Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, John Cleese, Robbie Coltrane, Warwick Davis, Richard Griffiths, Richard Harris, Ian Hart, John Hurt, Alan Rickman, Fiona Shaw, Maggie Smith, Julie Walters
Written by: Steve Kloves, based on the book by J.K. Rowling
Directed by: Chris Columbus, Date: 2001
When I approached reading the first Harry Potter novel last year, I was skeptical. How could something that sold so well be any good? Wouldn't it be dumbed-down, shooting for the lowest common denominator? But, lo and behold, I loved it. Author J.K. Rowling managed to combine humor, suspense, strongly detailed characters, sustained mystery, and layers of good and evil in her so-called children's books. I devoured the next two books in the series and waited breathlessly for the famous fourth book to arrive.
Now, however, I approached Chris Columbus' movie adaptation with twice the skepticism. Wouldn't the film betray everything the books stood for? These books caused children to read again, to use their imaginations and make pictures in their mind's eye. The movie would spell everything out and douse that little spark before it could turn into a flame.
Not to mention that Columbus is not the most talented or subtle filmmaker on the planet. In fact, I've always suspected that Columbus himself dabbled in the black arts. How else could such awful, bludgeoning, insulting films as Home Alone, Home Alone 2 and Mrs. Doubtfire bring in such huge box office returns?
My hopes were buoyed some when I learned that screenwriter Steve Kloves had adapted Rowling's book. Kloves wrote one of last year's best scripts when he adapted Michael Chabon's Wonder Boys for director Curtis Hanson.
In the end, hope won out over skepticism. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone turns out to be a delightful entertainment.
Briefly, the plot (for the small percentage who don't know) involves Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), the orphan son of deceased wizards, who is raised by his horrible aunt and uncle before being whisked away to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry on his 11th birthday. There he meets his new best friends Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), joins the Quidditch team, learns some magic spells, and saves the world by protecting the Sorcerer's Stone from the evil Voldemort (or, he-who-must-not-be-named).
Fans will be relieved to know that Kloves and Columbus stick very closely to Rowling's novel, going so far as to release a two-and-a-half hour film. Despite the extra time however, many delicious details are still excised, such as Harry's pet owl Hedwig, who plays an important part in the book and even has her own personality. She appears briefly in the film, but she doesn't even have a name. Likewise, the rivalry with the snide Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) gets less time in the film.
For fans of the book, Harry's first Quidditch match clocks in as the high point of the film. Rowling did her best to describe the complicated game in the book, but the film justifies itself by outdoing even Rowling's prose. Using every filmic trick he ever learned from Steven Spielberg, Columbus delivers a dazzling match, with zipping and zooming bludgers and quaffles, and dipping and diving Chasers, Beaters and Keepers.
However, for those who haven't read the book, the Quidditch game seems unconnected to anything else in the film. In the book, Harry plays several Quidditch games, each meant to help elevate his self-worth and to continue in the competition between the four houses of Hogwarts (Harry and his crew belong to Griffindor, which competes with the slightly evil Slythern house). But in the film, the one Quidditch game plays like the Pod race in The Phantom Menace, a gratuitous action scene meant to help sell video games.
Columbus scores extra points with the casting of young Daniel Radcliffe (last seen in John Boorman's The Tailor of Panama) who makes a dashing Harry. He brings just the right amount of disheveled loneliness that comes from being a mistreated orphan, a wide-eyed disbelief and a newcomer's heroism. (Even if the celluloid Harry seems slightly passive compared to the print Harry.) I only worry that Radcliffe will age too fast to star in all seven Harry Potters and will have to be replaced at some point.
The rest of the cast -- including Maggie Smith, John Cleese, Fiona Shaw, Richard Harris, John Hurt and Ian Hart -- shines. But I'd like to single out great performances by Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid and Alan Rickman as Professor Snape, who, amidst the sound and fury, manage a few delicious line readings between them.
Columbus drops the ball towards the film's end with some horribly overcooked dialogue and a sledgehammer music score that blares like an unmuffled hot rod engine. This score, by John Williams, doesn't come anywhere near his memorable, adrenaline boosting scores for the Jaws, Star Wars, Superman or Raiders of the Lost Ark adventures. Its overuse on the soundtrack is the film's biggest flaw.
