From rec.arts.sf.reviews Fri Nov 16 16:36:57 2001 Path: news.island.liu.se!news.ida.liu.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news01.sunet.se!erinews.ericsson.se!uab.ericsson.se!erix.ericsson.se!luth.se!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-01!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: Bob Bloom Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) Approved: ramr@rottentomatoes.com Followup-To: rec.arts.movies.current-films Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 19:30:35 -0000 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: X-RAMR-ID: 30184 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 266011 X-RT-TitleID: 1109764 X-RT-SourceID: 872 X-RT-AuthorID: 1363 X-RT-RatingText: 3.5/4 Summary: r.a.m.r. #30184 X-Questions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Submissions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 104 Xref: news.island.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:2174 rec.arts.sf.reviews:142 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 bloomjc@yahoo.com or at bobbloom@iquest.net. 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 ========== X-RAMR-ID: 30184 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 266011 X-RT-TitleID: 1109764 X-RT-SourceID: 872 X-RT-AuthorID: 1363 X-RT-RatingText: 3.5/4 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Sat Nov 17 23:34:58 2001 Path: news.island.liu.se!news.ida.liu.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news01.sunet.se!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: Jon Popick Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) Approved: ramr@rottentomatoes.com Followup-To: rec.arts.movies.current-films Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 19:36:08 -0000 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: X-RAMR-ID: 30192 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 266155 X-RT-TitleID: 1109764 X-RT-SourceID: 595 X-RT-AuthorID: 1146 X-RT-RatingText: 8/10 Summary: r.a.m.r. #30192 X-Questions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Submissions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 92 Xref: news.island.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:2182 rec.arts.sf.reviews:144 Planet Sick-Boy: http://www.sick-boy.com "We Put the SIN in Cinema" © Copyright 2001 Planet Sick-Boy. All Rights Reserved. Usually, films encumbered of this much hype can never live up to the lofty expectations of eager fans, but Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is, thankfully, a rare and welcome exception. The picture will, without question, be the most over-analyzed and eagerly anticipated movie since The Phantom Menace, which didn't come close to satiating the hopes of its drooling, rabid fans. Even though Stone and Menace both feature an effects-heavy centerpiece (Quidditch replaces the dull pod race), a ham-fisted composer (John Williams), and remarkably similar stories, the former is much more enjoyable and may be more of a Holy Grail for the Gen-Z set than Star Wars was to the Xers. Stone, in case you're, like, ruled by the Taliban or something, is the first in a series of seven novels (only four have been published so far) written by J.K. Rowling, who used to be homeless but now can buy and sell the average reader a million times over. The books, which are targeted toward children, loved by adults and outwardly damned by Bible-thumping twats, have sold oodles of copies in hundreds of countries via dozens of translations (Töpfer Harry ist ein Schlechtes [geschlossen Ihrer Öffnung]!) and have now generated a film that cost over $125 million to make. Stone, the first of the series, is about young Harry Potter's (Daniel Radcliffe) initial involvement with wizardry and witchcraft. See, Harry's parents died when he was a baby, and he was raised by his wickedly evil aunt and uncle (Richard Griffiths and Fiona Shaw), who dote on their own bratty offspring (Harry Melling) while raising Harry like a veal in a tiny room underneath the stairs. On his 11th birthday, Harry learns his dead parents were both powerful wizards when he is summoned to attend Hogwarts, a private boarding school for the wand-waving set. It is at Hogwarts that Harry befriends Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) and learns how to tool around on a broomstick, cast spells, play Quidditch and generally stand up for himself - all things he never knew he was capable of back when he lived with the Muggles (the wizard word for us regular folk). And, of course, there's an adventure involving the titular stone that enables Harry and his two sidekicks to show off their smarts and special powers. Stone will probably be surprising to nearly everyone who sees it for the first time. All three viewers who haven't read the book will be bowled over by the quality of Rowling's story (adapted by Wonder Boys' Oscar nominee Steven Kloves), and faithful readers (myself included) will be astonished at the filmmakers' ability to recreate the entire movie just as they imagined it in their heads as they devoured the book like a cupcake within a three-mile radius of Rosie O'Donnell's good paw. Which brings up a couple of interesting points: Why bother spending this much money to make something that isn't any more imaginative than what the mind of an eight-year-old reader can create? And isn't there a paradox in making a film version of a book that has somehow managed to get kids interested in reading after rotting their brains with bad television, video games and internet porn? Even if you agree with those cockamamie statements, you'll still enjoy the flick. Stone is probably the most faithful page-to-screen