Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone Review
by David N. Butterworth (dnb AT dca DOT net)November 19th, 2001
HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE
A film review by David N. Butterworth
Copyright 2001 David N. Butterworth
**1/2 (out of ****)
The phenomenon that is Harry Potter--the orphaned, bespectacled 11-year-old with majorly wizardly powers--arrives in theaters this week in the form of the eagerly anticipated "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" (or Philosopher's Stone if you happen to be reading this across the pond).
Your appreciation of the film is likely to be colored by whether or not you've read the book(s).
If you're one of the umpteen million aficionados of J.K. Rowling's series of children's books, then you'll no doubt marvel at the look and feel of the thing, how often director Chris Columbus ("Mrs. Doubtfire," "Home Alone"), screenwriter Steve Kloves ("The Wonder Boys," "The Fabulous Baker Boys"), and an able cast (among them Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, Alan Rickman, John Hurt, and Daniel Radcliffe as Harry) have gotten things just right. Just right in the guise of the imposing majesty of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry with its shifting staircases and talking portraits and impressive dining halls; the imposing bulk of Hagrid the giant (delightfully played by Coltrane); the excitement of the quidditch game and the malevolence of the life-sized wizard's chess game, as well as some of the smaller details--the casting of Harry's magic pals Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), for example, and Hagrid's cute little dragon Norbert.
The problem for fans, of course, is that knowing the book inside and out leaves very little in the way of surprises. And, as with any novel turned into a feature length movie (even with Rowling herself reportedly on the set to oversee every single scene of the production), they've left a lot of stuff out.
If you've not read the book--all eight of you, that is--then you might wish you had, since without an in-depth knowledge of the characters ahead of time "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" is only partly satisfying, impressive from a production design standpoint with plenty of broomsticks and owls and cinematic magic but emotionally distant. The two-and-a-half hour running length will almost certainly add to your fidget quotient as you wonder to yourself who are all these people and where did they come from.
The very first part of the very first Harry Potter book spent a lot of time inside Harry's head and alas that's what's really missing from part one of a scheduled series of films ("Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" is slated to open next Thanksgiving with much the same cast and crew). Otherwise you can't much quibble with this translation; Columbus and Co. promised to be true to the original and they've kept their word.
The film is rated PG ("a few sequences might to be too intense for some children") but I wouldn't recommend taking anyone under six to see the picture. In addition to a fairly brutal chess game (which has received the most press in terms of the film's scariest sequence), there are several scenes and setups which could give a youngster nightmares for weeks--a snarling three-headed dog, a Shrek-like troll, crumbling bad guys, creepy forests, mean step-parents... even the lovable Hagrid's entrance is a little intimidating. And the tone, especially in the early going, is not exactly sorcery lite.
Harry Potter has arrived and, given the rate at which Rowling is cranking out her stories (and Warner Brothers is optioning them), it looks like he's going to be around for quite some time.
--
David N. Butterworth
[email protected]
Got beef? Visit "La Movie Boeuf"
online at http://members.dca.net/dnb
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.