While Columbus blunders forth in the same measured pace for both quiet and action scenes, he still manages to capture the book's spell, which hinges on the fact that no matter how worthless one might feel, we all have special powers within ourselves, and everything could be changed in a heartbeat by a magic letter arriving via owl post. A more subtle or imaginative director (Joe Dante? Terry Gilliam? Tim Burton?) might have elevated the film to greatness, but Kloves and Columbus pull a highly entertaining movie from their silk hat when I was sure that it was empty.
''Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" is a red-blooded adventure movie, dripping with atmosphere, filled with the gruesome and the sublime, and surprisingly faithful to the novel. A lot of things could have gone wrong, and none of them have: Chris Columbus' movie is an enchanting classic that does full justice to a story that was a daunting challenge. The novel by J.K. Rowling was muscular and vivid, and the danger was that the movie would make things too cute and cuddly. It doesn't. Like an "Indiana Jones" for younger viewers, it tells a rip-roaring tale of supernatural adventure, where colorful and eccentric characters alternate with scary stuff like a three-headed dog, a pit of tendrils known as the Devil's Snare and a two-faced immortal who drinks unicorn blood. Scary, yes, but not too scary--just scary enough.
Three high-spirited, clear-eyed kids populate the center of the movie. Daniel Radcliffe plays Harry Potter, he with the round glasses, and like all of the young characters he looks much as I imagined him, but a little older. He once played David Copperfield on the BBC, and whether Harry will be the hero of his own life in this story is much in doubt at the beginning.
Deposited as a foundling on a suburban doorstep, Harry is raised by his aunt and uncle as a poor relation, then summoned by a blizzard of letters to become a student at Hogwarts School, an Oxbridge for magicians. Our first glimpse of Hogwarts sets the tone for the movie's special effects. Although computers can make anything look realistic, too much realism would be the wrong choice for "Harry Potter," which is a story in which everything, including the sets and locations, should look a little made up. The school, rising on ominous Gothic battlements from a moonlit lake, looks about as real as Xanadu in "Citizen Kane," and its corridors, cellars and great hall, although in some cases making use of real buildings, continue the feeling of an atmospheric book illustration. At Hogwarts, Harry makes two friends and an enemy. The friends are Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), whose merry face and tangled curls give Harry nudges in the direction of lightening up a little, and Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint), all pluck, luck and untamed talents. The enemy is Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton), who will do anything, and plenty besides, to be sure his house places first at the end of the year.
The story you either already know, or do not want to know. What is good to know is that the adult cast, a who's who of British actors, play their roles more or less as if they believed them. There is a broad style of British acting, developed in Christmas pantomimes, which would have been fatal to this material; these actors know that, and dial down to just this side of too much. Watch Alan Rickman drawing out his words until they seem ready to snap, yet somehow staying in character. Maggie Smith, still in the prime of Miss Jean Brodie, is Prof. Minerva McGonagall, who assigns newcomers like Harry to one of the school's four houses. Richard Harris is headmaster Dumbledore, his beard so long that in an Edward Lear poem, birds would nest in it. Robbie Coltrane is the gamekeeper, Hagrid, who has a record of misbehavior and a way of saying very important things and then not believing that he said them.
Computers are used, exuberantly, to create a plausible look in the gravity-defying action scenes. Readers of the book will wonder how the movie visualizes the crucial game of Quidditch. The game, like so much else in the movie, is more or less as I visualized it, and I was reminded of Stephen King's theory that writers practice a form of telepathy, placing ideas and images in the heads of their readers. (The reason some movies don't look like their books may be that some producers don't read them.) If Quidditch is a virtuoso sequence, there are other set pieces of almost equal wizardry. A chess game with life-size, deadly pieces. A room filled with flying keys. The pit of tendrils, already mentioned, and a dark forest where a loathsome creature threatens Harry but is scared away by a centaur. And the dark shadows of Hogwarts library, cellars, hidden passages and dungeons, where an invisibility cloak can keep you out of sight but not out of trouble.
During "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," I was pretty sure I was watching a classic, one that will be around for a long time, and make many generations of fans. It takes the time to be good. It doesn't hammer the audience with easy thrills, but cares to tell a story, and to create its characters carefully. Like "The Wizard of Oz," "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory," "Star Wars" and "E.T.," it isn't just a movie but a world with its own magical rules. And some excellent Quidditch players.
