It all seems like so long ago. I think I started reading Harry Potter in 1998 or 1999, I was at school and it was only by chance that I started reading them. At the time The books pretty much mirrored my age and as I grew up it did so in a pretty accurate manner. By the time the first film came out, I was in my first or second year of Secondary School, so basically still the same age as the characters. As such I've always had a sort of fondness for Harry Potter, because I feel as though the series has grown up as I have. It was an absolute joy to rediscover some of the lighter sides to JK Rowling's inventiveness; whether it was inventing an entire wizarding sport, the paintings that move around, the chocolate frogs that actually jump around or any number of other whimsical things, it really captured my imagination as a kid (as it did many other children).
The film was the second time I'd seen Daniel Radcliffe act, the first being a Dickens adaptation on TV (David Copperfield perhaps?) so in that respect he was pretty famous as far as kids my age go. I actually don't think he's as bad as some people have made out in this film. I think he shows genuine enthusiasm for the role and perhaps because he is as overwhelmed by the events of a major Hollywood film as Harry is of a school for witchcraft and wizardry, or perhaps just a wonder that he was chosen to play the boy who lived. Rupert Grint and Emma Watson are also better here than they are given credit for, and I actually think that it was during the middle films where their performances perhaps slipped a little.
Having not read the book or seen the film for a good 5/6 years or more I could only really half remember the story, but started remembering it as it went along. There are a few things that are almost shocking when revisiting this film. To begin with you get the reminder that Michael Gambon wasn't the first choice for Dumbledore (despite him being so perfect for the role). Instead we get Richard Harris who plays the role as a much more externally fragile, but incredibly clever and thoughtful man. It is absolutely fine, and I think that had he lived to complete the series he would have made a fine Dumbledore in the later films when he gets more involved in matters. Next is the shock of the colours! In the later Harry Potter films, well probably everything from 4 onward, everything is very dark and troublesome, but in the earlier films the characters are still so full of joy and hope, being children. The house colours are prominent throughout, and the whole pallet of the film is just one of brightness and optimism. It being aimed mostly at children this is again, absolutely fine. The final shock is simply how young they all look, but just a year later, it's all changed.
The story is just fine, everything ties into itself nicely, whether it's the chess game Harry and Ron are playing at Dinner or Hermione's natural ability to learn linking in to the final challenges of the film, nothing feels out of place or forced. This is a kids film though, and it definitely feels like one. It's sometimes a little too cheesy or panto for my liking, whether it's Harry's grin, or Hagrid constantly letting slip things he shouldn't, these are moments aimed at people who were me 11 years ago, but not so much me now. Although, it could just be because I'm the perfect age group for Harry Potter the first time round, but the film was an absolute joy, brought back loads of nice memories and blew by in no time. Well worth a watch with your kids, hopefully they'll love it like I did when I was a lad.
No comments:
Post a Comment