Perhaps I need to clarify...

[caliburncy at yahoo.com]

I haven't seen anyone thus far who claims to "hate" the movie, and 
the poll thus far seems to support that, so I think it is a teensy 
bit unfair to qualify anyone who thinks certain aspects of the film 
could have been handled better as a "hater" of the movie.

Personally, I loved the movie as a fan, liked it well enough as a 
casual moviegoer, and found it lacking as a critic.

I have already explained the main thing that bothered me about it as 
a critic (in "An interesting conundrum").  Like Cindy, Ebony, et al, 
I harbor some concerns that the vast majority of the people who see 
the movie without having read the books will be totally unable to 
fathom why anyone likes the books, because the movie sort of holds 
the novel as "prerequisite knowledge" in order to understand the full 
fleshing out of the characters and plot.  This is why it doesn't 
stand on its own, to my mind.  From the perspective of a non-book-
fan, the movie is likely to feel a bit transient and irrelevant in 
spots.  Book-fans, by contrast, are less likely to notice this 
because they can fill in the gaps with their own existing knowledge.  
We fans can appreciate the subtlety of what is going on, but for 
someone unfamiliar with the books, far too much of that will go over 
their heads, because the filmmakers were clearly too focused on 
covering everything, rather than covering only what's most important.

But by contrast, I'm not sure that it could've been done much 
differently.  Like I said, this instance is pretty much 
unprecedented.  Never before, to my knowledge, has there been a film 
where such a large percentage of the moviegoers are already fans of 
the books.  Most successful book-to-film adaptations do not have to 
play to fans quite so much.  I have also long maintained that PS/SS 
would be the most difficult of the books so far to adapt, despite its 
being the shortest.  PS/SS has a LOT of "introductory" material that 
in one sense *can't* be skipped for the movie and in another sense 
*has to be* if the movie is going to have any focus.  Giving an 
adaptation like this focus is a much more difficult task than, say, 
shortening the events of GOF to movie length.  I give the filmmakers 
a lot of credit for doing the best job they probably could have done 
under fairly adverse conditions.  I therefore anticipate that the COS 
movie will not suffer as heavily from these kinds of editing and 
continuity issues in the screenplay, because it will not need the 
same introductory stuff.

Now then, what I liked about the movie (doubling back on my original 
decision not to do a straight-up review):

As I already knew from seeing the stills and trailers and whatnot, 
the art direction was simply phenomenal and, for me, one of the best 
things about the movie.  It is dead-on pretty much all the time and 
having the opportunity to see the various locales so expertly 
realized was a definite treat in its own right.

The costume design was also inspired.  Many people will be quick to 
point out its canonical inaccuracy in several instances, but I really 
think it looks fantastic and would prefer an inaccurate but excellent 
costume to an accurate but dull one.  My favorite costume, for sheer 
inventiveness, is Hooch's referee costume which is just hilarious and 
looks great.  Makeup was okay, but overdone (i.e. Flitwick and the 
goblins at Gringotts).  Still I'd rather have the ridiculous goblins 
we got than the even more ridiculous computer-generated goblins we 
might have gotten.

The special effects were a mixed bag.  The best special effects 
tended to be the most understated ones, like the invisibility cloak 
(easy winner of best effect) and the sorting hat and the (simple but 
effective) letters hurtling through the air.  The computer graphics 
were typical with all the typical problems (and even a couple not so 
typical, like my continued inability to understand what is so 
difficult about making a proportionately-accurate CG Harry).  But the 
most noticeable thing with the computer graphics is that you can 
*tell* they were handled by different companies: there's such a vast 
disparity of quality.  Fluffy was well done (particularly the shot of 
his paw), the centaur was atrocious, the troll was somewhere in-
between (not so much a CG issue as simply the general visual 
conception, which is a hair too cartoonish).  Norbert I'd have to see 
again to make any judgments, but if memory serves, he looked pretty 
good.