The Harry Potter phenomenon - and make no mistake, it is a phenomenon - is unlike anything we have seen in recent history. Rather than being the result of clever marketing and hucksterism, Harry Potter's popularity began at the grass roots level. And, what's more, this craze is not derived from a movie, video game, or television series, but from one of the oldest forms of mass-market entertainment: a book. Of course, now that the cat's out of the bag, the marketing has begun in earnest. There are Harry Potter lunch boxes, trading cards, toys, wrapping paper, etc. But it's important to remember that these things followed the phenomenon, they didn't drive it.
Much has been written about why Harry Potter is so popular with readers of all ages. While this analysis is fine, all you really have to do is read a few chapters of any of the Harry Potter novels, and you'll understand the appeal. Author J.K. Rowling has developed an intensely likable hero and put his adventures on paper with a free-and-easy style that mixes high adventure with light drama and low-key comedy. The books manage to walk the literary tightrope of never taking themselves too seriously while avoiding the easy pitfall of self-parody. That tone is what Chris Columbus' motion picture adaptation strives for, and, for the most part, achieves.
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is unquestionably a member of the fantasy genre. However, while the majority of fantasy novels strike a tone that straddles the somber and the ominous, Rowling keeps it light, falling somewhere between that of David Eddings' Belgariad and Piers Anthony's A Spell for Chameleon. Harry Potter's most apparent antecedents are J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit (which is written in a much lighter style than The Lord of the Rings), C.S. Lewis' The Chronicles of Narnia, and Lloyd Alexander's The Chronicles of Prydain. Like Harry Potter, those books find their most enthusiastic supporters in the bracket of ages 10 to 15, but feature enough character development, plot, and thematic content to attract an older audience. Yet, in large part because of its contemporary setting, Harry Potter's popularity has greatly outstripped those of its predecessors. And to call the Harry Potter novels "children's books" is to underestimate them. The only people who apparently do not like the stories are the religious fundamentalists, some of whom are leveling the same charges at Harry Potter fans that they accused Dungeons and Dragons players of 20 years ago.
After the Harry Potter novels became a huge international success, the one-word question regarding the movie adaptation became "when?" not "if?" Initial reports indicated that Steven Spielberg would direct Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, but, for whatever reason (and there are about a hundred rumors flying around), Spielberg backed out, leaving the door open for Chris Columbus, the crowd-pleasing filmmaker who was behind the camera for Mrs. Doubtfire and Home Alone (as well as, lest we forget, Stepmom and Bicentennial Man). At the outset, Columbus and Harry might not seem to be the best match, but, with Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, Columbus proves at least one thing - he can make the story accessible both to those who are familiar with the source (probably the majority of those who will see the film, at least in its theatrical release) and those who aren't. Columbus will also direct the second Harry Potter movie; current rumor claims that Spielberg wants to do the third.
The movie opens in modern-day England, on the small rural lane of Pivet Drive, where 11-year old Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) dwells with his aunt, uncle, and cousin. Harry has lived with his mother's sister's family since shortly after birth, when his parents were murdered by the evil wizard Voldemort. Voldemort tried to kill the infant Harry as well, but failed, leaving the boy undamaged except for a scar on his forehead. After that incident, Voldemort vanished, never to be heard from again. Now, on his birthday, Harry is visited by the imposing Rubeus Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), who has come to bring Harry to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, where he will study to fulfill his true calling as a wizard. After a trip with Hagrid to buy supplies (including a wand, a snowy owl, and a cauldron), Harry arrives at Hogwarts. There, he meets classmates who will become close friends, such as red-haired Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and bossy Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), and antagonists, such as the arrogant Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton). Then there's the headmaster of Hogwarts, the venerable wizard Albus Dumbledore (Richard Harris), and his staff - Professor Minerva McGonagall (Maggie Smith), who teaches Transfiguration; Professor Quirrell (Ian Hart), whose course is Defense Against the Dark Arts; Professor Flitwick (Warwick Davis), who teaches Charms; and Professor Snape (Alan Rickman), master of Potions. For Harry, however, there's more to attending Hogwarts than studying, as he begins to suspect one of the teachers of being in league with a dark force lurking in the forest.
