the script than at
first we thought?

The humour of the movie is inevitably more visual than that of the book.
There aren't any "belly laugh" lines, but you'll get a lot of smiles.
Some of the punchlines have changed, but the reasons why the jokes are
funny remain the same. Not knowing exactly what's coming next is a good
thing! It's all kept tasteful, classy and above the belt; there's
nothing to cringe about, which is a huge commendation in itself.

The voice acting is almost uniformly first class. There are a few
occasions where some of the actors are required to convey high emotions
and are only given a second or two of face shot, or head-and-shoulders
shot, to do so. This isn't as much freedom as they need and they fall a
little short, which jerks your suspension of disbelief. The blame here
must fall on the decision to give the actors too much to do in too
little screen time, not on the actors themselves. It reminds you of the
difference between watching people act and watching people pretend.

Other than these rare jarring instances, the physical acting is
frequently excellent and seldom less than completely adequate - and
adequacy here is set against the highest of targets, given that we know
what emotions are intended and required from the book. This must always
be a problem with conversions from book to screen.

Dan Radcliffe has the look, the mannerisms and the charm of Harry down
pat. His strongest expresisons are the bemusement that must be inherent
at entering a world where science does not rule alone and the bravery
that Harry shows to achieve all he does. In a sense, the movie Harry is
a more realistic bundle of emotions than the book Harry. However, more
is asked of him than any other actor and so there are more occasions
where he is required to do the impossible in a single brief shot than
for anyone else.

Emma Watson possibly errs slightly on the side of overplaying Hermione,
but does so in a fully endearing fashion. She can't fully express the
panic required in her predicament in the mountain troll scene but
otherwise there isn't a single thing that needs to be changed about her
performance.

Among Harry's year, Rupert Grint has comic timing way beyond his years;
he hits his lines perfectly. Tom Felton does everything that is required
of the book's Draco with style and aplomb. Matt Lewis is asked to show
the bumbling side of Neville frequently and the brave side only once at
the end; the Neville character really isn't developed as strongly in the
film as it is in the book, so the finale does come as a bit of a
characterisation shock.

The Phelps brothers' Fred and George are distinctively cheeky rather
than proactive pranksters - there's definitely a lot more to come there.
Chris Rankin really gets into the character of Percy with genuine
authority. Sean Biggerstaff stands out positively; the movie's Oliver
Wood is likeable, the sort of person you really would like to captain
your Quidditch team.

Robbie Coltrane's Hagrid (incidentally, we learn that the first syllable
rhymes with flag; did anyone else use to pronounce his name "Hay-grid"?
OK, just me) is the single dominant adult character; Robbie extracts
maximum laughs with every step. The movie changes strongly exaggerate
one side of Hagrid's nature, though, which is probably inevitable
considering how much plot exposition his character has.

David Bradley's Argus Filch makes a bigger impact in the movie than he
did in the book, but the acting is really appropriately vicious. John
Hurt's Ollivander is an eccentric treat - a wonderful introduction as
the first really powerful (that is, not Hagrid) wizard we see.

The professors are uniformly excellent, though Richard Harris'
Dumbledore comes off as disappointingly flat until he gets his chance to
shine at the end. What a pleasant surprise his character will be for
people who see the film first and then get to enjoy the book later!

The most ambitious point of the movie is the computer generated imagery.
The still items are wonderful, the animation of fast-moving ones is only
as good as the technology of today will permit. There are a lot of
stringent demands made of the CGI by the book; sometimes their overall
effect in the movie is merely good rather than insanely great. Some of
the magic spells and effects look awesome; others don't capture the
imagination nearly so much. However, they do look better than they have
done in the trailers.

The world cannot yet completely convincingly animate human beings doing
inhuman things, which serves as a clear reminder that the magic required
to make the impossible possible is restricted to fiction alone. The
Quidditch scene is the most demanding of them all; while the sequence is
action-packed and good-looking, disappointingly, I can't find it a total
success. Perhaps some of the scenes would have been better with more
conventional special effects? (For instance, the Sorting Hat scene looks
very low-tech but is one of the most delightful of them all.)

The set looks gorgeous - more convincing than it has appeared on the
production stills we've seen so far. However, it may not stand up to
detailed analysis. For instance, if you've ever been to Alnwick Castle
then a lot of scenes will have you thinking "Oh, there they are outside
Alnwick Castle" rather than having you pondering about where they are in
relation to the 142 staircases of Hogwarts. (The solution is simple:
don't visit Alnwick Castle. Really!) It's fairly obvious that things are
shot in many disparate locations, rather than one big Hogwarts School,
Hogsmeade.

The score is absolutely wonderful. It's possible to criticise the
soundtrack that it relies too heavily on The Famous Bit over and over
again, but it's clear that the balance and mixture of things in the
finished movie are exactly right. The overall effect is beautiful to
listen to. It may even be worth staying until the end of the credits -
not because there are any out-takes, crazy credits, cryptic messages or
the like, but just to get to listen to the soundtrack's last two tracks
played on the big speakers.

Animals play a smaller role in the movie than in the book, by obvious
necessity. However, their selection has been ideal as the overall effect
is to create just the right feel.

Indeed, the feel of the whole movie is everything we could have hoped
for. The dialogue is intensely measured, the colouring is suitably epic,
the selection of what to leave in is really tightly considered. You get
chills in your spine at the right places, you feel the triumphs in their
full glory as swelling, all-encompassing endorphin highs. It's clear
that the people who've made the decisions have thought long, hard and
lovingly. They are true fans of the story, they are the right people for
the job, they are worth putting your hope and trust in for the second
film.

So it could never have been the film that the hyper-literalists were
hoping for, then, but it is as good as the practicalities of the real
world could possibly permit. Don't expect miracles and you'll come out
with a huge smile over your face. I look forward to coming out of the
Philosopher's Stone cinema with a huge smile on my face again and again.

Eight and a half out of ten. A really satisfactory film!




All the best,
Chris

-- 
  Chris M. Dickson, Middlesbrough, Great Britain; chris at dickson.demon.co.uk
  Sport Editor, Flagship PBM mag: http://www.antsnest.demon.co.uk/flagship/
  Labyrinth Games: puzzle and game consultancy http://www.qwertyuiop.co.uk/
   MSO Worldwide -*- Bringing Brains Together -*- http://www.msoworld.com/