Harry Potter

reviewed by: ReelReviewz@aol.com

BIASES: mid 20s black male; frustrated screenwriter who favors action, comedy, and glossy, big budget movies over indie flicks, kiddie flicks, and weepy Merchant Ivory fare

A movie like "Harry Potter" is wasted on me. Didn't read the book, not a big kiddie flick fan, and cannot STAND being in a theater full of chatty, prepubescent child-things. As an author myself, I can respect that the movie stayed pretty close to the book (so I'm told). But, in doing so, the filmmakers made "Harry Potter" a movie experience only for those who have read the book, are easily wowed by special effects or, even worse, have yet to kiss a girl.

The sprawling, two and a half hour movie starts off with baby Harry being dropped off by wizards to a Muggle (non-magical) family. Spirited away from his emotionally abusive family to the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry years later, Harry (Radcliffe) embarks on the journey of becoming a powerful wizard. Befriending the likable, quippy Ron Weasley (Grint) and the brainy, straitlaced Hermione Granger (Watson), Harry has a crew with which to experience many different adventures as they learn how to harness their special powers. Staying true to the book, there are episodes with trolls, unicorn blood, Quidditch, an invisibility cloak, and a mirror that shows a reflection of your deepest desires, all the while Harry and company try to figure out what the antagonistic Professor Snape (Rickman) is up to with the Sorcerer's Stone.

But what is this movie up to? It's not much of an exercise to critique the acting of the three child leads in this film, however fine their performances are (Emma Watson's initially perfectionist Hermione is a joy to watch), but special attention must be paid to Daniel Radcliffe. As Harry (and the result of a Britain-wide casting search), Radcliffe's performance is not as exciting or wondrous as that of his screen buddies Ron and Hermione. It feels as if he's playing the straight man throughout even though his character's name IS the marquee. In quite a mannerly, British sort of way, Radcliffe never quite cuts Harry - and the true childlike glee of this film - loose.

It's not for lack of trying, though. Accompanied by dazzling set direction, a capable if not sometimes distracting musical score (that runs the entire length of the movie, almost), and decent special effects, it's easy to see why the movie cost $125 million - and why kids will have it earn back its budget in the first two weekends. There is enough action to keep the short attention spans of its target audience, but the most visually exciting part isn't until the Quidditch match in the middle, a wizardly sport that's a mix of football, and hockey - on flying broomsticks. This centerpiece scene wakes you up with its sense of speed and fluidity, much like the pod race in "Star Wars: Episode I."

But, for the most part, this movie is an insider's dream and an outsider's bore. Maybe I need to read the book, have a kid, just do SOMETHING that can make me a little more accessible to this overhyped universe of the film, because the movie itself isn't enough. Maybe I'm just a playa-hatin' Muggle but the "magic" of this carefully designed world from the novels of J.K. Rowling and the direction of Chris Columbus is lost on me. Or, maybe it's simply because I'm too old - I've kissed a girl.

@@@ REELS (THREE REELS)
It's pretty hot - go give it a shot.
Like what you read? Agree/disagree with The Reel Deal?
Think he's talkin' out his...HUSH YO' MOUF! (I'm only talkin' about The Reel Deal!) Email him at ReelReviewz@aol.com!
© 2001, THE REEL DEAL

*****THE REEL DEAL: Reviewz from the Street*****
BIASES: mid 20s black male; frustrated screenwriter who favors action, comedy, and glossy, big budget movies over indie flicks, kiddie flicks, and weepy Merchant Ivory fare
Missed a review?
Support those that support THE REEL DEAL - check out all reviews at HBCUnetwork.com!