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is a rigorously faithful adaptation of the novel. With the exception of occasional details, short scenes, and a poltergeist, everything in the book is in the movie. And at least 75% of Steve Kloves' dialogue is lifted directly from the text. For Harry Potter fans looking to see how their favorite scene appears on screen, this is a boon. But there's something almost workmanlike about Columbus' approach to the project. Movies and books are different media, and the best approach for adapting the latter into the former is not always an unvarnished translation. Columbus doesn't use any imagination beyond that which J.K. Rowling previously supplied for her book. There's no denying that the film is diverting, but it isn't inspired. One of the most delicious aspects of reading the books is absorbing all of Rowling's offhand comments. Columbus and Kloves' straightforward approach fails to find a creative way of incorporating these.
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone delivers as promised - a herd of colorful characters, fast-paced, inventive adventure, liberal doses of comedy, and even a little pathos. The film runs 2 1/2 hours, but doesn't seem that long, and all but the youngest children should be able to sit through it without becoming restless. The movie also has the virtue of not talking down to its viewers, meaning that adults won't be uncomfortable viewing this film, even if they aren't chaperoning offspring. Just as the Harry Potter books have reached a wide audience, so too does the movie appeal to audience members of all ages.
The film has its share of standout sequences. The first is a battle featuring Harry, Ron, and Hermione against a big, ugly troll. The second is Harry's Quidditch debut. And the third is the final showdown. From a visual standpoint, the film has its moments, but is far from overwhelming. Hogwarts looks suitably impressive, the troll and goblins are convincing, and most of the magic is nicely represented, but the flying sequences are disappointing, not looking a lot better than when Christopher Reeve donned his cape for Superman. One would think that in this era of digital special effects, the filmmakers could have done a little better masking the blue screen work.
The three pint-sized leads - Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson - are all unknowns. Radcliffe, who appeared in The Tailor of Panama, is the only one with previous experience. The decision to cast unfamiliar faces is a good one, since none of the actors bring baggage with them. What they lack in polish, they make up for in earnestness. Presumably, they will become more accomplished as the series advances. On the other hand, most of the adults are played by recognizable performers - Richard Harris as Dumbledore, Alan Rickman as the serpentine Snape, Maggie Smith as McGonagall, and Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid. There are also several big names in small roles - John Cleese as a nearly-headless ghost, John Hurt as a wand salesman, and Julie Walters as Ron's mother.
J.K. Rowling has given her full support to the finished project, gushing how closely it meets her vision of what the characters and their world should look like. Fans of the book will likely love or hate the movie based on how closely things match their preconceived notions. Viewed exclusively as a piece of cinema - something extraordinarily difficult to do with this property - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone stands out as a solid piece of entertainment. The film's spell may not be as potent as that of the book, but there's still some magic in what Columbus and his crew have wrought.
Yes, I read the first book. No, I am not a die-hard fan. And yes, indeed, "Harry Potter" stands on its own as an accomplished cinematic achievement.
Legions of Potter devotees will thrill to this action-packed adventure, starring the fetching Daniel Radcliffe as wise-beyond-his-years, wizard-in-training Harry Potter. Harry, left on his Aunt Petunia and Uncle Vernon's doorstep as a child by kindly magicians, lives a miserable existence as the Cinderella of the Dursley family. Ignored in favor of his spoiled cousin, Dudley (think "Willy Wonka's" Veruca Salt), Harry finds salvation on his 11th birthday in the form of a special invitation to attend Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.
Despite his wicked relatives' objections, Harry is whisked away by gentle giant Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) to prepare himself for Hogwarts. First stop on the agenda : shopping for school supplies. In this case, flying broomsticks, magic wands and talking animals. Once at school, Harry is befriended by the smug, bookish Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) and the sweet and self-effacing redhead, Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint). Like any boarding school worth its salt, Hogwarts has a compliment of bullies (most notably the malicious Draco Malfoy); warty, old-fashioned instructors and challenging classes.Harry arrives at Hogwarts as somewhat of a legend, having spurned (as an unsuspecting infant) the evil intentions of a dastardly devil who eliminated Harry's birth parents. Uncovering the murderer's identity is a mystery Harry is determined to solve, once imbued with his full compliment of powers.
