Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone
Originally Written: November 2001
Confession: I’m one of the dozen people on the planet who’s never read any of J.K. Rowling’s hugely popular best-sellers about a young British wizard and his adventures at the Hogwarts School of Wizardry and Witchcraft. That said, I went into the hotly-anticipated film adaptation of the first book- dealing with Harry’s first year at the School- cold.
As a non-initiated moviegoer, I was most impressed (and mostly impressed) with what I saw, and will definitely consider reading the books now. The film could use some pace-tightening overall (the 2 1/2 hour running time shows at places), but everything that was in there needed to be there; in other words, I wouldn’t have left any of the scenes and sequences on the cutting-room floor- just done some minor trimming. After a career of cookie-cutter hits and misses ranging from “Adventures in Babysitting” (B), “Home Alone” (B+), and “Mrs. Doubtfire” (B) to “Nine Months” (F) and the wretchedly sentimental “Bicentennial Man” (D)- where the hits were films that while I enjoyed them when I was younger, they aren’t exactly films I’d watch as an adult- this is director Chris Columbus’ most mature film- a family picture that doesn’t pander or talk down to the audience, and lacks much of the easy sentiment Columbus went for in earlier films (props to screenwriter Steve Kloves, who wrote last year’s “Wonder Boys” adaptation). Pacing issues aside, “Harry Potter” draws the viewer into a rich visual environment (the FX are Oscar-worthy, ditto the production design) and interesting, moving coming-of-age tale that places it with this year’s “Spy Kids” as the cream-of-the-crop in family filmmaking of late.
No complaints about casting: Daniel Radcliffe makes a fine Harry (and should continue to do so in later films), Emma Watson and Rupert Grant make an impression as Potter friends Hermoine and Ron, while the “names” on the cast- from Alan Rickman to Richard Harris to Robbie Coletrane- all perform their characters nicely. The adventure scenes in this film worked for me, especially the game of Quidditch (reminiscent of the Pod Race in “Ep. I” in appeal- you know the outcome, but watching it is fun and exciting thanks to the appeal of the characters) and the one game of chess since Bergman’s “The Seventh Seal” that is a literal life-or-death match (though personally, this could have been more fully realized onscreen than the flashes we get). Oh yeah, and nice work by John Williams; his theme is repeated so ad nauseum that it’s likely to burrow its way into your memory and loop about 30,000 times, but it’s fine work by the composer, and will likely get him an Oscar nomination over his more complex, challenging work in “A.I.” earlier this year. Still, with or without my endorsement, this film is going to make a fortune at the box-office. The built-in fan base- if it can stick through the film’s long running-time- will make it the smash of the season, and wait eagerly for the next Potter adventure (both onscreen and off), and personally, there’s nothing I saw that would force me to stop them. I think comparisons to family classics like “E.T.” and “The Wizard of Oz” are a bit much (that running time, plus the potential for a franchise is more akin to “Star Wars”), but aside from being Chris Columbus’ most mature film, it’ll also be his most sustaining. This is a film I can see myself- and others- watching and enjoying just as much for years to come, without shame.
