Little Women (2019)

Based on the classic novel by Louisa May Alcott, this film tells the story of the four March sisters growing up in Concord, Massachusetts in the middle of the nineteenth century. Loved by generations since its publication, the book has been the subject of several adaptations already, but I think this is definitely one of the better ones.

The four girls, Meg (Emma Watson), Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Amy (Florence Pugh) and Beth (Eliza Scanlen) live a simple life with their mother (Laura Dern) - who goes by Marmee to everyone. Their nearest neighbour is wealthy Mr Laurence (Chris Cooper) who has recently taken in his grandson Theodore (Timothée Chalamet).

I probably don’t know if I need to go into plot description much for this film, as I’m sure most of you have either read the book, had it read to you, or know someone who falls into one of these two other categories. The book has basically been an unwritten required reading for all young women at one stage or another, and the previous adaptations mean that even for those who haven’t (yet) read the book, the story has come into general consciousness - the zeitgeist if you will.

There are a few things I wish to say about this particular version, however. Firstly, the order of events has been modified somewhat. The book - and the story therein - takes place in two distinct times, separated by about seven years. This film - rather than showing the events chronologically, as the book and previous adaptations have done - jumps back and forth between these two times in a very clever way, highlighting significant plot points exceptionally well.

Jo (Saoirse Ronan).

It also allows for events that ‘go together’ - for want of a better term - to occur side by side, making some of the story easier to follow.

But the best result of this method of storytelling is the directing of the viewer’s emotional journey through the story. Cleverly presenting the story as a series of moments, which at its heart, is precisely what the book tries to do, makes this the closest adaptation to what I believe is Alcott’s original intention.

The screenplay, written by director Greta Gerwig, is above all, faithful to the original source material. As already mentioned, various events take place out of sequence - at least as far as chronology is concerned - but everything readers know and love from the book is in there, brilliantly brought to life by the writing just as much as the performances.

Meg (Emma Watson).

Speaking of performances, the entire cast are brilliant. Standouts include Ronan and Pugh, but in an ensemble piece such as this, it is near-impossible to single out these two while ignoring the rest. The simple fact is, everyone in this film has captured the personality of their own character so well, it feels like the characters have leapt straight from the pages of the book onto the screen in front of your eyes.

A more-than-honourable mention must also go to Meryl Streep, whose portrayal of Aunt March is by far the best I have seen on screen. Her comic timing, delivery, and wonderfully expressive eyes, establish her strongly as one of the greatest characters of this film.

It pains me to say this - given the previous projects of composer Alexandre Desplat - but the film does feel a little overscored. The music is fantastic - don’t get me wrong - as one might expect, but there are certainly moments in the film that could have benefited from a little more silence. The majority of the score consists purely of solo piano - which should come as no surprise to fans of the book - and it is certainly well-composed and well-realised.

Theodore (Timothée Chalamet) and Amy (Florence Pugh).

Jess Gonchor’s production design is an absolute delight. Every single set and location have been meticulously and painstakingly designed to capture not only the world of the story - and book - but also to convey enormous amounts of character information.

The same is true of the costumes, designed by Jacqueline Durran. Each and every outfit has been not only researched to be historically and culturally accurate, but also to represent the individual personalities of the character therein.

Director Greta Gerwig has made an absolutely beautiful film here. No matter how many times you have read the book, or how many other versions you have seen before, absolutely nothing can prepare you for what happens (you’ll know what I mean), and this is an indicator of just how swept up in the story you will be. You may not need to see it on the big screen, but you definitely do need to see it - it is truly an exceptional film that has almost everything going for it.

9 out of 10.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

It's time for the next instalment in the Harry Potter franchise, based on the novels of J. K. Rowling following the adventures of the young wizard as he continues to make his way through Hogwarts, the wizarding school.

Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is back at school for his third year of studies, with his two best friends Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson).

