Well another eagerly awaited blockbuster has hit the big screen in the form of the best-selling children�s novels by J.K. Rowling. With Hollywood buzzing in anticipation at the epic Chris Columbus vehicle, everyone wanted their children to see it (just as an excuse to see it themselves). Naturally, it is sadly a disappointment.
Harry Potter is a movie where you know you�ve been sat there for 2 � hours. The pace is frightfully slow, rarely gathering momentum, and big chunks of time pass with the blink of an eye, this makes the continuity a bit uncomfortable.
That isn�t the only fault, the special effects vary from ropey to just plain bad by today�s standards, it comes across as one of those Sunday afternoon efforts by the BBC (eg. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe). The acting in some parts is of the same standard, newcomer Daniel Radcliffe makes a valiant effort as Harry, but his expressive range is shallow. Rupert Grint however, steals the show as Harry�s new pal Ron Weasly, this kid has a bright future. Alan Rickman as the sleazy wizard Snape and Robbie Coltrane as the giant Hagrid are spot on amongst the wealth of accomplished British actors including Maggie Smith, John Hurt and Richard Harris no less.
Still, this is innocent, good fun for the kids, who will be spellbound (excuse the pun) at the wonderful production design and grandeur of it all, notice I said �innocent� fun, there is not one hint of crudeness, innuendo, or extreme violence (perhaps except the slightly shocking graphic climax), this movie stays true to the books and rightfully so. Quality stuff, and a good base to improve upon for the 2002 sequel. |