No expense was spared in keeping this much-anticipated adaptation true to the book, nor on the special effects necessary to bring it to life. The list of first-class effects is endless -- ranging from owls delivering a blizzard of post to the ever-morphing Hogwarts dining-hall ceiling. A high speed game of Quidditch (an aggressive sport played in the air on broomsticks, accompanied by quaffles and golden snitches) competes with a rather violent match of Wizard's Chess for best of show. A most excellent talking snake and the enchanted Sorting Hat are magical miracles of technology. Monsters and ghoulish make-up are on a striking professional par with the computer generation. A giant green troll terrorizes Hermione in the girls loo. Gringott's Bank goblins greedily calculate their stores of gold. And a beastly three-headed dog ("Fluffy") stands guard over a mysteriously dank corridor.
Who didn't want a part of the Harry Potter legend? Veterans John Hurt, Maggie Smith, John Cleese and Richard Harris are all along for the ride as members of Hogwarts' fanciful administrative team. As are talented thespians Alan Rickman, Fiona Shaw and Ian Hart. The three child leads are remarkably self-assured -- not an easy task considering the blue-screen work required of a supremely effects-heavy project.
The last half hour is bogged down with an unbroken string of daring adventures that get repetitive at the two-hour mark. Pat resolutions take over where dangling plot threads would be welcome (this is fantasy, after all, and we're talking multiple sequels). Overcoming dark forces lends a sinister air that's vaguely ominous, considering the young target age. But "Harry Potter" is destined to enchant even the most cynical of moviegoers.
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.
I�m not a Harry Potter disciple so this review is based solely on the movie. 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. It is 2 � hours of going to school with Harry.
Did they have to film every page of the book?
Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) comes from very famous wizard stock but his knowledgeable guardians, Uncle Vernon and Aunt Petunia, treat him disgracefully. 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.
On his 11th birthday Harry gets an invitation to attend Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. 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.� At Hogwarts he meets fellow first-time pupils Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) and Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint). The students and teachers are in awe of Harry because he survived an attack by the evil wizard. All the other kids grew up knowing they are witches and wizards and looked forward to attending Hogwarts. They are already well-prepared for their advanced schooling. Hermione is practically a scholar. Hermione and Ron, along with evil wizard-in-training Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) are far more interesting than Harry. Regrettably, great villain actor Alan Rickman (DIE HARD) is under used as Professor Snape, a faux-villain here.
While criticisms will do nothing to assuage the Potter juggernaut, nevertheless I will place blame on Chris Columbus and screenwriter Steve Kloves. 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. 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. A glimpse of a dead unicorn, a wise centaurs, and a caped creature is all we get. Harry promptly leaves the fertile, magical forest for the manicured grounds of Hogwarts. There is a game of wizard chess and somehow Harry gets the well-guarded sorcerer�s stone. A school year at Hogwarts and Harry goes home to his guardians.
I�m left with realizing that the cinematic Harry Potter will indeed go right back under the stairs.
Wow ... what an eagerly anticipated film! More than a week before its release, "Potter" magically appears in entertainment spots across the networks. There's even a countdown to Harry. And then, at my particular screening, five days prior to release, without an empty chair in the house ... applause BEFORE the film.
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone With such hoopla, one can easily become "over-excited." Though many applauded after the film as well, I remained only modestly impressed. You should also know that I have not read that thick book.
As an infant wizard, Harry is left on the doorstep of a ridiculously rude mortal family so that he can grow "quietly" into his adolescence. Fortunately, his guardian angel (an adorable hairy giant) returns to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stonewhisk Harry (on his 11th birthday) off to wizard academy. The giant and later a sneeringly disturbing academy professor (played by Robbie Coltrane and Alan Rickman, respectively) bring to the film a rich mature brand of acting amidst a cavern of otherwise decent performances.
Because he begins the film as an infant, you might expect to follow him into adulthood - don't. This wizard academy plays host to all the mysterious and fun escapades remaining in the film: from "potions class" with black-pot brews set neatly atop rows of Bunsen burners to "broom-flight class" where things get a bit out of control with these underage-flyers. Orientation days of making new friends at a new school Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stonedominate the first half of the picture. After that, Harry stumbles across a larger mission menacing in the dungeons of the academy itself.