Quidditch deserves its own section of commentary rather than lumping 
it in as a special effect, because I had problems with this scene 
that ultimately have nothing to do with the effects themselves (I 
have already talked about the fake CG motion blur, so I won't 
again).  It looks exactly like Quidditch probably would look, but, 
strangely . . . there's no drama whatsoever.  The scene is well-
choreographed, but very little time is spent on developing a viewable 
interplay.  The only drama comes out of watching the scoreboard rack 
points: the actual activity that results in these points is too 
strangely unraveled--we can follow that there is a fast-paced game 
going on, but only rarely do we catch more detailed elements than 
this.  So we can't get truly invested in the events of the match, 
except for Harry's eventual involvement, at which point the events 
become easier to follow and that's when things really get good.  
Quite possibly this was intentional--because, in a way, the book 
unfolds similarly.  But even if it wasn't intentional, I do view this 
as something of a necessary evil just because of the way Quidditch is 
conceived.  So I can't really fault the film for this.  And if you 
can follow it, it must be one heck of a roller-coaster ride: blink 
and you'll miss it, but while you're on it's quite a rush.  
Personally the Quidditch didn't affect me much, because I'm not the 
hugest fan of Quidditch anyway--for me the matches are an enjoyable 
diversion in the books that frequently have important 
ramifications . . . but that still makes them just a diversion.

The acting is of course a case-by-case thing, but on the whole it was 
quite good.

Daniel Radcliffe makes a fine Harry.  I secretly suspect that there's 
a better Harry out there somewhere, but not much.  Daniel underacts, 
which in my opinion is vastly preferable to overacting, but this is 
totally in keeping with Harry's very internal character.  The only 
problem here is that Harry is therefore a less dynamic protagonist 
when you are not inside his head--he's just *inherently* less 
compelling in the movie than in the book.  But Radcliffe can bear no 
fault for this, and I think given the difficulty he performs quite 
admirably.  He is very believable as Harry.

Emma Watson definitely overacts, but I was able to deal with it.  
I've seen worse.  She has highs and lows--sometimes the overacting 
works well to comic effect, often it does not.  But the main thing, 
in my opinion, is that she does manage to make the character fairly 
endearing despite the "know-it-all" obnoxiousness.  This is of course 
the central goal with Hermione's character in PS/SS and Watson does 
pull it off for the most part.  One thing that struck me as odd in 
Hermione's characterization for the film is that she always seems 
exasperated.  I do not get the impression that the Hermione of the 
books is quite this frequently impatient and condescending.  That was 
rather overdone.  Perhaps it is just the result of not having much of 
the maternal balancing (i.e. with helping Neville).

I must say that Rupert Grint *totally* exceeded my expectations, and 
I'm not even much of a Ron fan.  I was very undecided about him from 
the trailers . . . on the one hand his line delivery had seemed good, 
but on the other hand some of his facial expressions had seemed over 
the top and silly.  After seeing the film though, the facial 
expressions thing does not seem at all jarring in context somehow.  
And Grint has an onscreen presence that simply does not fully convey 
until you see the film.  He, in fact, outshines the rest of the trio 
to a considerable degree, which actually causes some interesting 
balance issues.  Because Harry is so internal and therefore Radcliffe 
so accordingly understated, Grint's more outward-directed character 
of Ron tends to steal away the scenes he's in.  But who am I to get 
in his way?  Go, Rupert, go!

Also, the trio really did work well together.  Particularly Daniel 
and Rupert had a certain charisma between them.  I have just said 
that Rupert outshines Daniel a bit in their shared scenes, but it is 
nevertheless true that Rupert brings out something in Daniel that 
isn't there otherwise--I'm not sure what it is exactly.  This is 
especially noticeable on the Hogwarts express, which was just a 
lovely scene, I might add.

Alan Rickman is marvelous as Snape, oozing his way around every 
sarcasm-oiled line.  He was unfairly robbed of screentime in the lack 
of balance that the rather rambly editing issues caused.  Also, his 
Snape actually oozes a bit more than canon Snape apparently does, but 
it works wonderfully and that's the biggest test, now isn't it?  On 
an unrelated note, I am puzzled by the change from "stopper death" 
to "put a stopper in death".  The former sounds like poison or 
somesuch (as it should); the latter sounds too much like it might 
mean some kind of immortality, which, as we all know, is *not* what 
that line refers to.

Maggie Smith is perfect as McGonagall . . . although there's nothing 
really new here.  Maggie Smith is basically playing the classic 
character that Maggie Smith *always* plays and it just so happens 
that this coincides extremely well with McGonagall's character.  
Still, if the typecasting works you can hardly fault them for doing 
it, so I give Smith props, although it is ultimately a triumph for 
the casting not the acting.