adaptation in the history of cinema and is blessed with both a top-notch British arthouse cast (including Richard Harris, Robbie Coltrane, Ian Hart, John Hurt, Alan Rickman, Julie Walters and Maggie Smith) and brilliant behind-the-camera talent (like The English Patient cinematographer John Seale and Titanic visual effects wizard Robert Legato). Only Williams' annoying score, which resembles a cross between Batman and Star Wars, and John Cleese truly disappoint. The highlights, in my mind, were the amazing Quidditch match and the paintings that come to life. You have to give credit to Stone's creators - in addition to hiring the best talent in the business, they could have completely sold out and raked in an ungodly amount of cash if, like the typical kiddie pic, the film clocked in at 90 minutes. This puppy is over two-and-a-half hours long (but it's still paced like a sprint), which will somewhat restrict how much money it's able to inhale. There are all kinds of stories in the news about the young actors not making much money for their work in Stone, but they'll be in prime bargaining positions when the sequels are made. Of course, by the time they crank out the other six films, Radcliffe will be old enough to be teaching at Hogwarts (although it remains unclear if he will be addressed, in Freddie "Boom Boom" Washington style, as "Mr. Pot-tair"). 2:32 - PG for some scary moments and mild language ========== X-RAMR-ID: 30192 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 266155 X-RT-TitleID: 1109764 X-RT-SourceID: 595 X-RT-AuthorID: 1146 X-RT-RatingText: 8/10 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Sat Nov 17 23:34:58 2001 Path: news.island.liu.se!news.ida.liu.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news01.sunet.se!news-peer-europe.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-01!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: Steve Rhodes Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) Approved: ramr@rottentomatoes.com Followup-To: rec.arts.movies.current-films Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 19:45:02 -0000 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: X-RAMR-ID: 30195 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 266140 X-RT-TitleID: 1109764 X-RT-SourceID: 703 X-RT-AuthorID: 1271 Summary: r.a.m.r. #30195 X-Questions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Submissions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 72 Xref: news.island.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:2189 rec.arts.sf.reviews:147 HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2001 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): ** 1/2 If you're in the eight to twelve age group, have I got the perfect movie for you -- HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE. If you're under eight, the movie will be too scary and long for you, and, if you're over twelve, you'll likely be bored. Directed by Chris Columbus (BICENTENNIAL MAN and STEPMOM) and scripted by Steven Kloves (THE WONDER BOYS), the movie is, of course, based on J.K. Rowling's first novel in her wildly successful series about the exploits of Harry Potter, wizard extraordinaire. The movie has two serious flaws. First, Daniel Radcliffe, as Harry, is almost devoid of personality. Reportedly Steven Spielberg, when he was considering the project, wanted Haley Joel Osment (THE SIXTH SENSE) to play Harry. Osment could have given Harry some real energy and life. Second, the film is a full hour too long, coming in at just over two-and-one-half hours. What was Warner Brothers thinking when they let the director deliver a PG movie that long? Kids will be fidgeting like crazy before it is finally over. At an hour-and-a-half, I might have been able to recommend it but not at its bloated final cut. Don't get me wrong, this is a movie filled with some great visuals. In fact, the visuals are the movie, and the story, for those who haven't read the book, will seem at best inconsequential and at worst confusing. There is a wonderful, life-sized, killer chess game -- one of many scenes that make the film questionable for those under eight -- and a sort of polo game played in the air on broomsticks. There is also an extremely ferocious three-headed canine monster that guards the sorcerer's stone. The sets and the special effects are almost certain to get Academy Award nominations. Some of the acting, with the aforementioned significant exception, is quite good. Easily the best is by scene stealer Emma Watson as Harry's companion, Hermione Granger. This first-time screen actress has an endearing type-A personality that reminds one of what Reese Witherspoon must have been like when she was young. One thing is certain. Whether you like the movie or not, you'll be incapable of getting its catchy tune out of your head. I predict that you'll be humming it in your sleep from now until the next edition of the Harry Potter saga comes out at this time next year. HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE runs way, way too long at 2:32. It is rated PG for "some scary moments and mild language" and would be acceptable for kids around 7 or 8 and up. A PG-13 rating would have more appropriately reflected the level of fright in the film. My son Jeffrey, age 12, gave the movie ****, saying that it was one of the best films of the year. He thought it was an excellent movie that stayed true to the book. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, November 16, 2001. In the Silicon Valley, it will be showing at the AMC and the Century theaters. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want free reviews and weekly movie and video recommendations via Email? Just send me a letter with the word "subscribe" in the subject line. ========== X-RAMR-ID: 30195 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 266140 X-RT-TitleID: 1109764 X-RT-SourceID: 703 X-RT-AuthorID: 1271 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Sat Nov 17 23:34:58 2001 Path: news.island.liu.se!news.ida.liu.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news01.sunet.se!erinews.ericsson.se!erix.ericsson.se!luth.se!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!206.13.28.125!cyclone-transit.snfc21.pbi.net!216.218.192.242!news.he.net!news!sn-xit-03!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: Edward Johnson-Ott Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) Approved: ramr@rottentomatoes.com Followup-To: rec.arts.movies.current-films Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 19:52:26 -0000 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: X-RAMR-ID: 30198 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 266166 X-RT-TitleID: 1109764 X-RT-SourceID: 591 X-RT-AuthorID: 1099 Summary: r.a.m.r. #30198 X-Questions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Submissions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 102 Xref: news.island.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:2184 rec.arts.sf.reviews:145 Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Robbie Coltrane, Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, Warwick Davis, Zoe Wanamaker, Richard Griffiths, Fiona Shaw, John Cleese, Julie Walters, John Hurt, Ian Hart. Music by John Williams. Screenplay by Steve Kloves, based on the book by J.K. Rowling. Directed by Chris Columbus. 153 minutes. Rated PG, 4 stars (out of five stars) Review by Ed Johnson-Ott, NUVO Newsweekly www.nuvo.net Archive reviews at http://reviews.imdb.com/ReviewsBy?Edward+Johnson-Ott To receive reviews by e-mail at no charge, send subscription requests to ejohnsonott@prodigy.net or e-mail ejohnsonott-subscribe@onelist.com with the word "subscribe" in the subject line. For the many, many fans of the novel "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," the main question about the highly anticipated movie is "Were the filmmakers true to the book?" The answer is that they were true to a fault. "Harry Potter" is a rich, wildly imaginative movie with enough old-school Brothers Grimm bite to keep it from becoming saccharine. The sets and situations are grand and wondrous, but the powers that be, in their zeal to include as much from the book as is humanly possible, have overstuffed the film almost to the breaking point. During the first half of its mammoth 153 minutes, the production is so busy hopping from one vignette, secondary storyline or character introduction to another that it doesn't have time to address the plotline of its title. When it finally does, it does so breathlessly, often forgetting to take a moment or two to drink in the wonder. I suspect that future editions of the series will be more sound, now that the laborious groundwork has been laid. Incidentally, please don't mistake my complaints about "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" as anything approaching condemnation. Even with its flaws, this is still an extremely entertaining piece of work that deserves the massive audience it surely will attract. Thankfully, for every misstep, the filmmakers do a great deal right. First off, there is no attempt to Americanize the thoroughly British tale. The sensibilities are as British as the cast, which includes a veritable laundry list of beloved U.K. actors. The three young lead players, Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint, are also English. As Harry Potter, Radcliffe is appropriately earnest and heroic. In the roles of his best friends Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley, Watson and Grint have some problems with their delivery, but they get the nature of their characters right. For 11-year old Harry Potter, the opportunity to attend the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry is a godsend. Reared in horrible conditions by his aunt and uncle (Fiona Shaw and Richard Griffiths) after the death of his parents (they were murdered by an evil wizard, but Harry was told they died in an accident), the boy is only too eager for a fresh start, which begins for him at train station, specifically at platform 9 ¾. Once he finds the entrance, he slides into a world where the impossible is the norm, provided you know the right incantation. With 9-foot Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane, sporting a body-length Afro) serving as his mentor, Harry visits a bank staffed with ornery goblins. Harry eyes the trendiest magic wands in a neighboring store window before heading off to Hogwarts. Oh, what a facility it is. Massive, handsome and vaguely threatening, the sprawling estate boasts hundreds of students, overseen by Headmaster Dumbledore (Richard Harris), the prime but understanding Professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith), sinister Professor Snape (Alan Rickman) and a host of others. We get an extended look at Harry's first game of Quidditch, a thrilling sport involving 50-foot golden goalposts, a variety of balls and student athletes zooming through the air on their broomsticks trying to score goals. We also get quick glimpses of numerous characters who will get more screentime in subsequent films. Just as the parade of vignettes begins to grow tiresome, the central plot kicks in. The Sorcerer's Stone is in danger of being stolen by the evil Voldemort, who is manipulating one of the professors to do his bidding. Can Harry and his new