Review of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001) by Suzi G — 07 Apr 2014

Man, looking at this two-and-a-half-hour runtime, I'm thinking that this better be good, because that's a long, long time to hold a child's attention. Well, I'm sorry, my fellow Americans, but British children are a little sharper than American children, and looking at how startlingly British this film is, you can tell where in the world it's main demographic focus is. Even the title difference is kind of reflective of that, because from what I can gather in this film's American title's replacing the "Philosopher" with "Sorcerer", where the British kids are all philosophical and whatnot, the American kids have to strictly put their faith in sorcerer's and magic folk for easy problem solving... kind of like theists. Shoot, I don't know how intellectual this film can be in any country, considering that it's directed by Chris Columbus, who can drag out character studies all he wants, but can never be especially intellectual, especially when he's working with particularly kiddy material. I might would buy Kevin McCallister's ability to thwart burglars in "Home Alone" a little more if he had magic powers, but no, that's reserved for the British kids, you know, because as smart as that American kid is, you can apparently trust British kids a little more when it comes to making bright decisions. Oh, there's not but a little more slapstick nonsense in "Home Alone" than there is in this film, because, again, Columbus is more used to making movies for dumb American kids. Man, I've worn the American/British comparison jokes down to the nub, about as much as this film probably wore down the attention span of a lot of youths, but hey, whether it be because this film is so startlingly British despite Columbus, or whatever, it's of higher quality than your usual kiddy flick, as well as it should be if it's to run two-and-a-half hours, and still not completely cleanse itself of kiddy superficialities, even in concept.

There's certainly a decent bit of meat to this story concept, and when it's lacking in that, it compensates with much in the way of liveliness, but at the end of the day, no matter how compelling, this narrative is rather kiddy, and therefore superficial, with limited conflict and, quite frankly, a lead character who, while grounded and well-portrayed enough to endear, is of limited intrigue, at least in comparison to certain supporting roles. There are plenty of characters and plot elements to explore in this near-epic affair, and they're prominent in the narrative enough to provide dimension that adds to the intrigue which is just juicy enough to secure reward value through all the superficialities, and yet, there's still only so much exploration to the overall layers of this ensemble piece, which would be easier to forgive if underdevelopment didn't distance you a bit from a sense of plausible character motivation. Even in this story which is too kiddy and fantastical, it's a touch too hard to buy into certain happenings, thanks to underdevelopment that is, of course, not exactly the only unnerving result of plotting rush, as there are moments that are simply jarring in their progression, particularly those in which the fluffiness is toned down for a little more seriousness that ends up breaking coherency in the film's tone. Of course, it's not like any tonal extreme in this film isn't plagued by a hint of cheesiness, which taints some of the more dramatic elements, sure, but is at its most aggravating during the lighter moments - of which there are many - that are often too kiddy for their own good, not simply because they kind of talk down to youths and more mature audiences, but further superficialize a story of limited weight. Again, the film has its natural shortcomings as a family-friendly fluff piece, and the cheesy scripting interpretations don't help, yet the final product still rewards, ostensibly because it's so extensively drawn, perhaps too much so, achieving a whopping runtime of two-and-a-half hours partly through excess filler that just pads and pads and pads out the fluff, and largely through attempts at compensation for the aforementioned underdeveloped elements through thorough exposition that eventually gets to be more excessive than extensive, and join the limitations in a sense conflict in establishing a serious sense of aimlessness. Whether it be with fun or even dramatically intriguing material, the film very impressively manages to keep you very invested throughout its overdrawn and sometimes unfocused course, but the fact of the matter is that the film tends to outstay its welcome, and not even provide all that much depth while doing so, boasting the kiddy superficiality that has sent many other fluff pieces of this time into underwhelmingness. Of course, with this particular film, there is enough juice, if not inspiration, for the final product to transcend its shortcomings, natural and consequential, and reward, especially aesthetically.

John Williams has always been one of the great go-to's in terms of establishing iconic musical artistry in film, and even as far in the game as 2001, he lived up to that legend, as this film's score, while not especially unique through and through, is not simply thoroughly colorful in its whimsy, but memorable and fitting to the themes and tones of this film, whose depths are sold largely through the colorful musical style. Needless to say, the visual style of this film is just as complimentary, as the exhaustive art direction team of Andrew Ackland-Snow, Peter Francis, John King, Michael, Neil Lamont and Simon Lamont, Steven Lawrence, Lucinda Thomson and Cliff Robinson, joined by production designer Stuart Craig and costume designer Judianna Makovsky, craft an sweepingly extensive and, of course, lavish magical world that is itself complimented by dated, but once-innovative and still-generally impressive digital effects that further flesh out the film's look's aesthetic and thematic value. Technical proficiency and, to a certain major extent, Williams' musical tastes succeed near-marvelously in reinforcing a sense of magic that is both colorful and worthy for this film's subject matter, freshening up a potentially formulaic mythology, and immersing you in a story that is, of course, driven by its visceral elements, at least to a certain extent. Yes, something of a big problem with this film is that even its story concept is lacking in depth, having a certain kiddy fluff that has held many a fellow family flick back something fierce, and would have surely secured the natural underwhelmingness of this particular opus if those thin spots weren't met with meaty spots, not just in a very interesting mythology, but in a narrative that is rich with potential layers, brought to life by a script by Steve Kloves that, despite its limitations and excesses, meets some relatively gutsy dramatic beats with many a sharp piece of humor or colorful set piece, brought to life by colorful direction, or at least colorful highlights in direction. I'm sorry, but Chris Columbus is simply not a good director, so there's something empty about this film, but his highlights, combined with technical and writing sharpness that far exceed Columbus' direction in doing justice to worthy subject matter, make a film that is smoothly well-paced fun, as well as well-rounded enough to be mighty compelling as a character piece, whose engagement value can be made or broken by the performances within a solid ensemble cast. Acting material is limited to begin with in this mostly fluffy affair, and Columbus, as a mediocre filmmaker, doesn't help with his drawing some underwhelming, maybe even weak supporting performances (Man, Harry Melling couldn't have been dismissed from the film soon enough), but on the whole, the performers do what they can, and I'm not only talking about the respectable adult ones, as leads Rupert Grint, Emma Watson and, of course, Daniel Radcliffe, share dynamite chemistry to sell an iconic trio, while individually delivering on distinguished charisma which endears you to Ron Weasley, Hermione Granger and, most of all, the titular Harry Potter. As I said earlier, Potter isn't an especially interesting character, but Radcliffe's grounded charm brings the role to life as a worthy audience avatar audience and lead, which isn't to say that the young Radcliffe's performance is the only element of this film of limited consequence that goes well beyond expectations, because no matter how thin the story concept and direction may be in this film, there's enough inspiration to the execution of this film to drive the final product beyond its limitations as a truly rewarding family pseudo-epic.

Overall, there's a certain thinness to this fluffy story concept that is so stressed by uneven character development, cheesy spots and often aimlessly uneven pacing that the final product comes startlingly close to descending into an underwhelmingness that is almost, if you will, magically overcome by soaring scoring by John Williams, solid art direction and effects, colorful and extensively well-rounded writing, and endearing performances, - particularly by young leads Rupert Grint, Emma Watson and Daniel Radcliffe - which prove to be enough to make "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone", or rather, "the Philosopher's Stone" (Ignorant American children, with your disputing of philosophy) not simply fun or memorable, but mighty compelling as a particularly well-done family affair, and worthy starter to a classic saga.

3/5 - Good.