Robbie Coltrane made about the best Hagrid that seems possible.  The 
Hagrid of the books is pretty much impossible to translate directly 
into a live actor because some of his antics are simply too 
cartoonish for that, in my opinion.  Coltrane therefore captures the 
maximum amount of Hagrid's personality that I think it was possible 
to portray, and does so with great prowess.

Richard Harris--Ah, Richard Harris.  After my rant, many of your are 
going to expect me to say not very nice things.  But after seeing the 
film, my take has been altered slightly.  It is clear from watching 
the film that the ultimate fault for Harris not understanding the 
full extent of his character lies with the script, not Harris.  The 
script itself gives so little attention to the cheerfully-eccentric 
aspect of Dumbledore's character that it is hardly surprising that 
Harris was under the impression he was achieving the full picture.  
Based on the script alone he *has* captured one possible 
interpretation of the character presented there.  It just so happens 
that there's more to Dumbledore than was actually provided in the 
script.  Harris, having never read the books, would be unaware of 
this--so I'm not surprised he plays the role so limitedly.  For what 
he was working with he seems to have done quite well.

However, the casting choice of Richard Harris is *still* somewhat 
flawed, in my opinion, because Harris simply lacks that other side of 
Dumbledore anyway.  Even if that side had been fully presented in the 
script, I am unconvinced that Harris would have pulled it off.  I 
simply cannot picture Harris beaming at the students, hard though I 
may try to do so.  And that's a fundamental problem, because the 
Dumbledore of the books smiles and twinkles a heck of a lot--it's 
central to his personality.  You might say that he is not just 
Merlin, but a combination of Merlin and Santa Claus.  And I know 
Harris, and he's not about to play Santa Claus.  He doesn't have the 
twinkle for it.

Ian Hart was reasonably good as Quirrel, though far from inspiring.  
He gives a solid performance, but nothing exceptional.

Tom Felton makes a pretty good Draco, though I would've loved a 
little bit more nastiness at times.  Still the only thing I can 
really fault him for is the absolutely stupid expression on his face 
when Quirrel announces the troll in the dungeon.

Matthew Lewis deserves a hell of a lot of credit, in my opinion, for 
making the best out of Neville's character when the script was making 
it very hard for him to do so.  Neville's character is underdeveloped 
in the movie, but the subtle brilliance of Lewis' facial expressions 
(i.e. at the end when he earns the 10 points) almost succeeds in 
totally compensating.  He makes an excellent Neville for people who 
have read the book, but because of being undermined by the script, 
people who may not have read the book are likely to deem his 
character flat.

Sean Biggerstaff does a stand-out acting job, but did not quite 
capture Oliver Wood's character for me, though I am not sure why.  I 
suspect Biggerstaff would have shone through had there actually been 
a Quidditch practice during which he could bring out the demanding, 
relentless drive that Wood possesses.  As it is he still does a fine 
job and his delivery of lines is exceptional among the younger 
actors.  In other words, he had a lot of stong presence and good 
technique, but I just couldn't help thinking, hmm, that's not quite 
the Wood I know.  On a personal note, the accent surprised me, but 
that's a personal observation, not a complaint.

Best cameo appearance is John Hurt as Ollivander, bar none.  He 
totally captures his all-too-brief moment, with a lot of charisma.  
His Ollivander is a little spooky, a little genius, perhaps a little 
mad--very much like the book, there's this hint of a lot under the 
surface if we just could get to know him better.

Other cameo roles are mostly unworthy of note.  Neither distractingly 
bad, nor exceptionally good.  Julie Walters is a terrific actress and 
puts in a very fine performance, but I get this nagging feeling that 
she's just not Mrs. Weasley--I suspect that's just a personal thing.  
Fiona Shaw and Richard Griffiths ham it up admirably as the 
Dursleys.  John Cleese as Nearly-Headless Nick was fine, but I 
couldn't really muster up any enthusiasm.

So in brief, they got all the ingredients right.  The movie's 
ultimate problem is that is simply far less likely to appeal to non-
book-fans.  Is that really a problem?  I don't know.  I'm inclined to 
say 'yes'.  It would be nice if I could take people I know who 
haven't read the books, show them the movie, and then have them feel 
inspired to seek out and read the books.  But the movie is unlikely 
to achieve that.

But beyond that purpose, will it appeal to those who are already fans 
(like myself)?  Yes, I'm sure it will.

-Luke