Harry Potter review
by Ishmael Williams

I wasn't going to write one. Really. I figured it would be over-reviewed. But then Mr. Tim Wick wondered how the movie would fair with someone who never read the book.

Well, I didn't read the book. Ran out of time. I did get through Chapter One. And the book mirrored Chapter one very well. After that, I was in what was for me uncharted territory.

Let's get right to it though. I liked this movie a whole lot. There was humor, drama, fun and the wonder of magic. For the other 1 or 2 people who have not read the book nor seen the movie, Harry Potter, the only member of his family to have faced an evil wizard and lived to tell the tale, is left for relatives to care for. From there he attends a school for wizards, and adventures ensue. And that's all you get.

As Tim noted, Daniel Radcliffe does a great job as the title character. He seems genuinely to be awed by the wonders around him, whether his own abilities or the abilities of others. He is likeable, and quite often, real. True, he is no Haley Joel Osment, but let's be fair - Haley Joel had some significant meat with which to work. For what he has to work, Daniel carries himself well.

As do the other children in the main cast, particularly those who are his best friends. Each of them has a distinct personality, and each is given a moment of greatness and brilliance that I never once questioned or disbelieved. It's great to see children act with a natural grace and talent, which I think these kids did.

Let's not short the adults. They came across as credibly as the kids, and it was terrific to see them be neither over-bearing pompous human beings, or foppish foils for the children's cleverness. One wonders, when hearing of a gifted child, who really has the gifts: the child, or those elders who handle the child well. These children are surrounded by adults more gifted than they, by virtue of wisdom and experience, and yet they are never made to feel belittled. These grown-ups are good. There are two real treats: Robbie Coltrane who plays the groundskeeper, does, as Tim notes, steal just about every scene in which he finds himself. He has a line of dialogue that basically becomes a mantra that we in the theater were reciting with a smile by movie's end.

And then there is Alan Rickman. There always seems to be Alan Rickman. And sometimes just saying the name is enough. What is it about Alan Rickman that can make him tell you all about his character with a look, a raised eyebrow, the delivery of sentence? I believe he shines in this role. I AM biased, as I've enjoyed his work since DieHard, but here he seems particularly as good.

Alan Rickman.

The movie clocks along at somewhere around two hours and thirty minutes, or so. It's a long one. And here is the one drawback I found. I loved the sense of wonder in the opening scenes. But it didn't seem to be maintained. Too soon, what was extraordinary became ordinary, and while fun to watch, lost the ability to make me go "Wow!" I smiled, I laughed, I loved what I saw, but it became so much after a while that I simply wasn't "wow able" any longer. Just an enjoyable film, that fell back on Hollywood's tried method of little things we see early in the film become of some import late in the film. Would that we could have gone in a different direction than this. It didn't leave me cold, but it did leave me no longer on the edge with awe.

But, I did really enjoy the film. I can't imagine what I may have missed by not having read the book. The story flowed and didn't leave me wondering about too much. Maybe the odd thing here and there (how DID that happen?). I may one day read the book, just to fill in the details that people seem to think need to be filled in. But the movie I thought was fairly complete unto itself.

Let's give it the four beakers, and all go have a good time.

Harry Potter

Four Beakers
(out of five)

Search This Site