Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone Review
by Laura Clifford (laura AT reelingreviews DOT com)November 26th, 2001
HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE
-------------------------------------
Director Chris Columbus ("Mrs. Doubtfire") brings the first of the hugely popular J.K. Rowling series to the big screen. Daniel Radcliffe ("The Tailor of Panama") stars as the 11 year old orphaned boy born of a wizard and a witch and marked but not killed by the evil Voldemort in "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone."
While Chris Columbus has done what Warner Brothers, Rowling and most of her readership wanted - faithfully adapting the book to the screen - in doing so he's ironically lost some of the magic. The film also demonstrates something which the books did not - it's indebtedness to the mythology and ideas of the "Star Wars" series.
Harry, like Luke Skywalker before him, is an orphan destined for a supernatural greatness (magic, 'the force'), guided and mentored by one duo (Hagrid and Dumbledore vs. Obi-Wan and Yoda) and assisted by another (Hermione and Ron/Leia and Han) to battle a dark lord of mysterious background (Voldemort/Darth Vader). Chess pieces move themselves across boards, strange creatures abound and the game of Quidditch recalls a certain race through a Redwood forest. But then, "Star Wars" itself has its roots in a Kurosawa film ("Hidden Fortress") and mythologies have common themes, so back to "Harry."
The production mostly looks great, from the Dursleys' typical British home to the fanciful Hogwarts where candles float in mid-air and paintings and photographs come to life (although the ghosts who wander about give the place an unfortunate Disney's Haunted Mansion feel). Special effects are good, especially a troll that needs dealing with, but the artificiality creeps through on occasion (the initial approach to Hogwarts is too obviously matted). John Seale's ("The Perfect Storm") cinematography is straightforward and Richard Francis-Bruce's editting is mediocre (particularly in the wizard's chess game which builds no suspense). The less said about John Williams's score the better.
The cast is a who's who of British talent, all well cast. Richard Harris initially seems an odd choice for kindly Professor Dumbledore, but he wears the robes well. Maggie Smith puts a witchy twist on her old teacher role of Miss Jean Brodie for Professor McGonagall. Robbie Coltrane has both the bulk and gentleness of spirit for Hagrid. Fiona Shaw and Richard Griffiths were born to play the Dursleys. John Hurt gives his all to his small role as Mr. Ollivander, who matches Harry to his wand in Diagon Alley. The best performance comes from Alan Rickman, made up to look like a silent film Rasputin, as Professor Snape. Rickman reaches somewhere off kilter, making one wish the entire film had been invested with his imagination.
Of the three leads, newcomer Rupert Grint as Harry's pal Ron Weasley, is the most natural and delightful. Radcliffe is a bit neutral as Harry, but as the first story's reactions evolve into more action on Harry's part Radcliffe will have more opportunity to act. While Emma Watson leaves the film as Hermione, she's rather stiff and actressy initially.
"Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" is good entertainment that lacks soul.
B
For more Reeling reviews visit www.reelingreviews.com
[email protected]
[email protected]
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.
