The beauty with Victoria Alexander's reviews is that you can find so much to love in her style of writing. Even if she agrees with the general consensus of critics about how good a movie is, you can tell she approaches movies through different eyes. She focuses on things other critics fail to mention. Her reviews read as if she were an 11-year-old with an upbringing in the occult. So what better film to introduce her with than Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone?
In short: It’s way too long, there’s no story, no logic, no villain, all the supporting characters are more interesting than Potter, and I learned nothing about being a wizard.
Ah, Harry Potter. By now, everyone is familiar with the name and fame. Even in 2002, when this review was written, Harry Potter Mania was in full swing. She warns us that she has not read the book, and is judging solely on the movie. Maybe I'm confusing the book with the movie, but I'm pretty sure I remembered there being a story. Alexander does her best to try to make sense out of the plot. She gets that Harry Potter lives with his non-magical relatives.
He lives under the stairs in a cupboard. He’s their servant. He has never showed the slightest inclination to be a wizard and they are certainly not in fear or awe of him. His fat cousin Dudley mistreats him.
So far, no story or logic there. But if I remember the books, I think there may have been a villain, besides his villainous relatives. If only I could remember his name...
The giant Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) tells Harry that his parents were very powerful wizards who were murdered by an evil wizard called “He Who Must Not Be Named.”
Oh, right. "He Who Must Not Be Named" was the bad guy. Alexander may have gotten tripped up by the fact that the other wizards are too scared to refer to Lord Voldemort by name, and thought this meant there was no villain, since no one talked about him.
Regrettably, great villain actor Alan Rickman (DIE HARD) is under used as Professor Snape, a faux-villain here.
How could Chris Columbus be so stupid in making this film? Make Snape the main villain! You've got Rickman right there! Use him!
While criticisms will do nothing to assuage the Potter juggernaut, nevertheless I will place blame on Chris Columbus and screenwriter Steve Kloves.
Maybe she was trying to impress us with that "nevertheless." Or maybe it was just to make her sentence ungrammatically correct. But at least she's attacking the true manglers of this film.
As director of HOME ALONE, HOME ALONE 2: LOST IN NEW YORK, STEPMOM, NINE MONTHS and MRS. DOUBTFIRE, Columbus delivered the Harry Potter I expected. It’s a lukewarm babysitting year at Hogwarts.
It's important that you remember Columbus's previous films. There will be a test afterwards. "Lukewarm," I kind of get. "Babysitting?" Maybe that's because the audience spent most of the film watching kids. See what I did there?
The world of wizardry is pretty tame. There are no daring exploits of kids trying to out-spell each other or falling victim to angry spirits, demons, or mythical creatures of folklore.
Yeah, we didn't get the TRUE wizard experience. Harry Potter needs more demons! Take that, Christian fundamentalists! The only magical creatures this movie had were unicorns, centaurs, trolls, a Cerberus, enchanted statues, ghosts, and a cloaked demonic villain. :( I wanted mythical creatures of folklore! Maybe Alexander just missed all of these creatures...
A glimpse of a dead unicorn, a wise centaurs, and a caped creature is all we get.
Well, she caught a few, but those certainly do not count. Now, I don't want to spoil the movie but...
There is a game of wizard chess and somehow Harry gets the well-guarded sorcerer’s stone.
I kind of like how these two ideas are lumped together in one sentence. It's like CliffsNotes for Harry Potter. Final thoughts, Miss Alexander?
I’m left with realizing that the cinematic Harry Potter will indeed go right back under the stairs.
Touche, Victoria. Touche.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment