Review of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001) by Diego T — 08 Aug 2014

For quite a while now, I've been asked to defend my absolute hatred of the Harry Potter movies (except for one). My reasoning for not writing full reviews of these things is simple: Firstly, they are all basically the same movie, and therefore do not lend themselves to repeated analysis. Secondly, they utterly raped my childhood and I don't want to live through the experience again. That's right, fuckers-- I read the books, so don't get all butthurt and say that I just hate everything nerdy. That is a bullshit excuse and you know it. No, I hate these movies because they take the joy, life, and yes, MAGIC out of the books I grew up on. Also, it is directed by the asswipe who directed Mrs. Doubtfire, one of the shittiest movies of all time. So without further ado, let's begin.

Harry Potter is, as I'm sure you know, the story of a young boy who finds out he's a wizard and gets whisked away to a fucking awesome school filled with moving staircases and owls and shit. But he isn't just any ordinary kid who finds out that he has magical powers: He is an orphan whose parents were killed by an evil dark lord named Voldemort. When Voldemort attempted to kill Harry, his death curse bounced back on him and tore his anus asunder. This is how Harry got the lightning bolt scar on his forehead that everyone who pretends to know about Harry Potter talks about today.

This premise is original, but it is also very easy to screw up. The books worked fine because a lot of the visuals were left to the reader's imagination. Also, books do not require child actors, who are indisputably the number one cause of Early Onset Movie Shittiness. I just tore Avatarded: The Last Anusbender asunder yesterday, so isn't it a weird coincidence that I am once again reviewing a movie that is based on good source material and yet got absolutely fucked over by the shitty people cast in it? With only a few minor exceptions, the cast of this movie stinks. Daniel Radcliffe is single-handedly responsible for completely decimating my childhood with his laughable performance as the title character. The only reason he was cast in this is because he (vaguely) looks the part. But you need more than that. It also has Rupert Grint, who is the ginger version of Jake Lloyd in The Phantom Menace.

The biggest flaw in this highly flawed film is probably its tone: There is none. It is completely inconsistent on every level. It goes from being funny to dark and moody in the span of five minutes (and unfortunately, as the series drags on, there is even less humor and more dramatic staring). There are also huge gaps in logic that the book managed to handle easily, but this movie doesn't bother getting into at all. A lot of scenes from the book are in it that are completely unnecessary, but it leaves out a lot that are quite important to the plot.

There are a few good moments in this film, but that's mostly due to Alan "Professor Hans Gruber" Rickman hamming it up as Snape. But he's awesome in pretty much any movie he's in, so this isn't a surprise. He's got a distinguished aura about him that makes him both creepy and fun to watch at the same time. But he's only in it at brief points throughout the film, with more attention being paid to Hagrid and Dumbledore, who are played by far less accomplished actors and whose constant fairy-tale "father figure" behavior gets on my nerves. There are also some strong lines of dialogue, but that's mainly because they were lifted directly from the book. Really, this whole MOVIE is exactly the same as the book in most respects, but the acting is too shitty to justify sitting down to watch it for two and a half hours.

Also, the CGI is terrible. Normally I don't bother grading a film's special effects, because they really don't matter. But when they are distractingly bad (or distractingly good, for that matter), it makes is a far less pleasant experience. The (internet?) troll in the dungeon looks unfit for 10,000 BC. And sure, this movie was made a considerable amount of time ago by special effects standards, as great leaps and strides have been made in the medium since then. But Jesus Christ, it was still only 14 years ago. Jurassic Park managed, why couldn't this? Oh, and when Voldemort's face pops out the back of the professor's head, it's pretty easy to tell that the CG guys rushed this one. The visuals of Hogwarts itself are good, but it's impossible to enjoy them when these whiny, emotive, high-pitched child actors are staring at the green screens slack-jawed and overacting every ounce of their performances.

Final Score for Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone: 2/10 stars. Originally I loved this movie, but come on, I was six years old. It takes a lot for me to realize that something I liked as a kid sucks (I still have deep-seated nostalgia towards Transformers, Pokemon, and even Attack of the Clones). But this movie is reprehensible. It will probably please little kids, but definitely not their parents. And really, the whole POINT of the Harry Potter books was that they could bridge that gap and be fun for both kids and adults alike. But this movie is too bland, too concocted, too poorly-acted, and too PC to be anything more than a shadowy reflection of a great book. And you know what the worst part is? It only gets worse from here.

Also, Emma Watson is not old enough to be hot yet. -1.

STAY TUNED FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THIS SPECIAL EDITION OF TUT'S TUTILLATING REVIEWS: HARRY POTTER AND THE RAPE OF MY CHILDHOOD! Coming soon!