Overall Rating
  Awesome: 32.45%
Worth A Look: 27.55%
Average: 17.36%
Pretty Bad: 10.19%
Total Crap: 12.45%
9 reviews, 211 user ratings
|
|
| Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone |
by Scott Weinberg
"Visually impressive and rather entertaining, but lacks that 'classic' spark"
|
Any critic attempting to review this film will be judged by how much they enjoyed the books. I consider myself qualified, as I both read AND enjoyed the initial Harry Potter novel, and I'm also a big fan of 'gee-whiz' moviemaking. After seeing the movie, I almost wish I hadn't read the novel first. In an effort to please the Potter-philes, the filmmakers end up offering very few surprises.For those who have been living inside a conch shell for the past 5 years, here's the lowdown:
11-year old Harry Potter has been living with his unpleasant aunt and uncle for as long as he can remember. Treated as a servant and forced to live under a dusty staircase, Harry muddles through his miserable youth until one day when he starts receiving some curious mail. After a sudden visit by the massive Hagrid, Harry learns the truth: His late parents were wizards and Harry is too! Hagrid has come to escort Harry to Hogwart's School of Magic and Wizardry.
Thus begins an adventure that any kid will adore; Harry makes some sweet friends, earns a few devious adversaries, gets himself into several creative, flashy scrapes and learns a lot about himself and his beloved parents. And let's not forget the Hardy Boys-style mystery story, as Harry and his two best friends set off in search of the mysterious Sorcerer's Stone.
All in all, this movie has a lot to cover in its 152-minute running time, and hardcore fans probably won't be disappointed. The cast is uniformly impressive, with Robbie Coltrane (as Hagrid) and Maggie Smith (as Professor McGonagall) doing some particularly solid work. The trio of youths (Daniel Radcliffe as Harry, Rupert Grint as Ron and Emma Watson as Hermoine) is fantastic, avoiding the 'cutesy' style of child acting so prevalent these days. Most entertaining of all is Alan Rickman as the intimidating Professor Snape. The all-British cast also includes great performers like Richard Harris, Julie Walters, John Cleese, John Hurt and Willow himself - Warwick Davis.
The large portion of the movie is devoted to introducing the settings and characters. (This is only the first chapter of seven Potter adventures, after all.) From the gigantic dining hall to the forbidden Third Floor, every set from the book is present, accounted for and realized in a visually splendid style. All of the characters are included as well, with very few exceptions.
When the inevitable movie adaptation was announced, I was praying that the director would be one of three guys: Steven Spielberg, Terry Gilliam or Tim Burton. My wishes were not only ignored, but completely reversed when Chris Columbus signed on. I'm not saying that the guy who brought us Stepmom, Bicentennial Man and Nine Months is a cookie-cutter studio hack of a filmmaker, but...ok, that's exactly what I'm saying. A director with more vision would have done a lot more than simply filming the book scene-for-scene.
The screenplay by Steve Kloves (Wonder Boys) is serviceable enough, and I'm sure Steve had a solid giggle when he cashed his paycheck. (Nearly all of the dialogue in the film comes directly from the novel.) In high school, copying novels word-for-word will get you detention. In Hollywood, it gets you a three-picture deal.
Perhaps my expectations were a bit too high, but I doubt it. I really enjoyed the first Harry Potter novel, but I'd hardly consider it one of the finest (or most original) stories ever told. Given the global adoration for Harry Potter and his adventures, I suppose "filming the book" was the smartest way for the filmmakers to go. But while Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone may prove to be an entertaining enough night at the movies, the movie is too literal of an adpatation to become a "classic" in its own right.Much like The Phantom Menace and X-Men, Harry Potter's first adventure seems more like a "sequel prologue" and less like its own story. This movie offers a visual feast and a strong cast, but lacks that magic spark so evident in classic adaptations like The Wizard of Oz and Superman. It's certainly not a BAD movie, but Columbus seemed to know it was a sure thing, and took the safe way out.
link directly to this review at http://www.efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=3892&reviewer=128
originally posted: 11/20/01 14:36:20
![[printer]](/images/icon/printer.gif) printer-friendly format
|
Trilogy Starters: For more in the Trilogy Starters series, click here.
|
 |
USA
16-Nov-2001 (PG)
UK
N/A
Australia
31-Mar-2002 (PG)
|
|
Articles 
subscribe to this feed![[AllPosters.com]](/images/icon/ap.gif){kind=icon}
