Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone Movie Review
originally posted many years ago
Partly due to the somewhat pedestrian direction of Columbus [clearly the wrong choice to helm such a project], the film is required to rest on the acting shoulders of Harry. Radcliffe is an appealing young actor, and has some solid moments, yet his lack of depth and often lifeless characterisation, adds to one’s emotional distance from the character. As an audience member, one needs to feel engaged in Harry’s transformation, but Columbus and company will have none of that, and so we are left with a somewhat dull hero,. It’s his friends, beautifully played by Emma Watson and Rupert Gint, who end up as the heart, soul and humour of the piece. Perhaps next time around, master Radcliffe will have grown and we’ll see some much needed depth of character. The British cast of character players has their moments, some more effective than the others. Richard Harris seems to think than mumbling his dialogue is enough to get him by, but he is sadly ineffective, as is the usually wonderful Alan Rickman. Maggie Smith is a delight as herself, while John Hurt and John Cleese are a delight in smallish roles.
Visually, Harry Potter is a grand affair, cinematically rich and decorous. The effects are fabulous, but obvious, and Aussie cinematographer John Seale’s lensing is vivid.
While this first Harry Potter may make hundreds of millions of dollars, it is a case of clever marketing, rather than as the result of having accomplished a great film. Tedious and overlong, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone could well have been a magical experience, but alas, along the way, Hollywood took it over and the magic was lost. Hopefully it will resurface next time around.
- Big Hero 6
Wolves Theatrical Trailer
Taken 3 Theatrical Trailer
Extraterrestrial Theatrical Trailer
Insidious: Chapter 3 Theatrical Teaser
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part ... Theatrical Trailer