Review of Harry Potter and The Philosopher`s Stone (Widescreen)

Introduction

With the imminent release of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets at the time of writing, I felt now would be a great time to take another look at the first film in the series. I was definitely in a minority when it came to Harry Potter and The Philosopher`s Stone. I put off watching the film until I could bear the hype no longer, and prior to this I had never read any of the novels due to some latent loyalty to The Worst Witch, which was THE children`s book when I was a tyke. Consequently, all of my expectations were negative and I was devoid of any preconceptions when I entered that cinema. I came out of that cinema a convert, and it wasn`t long before I had four shiny new novels on my shelf. The DVD was also an essential purchase, and I was soon enjoying JK Rowling`s imaginative and colourful story brought to life on my television screen.

An orphan child has a barren upbringing in his uncle`s family, who lie to him about his parents` demise. When he learns of his legacy and heritage, and the amazing powers to which he is heir, he enters a magical world with all manner of strange and wonderful creatures. He learns that his father died at the hand of a practitioner of the dark arts, and resolves to learn about his abilities to honour his memory. His journey concludes when he confronts the entity that is responsible for his being orphaned. He also is a natural in an X Wing and learns how to handle a lightsaber. My mistake, Quidditch broom and magic wand. I think if you put in enough effort, you can compare any movie to Star Wars, but Harry Potter and the Philosopher`s Stone is a little easier than most. However any similarity is due to the fundamental nature of storytelling, especially for children and while an argument can be made for Ron and Hermione being analogs of Han Solo and Princess Leia, and Hagrid would make an ideal Wookiee, I don`t think that we`ll learn that Hermione and Harry are related in any way. I do have fun conjecturing though, Harry hanging from a precipice minus wand and right hand, while above Voldemort glowers, "Hagrid never told you what happened to your father…" NOOOOOOO!!!

Video

Harry Potter is presented in a 2.35:1 anamorphic transfer, and as you would expect from a recent film, the transfer is immaculate. I noticed no problems worth mentioning and it was a major improvement to the worn out two-month-old prints that I saw at my local multiplex. JK Rowling`s intricate and detailed world is brought to life on screen and the lush and vivid imagery is testament to her amazing creativity. The glimpse that we get of the muggle world is suitable drab and dreary, any darker and you would be looking at a Ken Loach film, but as soon as Harry and Hagrid step into the Leaky Cauldron, we are presented with a rich golden palette of colours that enrich and enliven the screen. An old world feel is evoked by JK Rowling`s novels, where there are no computer games, or mobile phones, where the best form of transport is by old fashioned steam train, where heavy tomes are best read by candlelight by a blazing fire and all this is echoed by the imagery in this film. The effects are very good in this film as you would expect and are seamless. There is one exception though, and that is the Quidditch match. When the action was fast and frenetic, I was engrossed in the action and paid little attention to the details of the stadium, but when the action stilled, then the CGI scenery became somewhat obvious and plasticky. A minor quibble when taken in the context of the full two-and-half hours. Veteran director Chris Columbus (Home Alone) directs with a sure hand, but with little flair. He strikes a balance between staying true to the novel and making an individual statement, and if he does err on the side of the novel`s integrity then that isn`t a bad thing.

Audio

The sound is a DD 5.1 EX English track. The surround is put to effective use with the action adequately represented and the film suitably immersive. I loved the effects when Nearly Headless Nick and the other ghosts appeared, though it was a little subdued during the battle with the troll. Another Star Wars link, and one that is far less tenuous than my idle speculation, sees master movie composer John Williams supplying the music for Harry Potter, and his compositions provide just the perfect tone for this film, as potent as the imagery in evoking the magic and wonder of the story. Subtitles are provided in English and Arabic.

