Sep 292001
 
three reels

The Adventures of Harry Potter during his first year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), who has been raised by his unpleasant guardians without being told there is a secret world of magic and that he is a wizard, is taken to Hogwarts by the giant Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane).  There he studies under the wise Dumbledore (Richard Harris), the loyal McGonagall (Maggie Smith), and the sinister Snape (Alan Rickman).  Along with his friends, Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), Harry must uncover the secret of the Sorcerer’s Stone.

Filled with childhood wonder, mystery, and…well…magic, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone is an extremely faithful adaptation of J.K. Rowling’s best-selling book.  There are exciting fights, dramatic confrontations, and characters worthy of our emotional investment.  There are also moments that go on far too long, extraneous scenes just to show off digital effects, and plot contrivances.

Yes, I’ve read the book, and a fine work it is.  But that is a book, and this is a movie, and each must stand on its own.  Does the film stand?  Pretty much.  But I kept feeling that it should have been better.

The cast is solid, and in some cases, couldn’t be better.  Radcliffe fits the part of Harry such that I can’t imagine anyone else playing it.  The other young actors are suitable, if sometimes a bit uncertain.  Coltrane is his normal, larger-than-life self, and Smith brings quiet dignity to what could have been a silly film if mishandled.  Rickman and Harris play just one note, but it’s the note they were given.  Rickman has the talent to do much more with the character of the ambiguous Professor Snape, and I hope that a later film will allow him to use more than one expression.  As for Harris, since I’ve heard him talk-hiss his was through the musical Camelot where he played Arthur, I’m just happy he didn’t try to sing.

The film is beautiful, with rich hues and amazing contrast; I can’t find any flaws with the cinematography.  And there is so much for that cinematography to capture, with multiple things going on every moment.  In some cases, it gets a bit busy, and I can’t help wondering if a simpler production might have been a better way to tell a simple tale.  But executive producer-director Chris Columbus (and a tribe of other producers and executive producers) went the high flash, effects-laden route.  Sometimes, such as when pumpkins fill the air during the Halloween diner, it looks like Columbus was right.  But at others, the effects slow down the film, and some of the digital work isn’t good enough for the focus it is given.  A troll looks OK, but is obviously fake when compared to the people around it.  When Harry jumps on its head, he clearly becomes a digital cartoon, and instead of looking dangerous and exciting, it just looks silly.  A centaur is worse, and even though Columbus is wise enough to keep it in the dark, it isn’t enough.  Anyone who had been swept into the film will suddenly be deposited into a bargain basement video game until the digital creation trots off screen.

Even with the occasional technical inadequacy, what really holds Sorcerer’s Stone back from being a great film is the pacing.  Part of the problem is that this is two stories.  The first, lasting about an hour, could be titled “Harry Potter Learns of the World of Magic.”  It’s only after a very long segment with Harry’s guardians, and his introduction to all the other characters and the way the world works, do we finally get to the Sorcerer’s Stone plotline.  I’d have liked to see the two stories better integrated as it currently feels like watching the first few episodes of a TV series instead of a single movie.

Also, Columbus and script writer Steve Kloves need to be introduced to the concept of a conclusion.  Once you reach the conclusion, you should stop.  But here, after the climax, there are four additional endings.  I can understand the desire for a couple of denouements, just to get everything straight and milk all the emotional satisfaction you can from the story, but four is going way too far.  This is a film where you put your hat on and go to the door, waiting for that final moment, and it just won’t come.
I left Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone feeling satisfied, but not enchanted.

In the rest of the world, the film, like the novel it came from, is named Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone.

It is followed by Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

Back to Fantasy