Perhaps I expected zappier streams of wand light as jolted earlier on in the film: 1) The aunt's pompous little speech about Harry's mother, "Oh, we have a witch in the family - isn't that wonderful!" she quotes with a sharply comedic mixture of sarcasm and disdain. 2) The flutter of letters sent to Harry on the wings of owls. They rush through the chimney, igniting a smile on Harry, while badgering his nasty uncle like a determined swarm of bats. 3) Likely the most heart-hitting scene of all, before Harry learns that he is indeed a wizard, he has a conversation with a zoo snake. "Where is your family?" Harry asks. The snake's tongue undulates in the direction of a sign reading, "Bred in captivity." (Harry can certainly relate to that.)
Set in England, this maze-like adventure, echoing of "Dungeons and Dragons," meanders at a wanderer's pace. I became intermittently antsy with the lack of emotional drama during the two hours prior to a somewhat oddly curt conclusion. Though intended to be "hyper-real," the film still tried my patience during a few ridiculous circumstances, for which I'll bet pre-pubescent viewer imagination would be more than happy to fill in these holes of rationality with goblins, spells, and mystery.
Btw, very convincing in a small part, kudos to Matthew Lewis as nervous Neville.
Ah, to be a kid again. Grade school, say, prior to the age of 13 and somewhere between the years of 1975-1989. That was a time to be a kid, if for no other reason than for the movies we got to see. Whimsical, exciting and funny tales of fantasy and adventure dominated our tastes and sparked our imaginations as much as anything we could possibly read in a book.
Aside from the trilogies of Indiana Jones and Star Wars, a favorite film list of any kid from that period would likely include more than one of the following titles (The Goonies, Dragonslayer, Cloak and Dagger, Willow, The Princess Bride, Superman (1 & 2), Gremlins, E.T., The Dark Crystal, Labyrinth, The NeverEnding Story, Innerspace, Young Sherlock Holmes, Explorers, The Last Starfighter, Time Bandits, Flash Gordon, Masters of the Universe).
Even after riding through the cynicism experience that is high school and my thorough awareness of everything that goes into making a film, my tastes have not changed so much that I can�t enjoy modern attempts to capture that same magic I had at the movies as a child. Recognizing flaws in any movie one loved in their early years is common for any adult. Some of those titles may forever be labeled �guilty pleasures�, but we are still able to discern which films accomplish that magic and excitement and those, like Harry Potter, that do not.
In case you�ve set up residence at a cave in the Forbidden Forest the past several years, the Harry Potter novels are their own pop culture time zone. Kids crave these books, reading them up and even camping out to await the next one the way many people used to (and still do) with Star Wars. Big kids though have also taken a liking to the story of the young orphaned boy, set up to live with his aunt and uncle who refuse to tell him about his real heritage. At least not until a mysterious man comes along to put him on the path to his destiny and tell him tales of wizards, magic and evildoers going over to the �dark side�. Sound familiar, campers?
Not to nitpick the pattern of virtually every �hero�s tale� since the days of the early Disney films, Conan comics (and even prior), but its easy to see the appeal of Harry Potter. After reading only a single chapter of the book, I was hooked and ready for wherever it would take me. So full of wonder was the first story of The Sorcerer�s Stone, that I stopped reading just as Harry and his band of �first years� were taking their boat ride to the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry because I wanted to leave something for the movie.
The movie begins as faithful as you can imagine with baby Harry and his infamous lightning-shaped scar being delivered to Aunt and Uncle Dursley by Headmaster Albus Dumbledore (Richard Harris), Professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith) and the Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), the giant with the flying motorcycle and pink umbrella. In an almost immediately disappointing turn of events, Harry�s dreadful experiences with the Dursleys is too hurried to develop the kind of rooting sympathy necessary for us to see him escape into the enchanting new world that awaits him.
But what a world it is, filled with goblins, magic wands and secret underground areas of London, also known as Diagon Alley or Platform 9 �. If you were able to probe someone�s imagination while they were reading the book, visually this is an exact match. With school supplies in hand, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) hops aboard the Hogwarts Express and meets fellow soon-to-be classmates Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson). These two characters are so funny and charming, that it calls to attention how dry Harry himself has been set up in the flesh as opposed to in print. We root for Harry Potter only because his name is Harry Potter.
