Rating: 4/5
Reviewed by: Ashley Frieze

Read the book first.

The Harry Potter film has been so well-hyped in the media that there are few surprises. The media focused on the length of the film - they felt that a two and half hour film would be too long. However, they failed to realise that the pace of the film made the two and a half earth-hours zoom by. Indeed, I feel that they should have included the extra fifteen minutes or so's extra footage that is presently on the cutting room floor (or at least reputedly so). Perhaps we shall have to wait until the DVD to see those extra minutes.

There's only one reason I'd mention viewing extra minutes of a film so soon after first watching it, and that's that fact that I thoroughly enjoyed every minute I did see. The acting, sets and screenplay are all very good. The film is captivating and entertaining, and that is one of the most important things it can be. However, the plot runs so fast that you can only truly keep up if you've read the book and already know how it all fits together. The special effects are good, but often look like special effects, and they are not the best examples of their art. The score, by John Williams, is exciting and grand, but sometimes overpowers the film and other times sound like many other John Williams scores, rather than like a Harry Potter score.

So, despite the overall high standard of the film, its value comes more from the fantasy world it portrays than the actual artistry in constructing that fantasy. The film makers have done a wonderful job in bringing J.K. Rowling's visions to life; I doubt that anyone else would have done it so faithfully. The important thing about the Harry Potter film, though, is that you're there to see Harry, Ron and Hermione, not just a fantastic film.

I have read the books. I was not disappointed.

The cast, accompanying Mr Potter and friends, reads like a who's who. Alan Rickman, John Cleese, Julie Walters, Maggie Smith, Richard Griffiths... these are all big British names. There's not an American in sight, which is unusual but refreshing. For me, though, the importance of these well-known actors comes from their ability to breathe life into the characters. Robbie Coltrane deserves a mention on his own; he plays Hagrid, a part which may as well have been written for him - he would be the star of the film, if it were not for the three kids.

Despite reservations about Hermione; it seems that the child-actors in the film gave credible performances. Hermione, at first glance appears to be a child-actress showing off. However, as the film progresses, and you cast off any preconceptions about how a Hermione might look, you realise that this IS a child actress, but one playing a role which should come across as a precocious child showing off. The actor behind Harry himself, Daniel Radcliffe, plays the part perfectly. Although he may be impersonating every child's hero, he does so with modesty and subtlety, the traits that the character himself has.

So, it's a big thumbs up.

11 November 2001
Ashley Frieze