Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone Review
by Bob Bloom (bobbloom AT iquest DOT net)November 14th, 2001
HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE (2001) 3 1/2 stars out of 4. Starring Daniel Radcliff, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Robbie Coltrane, Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, Ian Hart, Richard Griffiths, Fiona Shaw and John Cleese. Music by John Williams. Screenplay by Steve Kloves. Based on the book by J. K. Rowling. Directed by Chris Columbus. Rated PG. 152 minutes.
In a feat of legerdemain that would do any wizard proud, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone has been transposed from the page to the screen with a fidelity and a grandeur to please muggles of every age.
This highly anticipated feature is magical, a visual delight that neatly captures the spirit of author J.K. Rowling's international best-seller.
Even at 2 hours and 32 minutes the feature will keep fans glued to their seats. And while screenwriter Steve Kloves (Wonder Boys) has done some trimming, he has not eliminated any of the major plot points or sequences that have captured the imagination of the bookís legion of loyal readers.
If Harry Potter has drawbacks, they are minor. One is that the movie is too reverential to the source and seems to lack any spark of spontaneity. In fairness, though, that could be attributed to the widespread popularity of the novel.
Kloves and director Chris Columbus have done themselves proud capturing that sense of wonder and enchantment readers encountered when they picked up Rowlingís novel.
The set design, especially of Hogwarts, by Michael Boone, Peter Dorme and Toad Tozer, artfully translates Rowling's vision.
Harry Potter is a special effects extravaganza. The behind-the-scenes technicians and computer artists who created Harry's world are the filmís true magicians. From Fluffy, the three-headed dog, to the moving staircases, these effects wizards have skillfully translated Rowling's words into cinematic reality.
Sadly, what should have been the most exciting effect — the quidditch match — at times looks more like a PlayStation 2 video game. It is quite obvious, especially in the long shots, that the students whisking around above the field on their broomsticks are nothing more than computer-generated figures. And the matte shots in which Harry and other players are blended into the scenes appear a bit sloppy.
Still, these are minor distractions that will not really diminish a viewer's appreciation for the film as a whole.
Columbus has done a fine job casting the major characters. Most look as if they stepped right off a page in the book.
That is especially true of young Daniel Radcliffe, who portrays Harry. With his lightning bolt-shaped scar on his forehead and his owlish-round glasses, Radcliffe breathes life into a young boy who is beginning to learn who he really is.
The acting by Radcliffe, as well as by Emma Watson as Hermione Granger and Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley, Harry's closest friends, can best be described as adequate. Basically, no big dramatic turns are expected from these young thespians.
The adults, now they have some fun with their characters. The standout is Robbie Coltrane as the big-hearted, but soft-headed Hagrid, the groundskeeper at the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, who also is Harry's self-appointed protector. Coltrane brings a rough charm and tenderness to his larger-than-life character.
The veteran Richard Harris is soft-spoken, kindly and wise as Harry's mentor, Albus Dumbledore, the headmaster of Hogwarts . Maggie Smith is sly, flinty, good-hearted and witty as deputy headmistress Professor McGonagall. Smith's good witch speaks with a Scottish accent reminiscent of her Oscar-winning performance in The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie.
Alan Rickman is appropriately sinister as Professor Snape, while Ian Hart is outwardly comical as the timid Professor Quirrell.
A couple of big talents, unfortunately, are wasted in what appears to be very short cameos — John Cleese as the ghost, Nearly Headless Nick, and Julie Walters as Mrs. Weasley, Ron's sweater-knitting mom.
The question that must be addressed is how will filmgoers who have not read any of the Potter books react to the film. Well, they should find it entertaining with that touch of understated British whimsy for which that nation is famed.
They will not, of course, respond with the same emotional intensity as Harry's loyal followers. In this instance, they are the muggles in a celluloid world where love and good overcome evil and the search for family and identity is found in a dingy, deserted, cold castle room.
Bob Bloom is the film critic at the Journal and Courier in Lafayette, IN. He can be reached by e-mail at [email protected] or at [email protected]. Other reviews by Bloom can be found by going to www.jconline.com and clicking on golafayette.
Bloom's reviews also can be found on the Web at the Internet Movie Database: http://www.imdb.com/M/reviews_by?Bob+Bloom
More on 'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone'...
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
