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 Erik Childress
"Magic Lost In The Transition"
|
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 ¾. 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.
link directly to this review at http://www.efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=3892&reviewer=198
originally posted: 11/16/01 09:33:20
![[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}