Consequently that same identification those readers will have (and applaud for) in the movie is a symptom that also seems to plague the filmmakers. Clocking in originally with a cut over four hours (scaled back to two and a half), everyone seemed so intent on squeezing every moment of the book into the film to please its fans that it didn�t work on much of anything else. As if all the magic and excitement was inherent in the book and would instantly translate to the screen. Such is not the case.
There are many elaborate set pieces designed to test and further the adventures of the children. The centerpiece of which is the highly anticipated realization of the Quidditch match, a kind of Lacrosse on flying broomsticks. An exciting concept to be sure and there are a couple shots which evoke that sense of wonder we�ve been hoping for, but many of the aerial special effects are thoroughly unimpressive, taking us out of the moment and into our own realization that human flying FX haven�t come along that far since Superman.
A battle with an ultra-ugly troll proves worthy of a few clenches, but director Chris Columbus (Home Alone, Mrs. Doubtfire) completely flushes his big climax faster than you can say Devil�s Snare. Not only does Columbus and screenwriter Steven Kloves (Wonder Boys) eliminate Hermione�s �drink me� bottle challenge (which could have continued to up the tension), but the amazing Chess sequence (with Harry, Hermione and Ron forced to act as pieces on a living board) has been cut into nothing more than a montage of fallen pieces. The build-up is tremendous and the payoff would have completely worked if we were allowed to participate in the experience with the characters. But we�re not since it�s treated like a subliminal action scene and not the exhilarating showstopper it should have been, putting a final straw on the back of the film that is full of setups and payoffs, but nothing in-between to payoff the setups.
For a story that isn�t heavily reliant on a plot structure, it�s easy to see how many of its weaknesses present themselves when the nefarious plotting surrounding the Sorcerer�s Stone take center stage. We are denied developing the rivalries between the four houses (Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw and Slytherin) or more scenes of the school�s actual curriculum where the kids start learning their newfound craft. With a series of seven books planned by author J.K. Rowling and a second film already set to be released 364 days to the date of this one�s release, it�s reasonable to foresee this as our first step into a larger world. I just hope the payoff is better.
The Sorcerer�s Stone, is by no means, a complete failure at Hogwarts. At over 150 minutes, the film never drags thanks to some wonderful visuals and charming performances. The children are terrific, especially Rupert Grint and Emma Watson, who with her snappy delivery, could become the next Natalie Portman if she plays her cards right. Radcliffe has the perfect look for Harry and does a nice job with the role despite the screenplay�s shortcomings. Of the adults, Robbie Coltrane continues to bring a smile to my face just by knowing his name is in the credits and he gets the richest material as Hagrid. Richard Harris and Maggie Smith bring a nice royal-like credibility to their respective roles, but Alan Rickman (in a somewhat thankless role as Professor Snape) gets some of the best moments by just using his eyes.
There is a lot to enjoy about Harry Potter and just as much to disappoint and I have to take points away from director Columbus for it. As if in a perpetual state of Petrificus Totalus, Columbus contributes such a pedestrian direction just as though he was looking for his own place in the House of Hufflepuff �where they are just and loyal.� Columbus had a hand in writing three of the titles in that aforementioned list (Gremlins, The Goonies, Young Sherlock Holmes) and its surprising that he couldn�t recognize where the elemental excitement laid within this story, whether it be the action or just throwaway moments of visual effects. For someone who managed to force emotion into nearly all of his other directorial efforts (Stepmom, Bicentennial Man), was he not able to grasp how important the foster care scenes of the Dursleys were and how important Harry�s orphaned underdog status would later payoff in the Mirror of Erised scene? If they were as choosy spent picking out the director as they are with Harry�s magic wand, conceivably the right spell could have been cast.
No matter what anyone says about this Harry Potter adaptation, kids are liable to eat it up, especially those who read the book. If I was still a kid (in age) or this film was released around the time of my childhood, I still believe I would have had the same reaction. Maybe I would have liked it just enough to give it three stars, but it certainly wouldn�t rank among my favorites. Even now, only the familiar strains of John Williams� terrific score regressed me back enough to those first glimpses of cinematic discovery. Those comparing Harry Potter in the same league with The Wizard of Oz and Willy Wonka are out of their gobstopping minds. Maybe they just don�t make movies like they used to. At least when I was a kid.