Features

This is where the Harry Potter two disc set fails utterly and miserably. The discs` presentation is over elaborate and soon becomes tedious. The intro is almost interminably long, and transitions between menus are also not designed for the impatient in mind. As well as the movie, Disc 1 contains 2 trailers and a cast and crew listing. Disc 2 has the `Special Features`, and they have been designed with the younger viewer in mind. You `enrol` in Hogwarts and go through the process of learning magic as you go on your own quest for the Philosopher`s Stone. You first go to Diagon Alley to get some money, buy a wand and an owl. You get the tour of Hogwarts, go to class, and meet the staff and other students, all liberally punctuated with clips of the movie. Interspersed with all this are some concept drawings (volume 1 in the library) and also a 15-minute interview with cast and crew. If you can bear this journey through Hogwarts, all under the gentle tutelage of Jim Dale (veteran of the Carry On movies) and do succeed in your quest for the Philosopher`s Stone, you will be treated to some deleted scenes. I have done this exactly once, and after interminable monotony, I watched the deleted scenes. I just couldn`t be asked to do it again. Frankly I feel that the younger viewer will only be a little more enamoured of this disc 2 than I was. It smacks of the kind of computer game that politically correct adults believe that children should play, educational rather than one that actually is fun. It is just too much effort for very little reward. I think that a more conventional set of extras would be more entertaining.

Conclusion

Harry Potter as Luke Skywalker then. Like any good storyteller, JK Rowling follows certain conventions that apply especially to children`s literature down the ages. The protagonist simply has to be an orphan, if simply to reclaim his heritage. Luke Skywalker must find about his father, Darth Vader and the force. Harry Potter must learn about his parents, Lord Voldemort and his innate magic. As they are both orphans, they must go on a quest to learn this heritage, one that we as the audience can join in with. If there is one thing that is anathema in children`s writing, it`s bloated exposition. This mechanism wisely does away with it. Similarly the harsh childhood environment is used to motivate the quest. Like Tattooine for Luke Skywalker, we have the Dursleys for Harry Potter. It`s hard to see Harry eagerly bounding off to Hogwarts if loving and caring adoptive parents were bringing him up. So any similarity between the two is purely co-incidental.

However, there is one way in which Harry Potter is Star Wars for the 21st Century. It has the same kind of fan following and associated hype that the original Star Wars movies had twenty years ago. JK Rowling has created an intricate and detailed world, with amazing and fascinating characters, all bound together in compelling and exciting stories that bring to mind the fresh excitement we shared when we first journeyed to a galaxy far away, especially now, when George Lucas` technically spectacular, but uninspiring second trilogy, while financially successful does little more than spark nostalgia for the original trilogy.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher`s Stone gathers a superb cast who bring to life the story. They have quite literally become the characters in the minds of thousands of cinemagoers. Robbie Coltrane is wonderful as Hagrid and Alan Rickman hams it up wonderfully as the menacing Professor Snape. Richard Harris is Dumbledore, pure and simple, and his loss from the Harry Potter movies is just a fraction of his loss to the movie world in general. But Harry Potter revolves around the children, and the three leads are ideal in their roles. While it does take a while to get used to Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter, he looks just as you would imagine Harry Potter to look, by the end of the film he is wholly convincing in the role, and he can only go from strength to strength in the future movies. Emma Watson is brilliant as the overbearing Hermione Granger. I like the way she over enunciates her lines as she makes a point, it`s really quite charming. (Strange that when Elizabeth Hurley did it in Bedazzled, it was just irritating.) Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley is enthusiastic in the role and gets the best lines.

I loved Harry Potter in the cinema, and I love it on DVD. Out of last Christmas` two fantasy movies, I actually preferred it to Lord of the Rings. Before you start with the hate mail, let me say that my problem is with JRR Tolkien`s masterwork, and I feel that the film was an infinite improvement. It`s just that out of the two, I prefer Master Potter`s exploits. Despite the laughable extras, The Philosopher`s Stone is the best children`s movie in recent years, and is essential viewing and I can`t wait for the next instalment. It even makes boarding school look attractive.