But of course, nothing for Harry is ever easy, and this year, he is a boy in great danger. Notorious criminal Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) has escaped from the wizard prison Azkaban, and is believed to be coming after Harry, whom he blames for the death of his old master, Voldemort. (At least that is how the story appears for most of the film).

Of course, as with every other year, there is a new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher. This year, it is Remus Lupin (David Thewlis) who, as it turns out, went to school with Harry's parents. He takes a real shining to Harry, and the two become quite close, especially as Harry seems to be showing great aptitude in this class.

There is another new teacher, or rather, a new class that the students are taking. It is Divination, taught by the incredibly eccentric Professor Sybil Trelawney (Emma Thompson).

Even Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) is a teacher this year, teaching the Care of Magical Creatures class, a class it seems he was born to teach.

In order to protect the students at the school from any attacks by Sirius Black, the guards of Azkaban prison, strange spectral beings called Dementors, have been posted around the grounds to keep watch. But one wonders who they really answer to when they enter the grounds - against the wishes of headmaster Professor Albus Dumbledore (Michael Gambon).

The screenplay, again written by Steve Kloves, who also adapted the first two films in the series, is a relatively decent adaptation of the book on which it is based. A large number of cuts were made, from what some readers feel were significant moments of plot and/or character, but which still seem to work nonetheless. Of course, one must remember that a book and a film are quite separate entities, and any adaptation from one medium to the other is bound to be fraught with difficulty in some parts.

Under the direction of Alfonso Cuarón, this film feels very different from the previous two films. In fact, it feels very different from every other film in the series, and not necessarily in a good way. Cuarón has the students in normal 'Muggle' clothing rather than their traditional wizarding robes, and there are a lot of personal touches he brings to the film that make it feel very 'un-Potter-like', at least as far as all the other films in the series go.

Adding to this different feel is a new actor playing the role of headmaster Albus Dumbledore. Of course, this was a necessity, as Richard Harris, who played the role in the first two films, had tragically passed away before the second film was released (though obviously after it had been filmed). Gambon does his best to bring the role to life, but sadly, I don't think he does it as well as Harris did. For me, Richard Harris will always be Dumbledore, whereas Gambon will only ever be someone who tried to fill those shoes and sadly fell short.

There are some interesting turns of events in the final third of the film, as a time-travel subplot comes into play. As with any film that deals with the very concept of time travel, there are many interesting points that appear earlier in the film and reappear in a different timeline from a different viewpoint and make sense in a different way. This may seem like a very convoluted sentence that doesn't make a lot of sense, but if you've seen the film, you will know what I mean. And if you haven't seen the film, then hopefully it won't spoil it for you.

Aside from the change of director, the majority of the crew are the same as they have been for the previous two films. So, we get a very similar feel from Stuart Craig's production design, that at least tries to tie this into the series, and place it right between parts two and four seamlessly.

John Williams's score has echoes of his previous work on the two earlier films, yet has enough new themes and motifs to be considered a new project. Naturally, as with anything he writes, his score here is perfect.

But I don't think these things alone are enough to redeem this film. Cuarón may be an incredibly gifted director, but in my opinion, his involvement has actually ruined what could have been a much better film in the hands of another director.

6 out of 10.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)

The tale of the boy wizard continues in the second film based on J. K. Rowling's best-selling series of books.

Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is back at Hogwarts School with best friends Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson).

But this year, a new threat lies in wait for the trio. It appears someone has opened the fabled Chamber of Secrets, and released a monster on the school, and several students and staff have become petrified (as in frozen, not as in scared).

The worst thing is, as far as most people are concerned, Harry is the prime suspect. He and his friends must not only clear his name, but also find the real culprit and even - if they can - help those who have been petrified return to their normal state.

It really is wonderful to follow Harry and his friends for their second year of wizarding school. The main trio have grown significantly in their abilities, not just their characters’ abilities, but in their own acting abilities.

