Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

WARNING: This review is hidden because it reveals the content of the film.
Click here to show this review. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is a competently made family film, thanks to Chris Columbus who knows how to work with children but never seems to care enough to try and get good performances from them. See Home Alone, you'll understand. This is the first in a series of cinematic adaptation of J. K. Rowling's books about the famous Harry Potter, a young and talented wizard. Like most literary adaptations, it gets its share of love and hate, by both fans of the novels and the ones who have never even read it. Some just dont care, I'm one of them. I never read the book, out of iterest I guess, but I'm not sure, but that doesnt change my appreciation or my lack of it for the film. I strongly believe a film based on previous material should be judge for what it is and not what it could have been or what I wanted it to be considering the perspective the source material had previously printed in my mind. After seeing it for the first time since its release, I realize it wasnt a lack of good faith that left me careless about this film, its simply not engaging enough. Writer Steve Kloves does a good job at summerizing the novel and introducing all the elements that make Harry Potter so special and loved, but because there is so much of that stuff, the film takes a while to get started and is feels a bit too naive. Everyone knows who Harry Potter is, except himself. After his parents were murdered by Voldemort, he was taken to his uncle and aunt, who raised him almost as a slave. One day he gets an invitation to Hogwart's school for wizards, thats where he meets his reheaded friend, Ron, the obligatory clumsy kid, and Hermione, the annoying one who knows everything about anything. There is also Malfoy, the hateble one and, well, I think you get it, the wheel isnt reinvented here, its quite formulaic. Harry and his friends aftr discovering things they shouldnt know about, try to uncover a plot to steal the philosopher's stone, which is, well, I think its an important stone. With Harry Potter John Williams brings one of his most memorable score in a long time and that helps go through the film, which seems a bit too long - two hours twenty two minutes - despite some fun fantasy stuff: a giant dog with three heads; a cape that makes you invisible; magic spells; and on and on. The kids arent that good, some scenes could have used a few more takes. Daniel Radcliffe sure looks the part, but he cant act it, yet. Ruper Grint looks like he is about to wine every other second and Emma Watson, well, she has her moments when she does get effective. The mot annoying of all has to be Tom Felton, the young Malfoy, I guess he wasnt cast for his talent, but exactly for the reason that he was just what I said he was, anyways. The adult characters in the other hand, are all played by known British actors, including Maggie Smith, Richard Harris abd Alan Rickman, and they all seem to have a lot of fun. Ultimately, Harry Potter and the Philospher's Stone isnt that special, except for the fact that it brings to life one of the most important literary work of the late 20th century, that being said, its definitely not because of the quality of its writing. Its funner for the kids, but too long for them. I wont say its boring, but I wasnt all that much into it. Its mildly entertaining, plus there are better entries in the series.