There is such a dedicated lack of controversy and tension in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone that all of its benefit as a children's fiction is lost to the machinery of Hollywood spectacle. Gone is the dread uncertainty, the persecution of a child because of parents or class, and any true appreciation of consequences in the various action scenarios that lockstep unfold to the strict dictates of the plot; it's Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory without the candy. At a bloated 152 minutes, the film depends to a peculiar degree on our familiarity with J.K. Rowling's outrageously popular series of books: it does little to establish the characters and has such a feeling of clockwork inevitability that it's shocking when the finale comes and goes with almost nothing resembling purpose, much less resolution. Though it's arguably faithful to the major movements of the book (thus satisfying a large population of its tyke fans until they begin to develop discretion), Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone suffers from what I like to call the "Wizard of Oz" malady: no brain, no heart, no courage.
Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is a poor bespectacled lad living with his awful aunt, uncle, and cousin Dudley (Harry Melling). Interned beneath a stairwell and forced to perform servile tasks � la Cinderfella, on the eve of his eleventh birthday, Harry begins to receive strange invitations to attend something called "Hogwart's School for Witchcraft and Wizardry." Once there, Harry befriends twerpy Ron (Rupert Grint) and know-it-all Hermione (Emma Watson), fellow "first years" at a seven-year academy dedicated to training the wizards and witches of the future. Sadly, the reasons behind Ron's "twerpiness" (he's the youngest of several boys, and the least athletic and attractive) and Hermione's over-achievement (she's the child of two non-magical humans) are left glaringly unaddressed. The cleverly cast but equally underwritten staff of the Hogwart's school includes headmaster Dumbledore (Richard Harris), the snarling Professor Snape (Alan Rickman), and Hagrid, a kindly giant of a beast-keeper (Robbie Coltrane).
A pre-adolescent fantasy of an orphan discovering a secret lineage and magical powers, J.K. Rowling's crafty novel creates a distinct fantasy world with a well-defined set of guidelines while tackling many of the childhood fears (real, imagined, and metaphorical) of making new friends, confronting bullies, and discovering his legacy through the prejudices of others. The best moments of the book, the ones that lend it lasting value as a modern classic of youth literature, come in Rowling's attention to the darkness and fears that inform the rites of passage from infancy to adolescence. Chris Columbus, never known for his skill or intelligence as a filmmaker, has taken Rowling's book and presented an extended overview of its major moments, and in so doing left the resonance of the work in its noisome wake. Most disturbingly, he seems even to have caved into ultra-conservative religious morons by toning down the magic (there are no details of the actual lessons taught at Hogwart's, and the spell-casting is reduced to a few minor flourishes and a strange comic-relief kid who's always blowing things up) and side-stepping the sticky revelation that Harry actually talks to snakes in the reptiles' hissing language and not the Queen's English. Chris Columbus has never been known as a particularly gutsy director, either--in fact, the only reason he was picked to direct this film was, I suspect, because he's "safe." That says a lot about our culture and the degree to which we underestimate our children.
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone boasts of keen production design and exceptional costuming, but it relies on computer-generated images (CGI) for its special effects, the result of which is that everything from the Quidditch match (a game played on broomsticks, the rules of which are difficult to grasp in the film), to a troll attack, to a confrontation with a three-headed dog is carried off with an inserted unreality that's distracting. Although the final appearance of a parasitic villain suitably unsettles, the effect is notable only for the fact of itself, so unexpected and incoherent is the reason for his appearance. The most interesting thing about Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is that its inevitable success could be attributed to the fact that roughly 90% of the film's audience will have read the book upon which it's based. It's the ultimate example of a synergic multi-media construct: a near-universal familiarity with the source material lends the film the depth, conflict, and resonance it fails to otherwise provide. The flaw of this theory, though, is that the reverse is unlikely to be true: I doubt that very many people introduced to Rowling's fantasy realm through Columbus' film walk away from it inspired to seek out the Harry Potter novels.