Screenwriter Steve Kloves again returns, and has done an incredible job of adapting this, the second book in the series, to the screen. The book does lend itself quite well to a film adaptation, nonetheless Kloves has done an amazing job yet again.

The cast as I mentioned are all fantastic, in particular newcomer to the series Kenneth Branagh as new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher and egotistical celebrity author Gilderoy Lockhart.

Sadly, this film marked Richard Harris's final performance as headmaster Albus Dumbledore, as he passed away shortly after filming, but before the film's release.

Production designer Stuart Craig returns as well, and again has done a great job bringing Rowling's wizarding world to the screen. Coupled with magnificent visual effects, everything on screen is just perfect, and so reminiscent of the beauty of the books.

Composer John Williams has outdone even himself with the score, expanding on his existing themes from the first film here, and creating something that remains connected to the first film but also stands on its own as a unique entry into the world of cinema.

Chris Columbus, who had also directed the first installment, returns for this one, again bringing a real unity to these first two films, something which wouldn't really happen again in this series until much later. He has a real gift in directing the younger members of the cast, and his love for the source material shines through in every scene.

I really enjoyed watching this again in order to write this review, and will no doubt be watching it again soon.

7 out of 10.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001)

Based on the worldwide bestseller that started a phenomenon, this film is a true delight, and a joy to review.

Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) lives with his aunt and uncle and cousin. They keep him in the cupboard under the stairs, and mistreat him constantly.

On the evening of his 11th birthday, a strange visitor - a incredibly large man named Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) - tells Harry that he is a wizard, and he has been accepted to study at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.

Upon arriving at school, Harry learns there is so much more to his life than he ever knew. Not only does he come from a well-known wizarding family, he himself is famous as “the boy who lived”, the boy who defeated one of the most powerful dark wizards ever - Voldemort, or He Who Must Not Be Named - as a baby.

There is much for Harry to learn in his first year: the rules and gameplay of wizarding sport Quidditch, at which he is a natural of course, dealing with difficult teachers such as Potions master Professor Snape (Alan Rickman), and most importantly, the value of his two closest friends, Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson).

One of the first things I must say about this film is that the casting is absolutely fabulous. This (and indeed the future films in the series) is a veritable ‘who’s who’ of British acting greats. Be it Richard Harris as Dumbledore (later replaced when he sadly passed away after the second film), Maggie Smith as Professor McGonagall, Zoë Wanamaker as Madam Hooch (the flying instructor), or any of the rest of the cast, there are some amazing performances here. (Obviously, I will be reviewing the remaining films in the franchise, keep reading in coming months for those).

Another point I want to make is the quality of the adaptation. Screenwriter Steve Kloves has done an incredible job of translating J. K. Rowling’s novel to the screen. Almost everything that happens in the book happens in the film. It does help that the first book in the series is rather short, and apparently simple (though fans will know by now there was a lot more going on in that book than we knew at the time!), and doesn’t have a lot of complex subplots as later books did.

The score by John Williams is absolutely magical, no pun intended. Of course, any score by John Williams is bound to be good. One only has to look to the later films (and even the later Fantastic Beasts franchise) and hear Williams’s themes and leitmotifs used and re-used to know just how iconic and brilliant they are.

Director Chris Columbus has made a truly magnificent film here. Columbus works especially well with young and/or inexperienced actors, and has been able to bring out the best in his young cast particularly. He would go on to direct the second film in the series as well, before pulling out to make room for other directors, in order to spend more time with his own growing children.

I realise that in the United States, this film was released with the title ‘Harry Potter and the Sorceror’s Stone’, but as any sensible person would realise (particularly by now, with all the books and films finished), the Philosopher’s Stone is an actual verifiable part of alchemical history and a vital element of this book/film and indeed later parts of the series, while the Sorceror’s Stone is nothing, and refers to nothing.

This may not have been the best film in the series, but by being the first, it was our first introduction to Harry Potter and his adventures, and as such, is a very special and important part of the series.

8 1/2 out of 10.