Considering how bad Harry Potter could have been, it is a magnificent film.
But assessed without gratitude, it's just....flat. Lackluster, despite sterling characterizations and usually outstanding visual effects.
Columbus is still hampered by his usual weakness: he has no ability to create a genuine emotional impact. Harry's isolation and aching loneliness is completely ignored; for all the time wasted on the Muggle family, never once did I feel what it really would have been like for Harry to live in such a hellhole. Hermione's predicament, that of a brilliant girl who won't throttle back on her genius but still feels her alienation keenly, is barely mentioned. The film references Harry's notoriety, but never demonstrates the combination of fear and awe that everyone evinced upon meeting Harry, and the confusion this caused the poor kid.
Bizarre priorities are set. The film spends some ten minutes on marginally humorous owl deliveries, then barely mentions the content of the letter that changed Harry's life. We never find out exactly how the bad guy stole a person's body, while a centaur gets a good five minute dialog with no plot significance--but boy, he sure do look pretty.
At the same time, the devotion to the story seems slavish, which is why the bad decisions mentioned (and others) are so irritating. At times I was sitting there thinking "now we'll see the boats" or "now we'll get our quidditch lesson" and everything was by the numbers predictable. Then I'd be irritated because Mrs. Weasely was short-shrifted, or the whole House Cup concept was ignored except when convenient.
It was all more than a tad forced. I understand why, of course. They had two overarching priorities: devotion to the canon and visual effects that would meet and exceed the imaginations of the devotees. It is the knowledge of the near impossible task it would be to create a glowing, enchanting film that tells the tale without hindrance from these priorities that keeps me from cavilling too loudly at its failures.
And the performances do make up for a great deal. Richard Harris is a quiet Dumbledore, who doesn't quite have the feel of a schoolmaster but is sweet enough. Maggie Smith is a tart and note perfect McGonnigal, and I was happy to see her discovery of Potter's Snitch capabilities left in and not given to a male teacher. I knew Rickman would be cast as Snape from the moment I read the first book, but I expected a bit more....sinuousness. He was geekier than I expected. The kids are all fine, although Radcliffe has far too many reaction shots and doesn't communicate the awed joy that Harry would have felt at the radical life transformation he received. I am still mulling over Emma Wood as Hermione; she seemed too aware of her performance. Ron Weasely was exactly right; one of the better child comic performances I've seen in a while.
But it is Robbie Coltrane's glorious turn as Hagrid who finds the right note of comic sensibility and emotional connection that makes me feel the loss of what could have been most keenly. Had Columbus set the film's tone by following Coltrane's lead, I would have forgiven many of the story decisions.
WB, Columbus, and screenwriter Kloves deserve kudos for realizing that tender concern for the source would earn them the billions that would never show up if they oversimplified and dumbed it down in the usual Hollywood treatment of book adaptations. If I don't care for the results, it's not because they went for the easy business buck and that's certainly something to celebrate.
