A combination of computer graphics, detailed sets, and real-life locations gives the film the authenticity its fans expect.
Tools:
Send to a friend »
This first installment in the "Potter" movie series, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" from 2001, may not look as sharply defined in high def as the fifth episode, "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix," but it's still plenty good, and it comes with a Dolby TrueHD soundtrack that's even better. What a pleasure it is to experience all of the "Potter" films in 1080 resolution and lossless sound.
Wizards, giants, dragons, trolls, goblins, monsters, castles, hidden passageways, magic wands, flying broomsticks, and humorous names. How could the J.K. Rowling's fantasy-adventure novels not fail to catch the public eye, first among its intended audience, children, and then among grown-ups. The question is why director Chris Columbus ("Home Alone," "Mrs. Doubtfire") couldn't make the film version of this first book truly fly. It's certainly an entertaining and recommendable film, but it never soars to the heights of filmmaking or imagination the way I had hoped it might.
I have a few answers right off the Quidditch bat, so to speak. First, the author never meant the book primarily for adults, but it is adults who are doing the reviewing and criticizing. Seems a little unfair. Second, in another of Hollywood's monumental coincidences and after a drought of good fantasy films, the initial "Potter" movie arrived on the scene only a month or so ahead of another highly anticipated fantasy adventure, the opening installment of "The Lord of the Rings." Comparisons were inevitable, mostly to "Potter's" disadvantage. After all, J.R.R. Tolkien, an Oxford professor of medieval literature, aimed his "Ring" trilogy squarely at adults, writing in an eloquently poetic style, with intricately developed characters, and an epic landscape. It was no wonder the film version of his work would succeed on a more mature and elaborate scale. Ms. Rowling's relatively simple, straightforward prose is fun and easy to read but no match for Tolkien's lyricism. Third, in an effort to satisfy its legion of fans, Columbus attempted to put almost everything in the book into the movie, and it's clear that not every book translates well to the screen on a word-for-word basis. In fact, the "Potter" film outlasts its welcome by a good thirty minutes or more, becoming tiresome to this reviewer shortly after the two-hour mark. Heck, most of this initial outing is exposition--character and setting introductions--and the actual plot doesn't even kick in until the last third of a very long, 152-minute film.
Now, for the sake of those few readers who might be wondering what all the fuss is about in the first place, let me tell you that the story is a fantasy about a boy who discovers that the world is filled with magic and that he, much to his surprise, is a major player in it. The boy is Harry Potter, the son of a pair of good wizards murdered by an evil wizard when Harry was but a babe. The child's friends then placed him in the keeping of a pair of non-magical humans (or Muggles as they refer to us mere mortals), who raise Harry in a cupboard beneath the stairs, keeping him totally unaware of his heritage before his coming-out and training in the arts of wizardry on his eleventh birthday. The story follows Harry's adventures as goes to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. There he meets new friends, makes new enemies, and encounters the various dragons, trolls, and monsters alluded to earlier as he attempts to solve the mystery of a hidden power. Originally, English writer Rowling titled her novel "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone," but the publishers weren't sure if Americans would understand the meaning of a "Philosopher's Stone" (an imaginary object believed capable of transforming base metals into gold and, in some legends as here, of effecting a person's regeneration). This reminds me that when the James Bond adventure "License Revoked" came to the screen, its filmmakers weren't sure if Americans would know what "revoked" meant, so it was retitled "License To Kill." You think if Americans just read more?
Anyway, in order to make the movie succeed, the studio, Warner Brothers, had to get several things right: They needed the right script, the right cast, the right director, and the right "look." They managed most of it, and, as I say, maybe the reason the movie doesn't entirely click is as much the fault of the book as it is the film. The screenplay by Steven Kloves sticks very close to Rowling's novel, including almost every character and every action. The big exception comes at the end where fans of the book may notice that suddenly things don't happen in the film's climax exactly as they occurred on the printed page. It didn't bother me very much, but it annoyed the devil out of the Wife-O-Meter, who kept nudging me that this and that was "wrong." Oh, well, the ending is a minor aberration for the sake of cinematic continuity and simplicity is all I can say.
Then, there's the cast. They all look terrific, appearing almost exactly as you imagine them in the book. How they act and behave in the film is another matter, though, and the actors' performances may or may not meet everyone's expectations. After an exhaustive search for the perfect English lad to play Harry, they settled on young Daniel Radcliffe. Like the other cast members, Radcliffe looks physically well suited to the role. He just seems a bit less animated than I had wished, a bit less charismatic, a bit less of a screen presence. Nevertheless, Radcliffe is an appealing actor exuding an appropriately simple naïveté, and he would grow into the part to the point where today audiences probably think of Radcliffe and Potter as the same person.
Rupert Grint and Emma Watson as Harry's friends Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger actually come off with a degree more charm than Radcliffe. They are properly innocent, precocious, and mischievous at the same time. Richard Harris plays the Headmaster, Albus Dumbledore, but you'd hardly guess it under the heavy beard and makeup. He hasn't much to do, in any case. More to the point is Maggie Smith as the Deputy Headmistress, Professor Minerva McGonagall, who has a better-written role and who has more of chance to develop a serious character. Likewise, Robbie Coltrane as the giant gamekeeper, Hagrid, is a major figure in the action, and Coltrane as always is watchable and enjoyable. Whether he quite defines the soft-at-heart tough-guy image we get from the book is open to question, but his more amusingly droll interpretation is highly acceptable. John Cleese has a brief part as Sir Nicholas, "Nearly Headless Nick," a comical ghost who inhabits Hogwarts and shows up at the least expected and most inopportune times.
Average user rating (1-5):