friends Hermoine and Ron save the stone and the school without getting in trouble for being in an unauthorized area? Or will they be distracted by the angry troll in the girls' bathroom, the chocolate frog that keeps leaping out of its box, the giant three-headed dog or the majestic stairways, which periodically move from one location to another? If this sounds appealing, but extremely jumbled, then you know what to expect. Potter veterans (and with book sales of over 100 million, there are a lot of them) will have no trouble keeping up, of course. For everyone else, I suggest you dive in and hang on, secure in the knowledge that all will become clear in the next film, "Harry Potter and the Sequel That Doesn't Bite Off More than It Can Chew." © 2001 Ed Johnson-Ott ========== X-RAMR-ID: 30198 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 266166 X-RT-TitleID: 1109764 X-RT-SourceID: 591 X-RT-AuthorID: 1099 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Sat Nov 17 23:34:58 2001 Path: news.island.liu.se!news.ida.liu.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news01.sunet.se!news.kth.se!uio.no!Norway.EU.net!uninett.no!news.algonet.se!algonet!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-01!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: Ram Samudrala Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) Approved: ramr@rottentomatoes.com Followup-To: rec.arts.movies.current-films Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 19:53:48 -0000 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: X-RAMR-ID: 30199 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 266585 X-RT-TitleID: 1109764 X-RT-SourceID: 302 X-RT-AuthorID: 29 Summary: r.a.m.r. #30199 X-Questions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Submissions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 91 Xref: news.island.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:2190 rec.arts.sf.reviews:148 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone http://www.ram.org/ramblings/movies/harry_potter.html It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to translate a book into a movie. The problem has to do with one's imagination: words in a book conjure up images that are highly personal and subjective, and any attempt by a third party to lend form to them ends up disappointing. /Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone/ is no exception in this regard, but fortunately, the imagery presented is awesome and wondrous in its own right. The film is made strictly by the book: Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), a young boy mistreated by his foster family, learns that he is special and comes of age... in the Hogwart's School of Magic (!) where he learns wizardry, plays Quidditch and fights an evil despotic wizard (who does not turn out to be his father). While the movie stays fastidiously true to Joanne Rowling's book, perhaps one of the best adaptations ever, the adage that a picture is worth a thousand words doesn't hold true here. For the most part, from the initial victory of the baby Harry Potter upto the Quidditch match, a lot of the details are skipped. What we're presented with is a jump from one scene to another (sometimes too quickly) that illustrates with painstaking effort the magical realm that Rowling has constructed in her series. For example, while the opening sequence shows Professor Albus Dumbledore (Richard Harris) turning out the lights in a street, Professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith) changing to her true form from being a cat, and Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) bringing Harry on his flying motorcycle, we're not really shown the celebration of Lord Voldemort's fall. This isn't criticism but just an observation; in fact, I think doing this is especially okay if one is familiar with the Harry Potter books, but it does impart a sense of urgency in the beginning portions of the film. I marvelled at how technology enabled the film makers to make possible the wonders of Harry's world, including Diagon Alley and Gringotts Bank, the moving pictures, Hogwarts Castle, the Sorting Hat (Leslie Phillips), the ghosts in the Castle (including a cameo by John Cleese), Fluffy the three-headed dog, the ugly troll, and so on. I believe that it is technology that makes the Harry Potter film authentic, in the same way as in the /X-Men/ or the /How the Grinch Stole Christmas/ movies, by letting at least the imagination of a few people come to life as vibrantly as possible. Most of what I imagined and what was projected on the screen weren't really colinear, but it was still cool, incredibly so at times, to watch. The movie, however, picked up with the first Quidditch match where Harry, on a broomstick, plays the position of a Seeker after the Golden Snitch, a particularly hard-to-catch ball, which is key to winning a game. The inspired depiction of the game meshed with my imagination extremely well, and from there on, the story of Harry's second encounter with the dark Lord Voldemort (Richard Bremmer) enfolded in a less fragmented and more cohesive manner. The final confrontation, and what Harry and his friends have to do get there, is a delight to watch. For those paying attention, the main change from the book has to do with how Hagrid's dragon is disposed of and the resulting consequences. The ghosts also play a smaller role here though given the movie's running time, I'm not surprised parts like those were omitted. The actors playing the young leads give decent performances, with Emma Watson as the know-it-all Hermione Granger standing out. The adult actors aren't given much time but they all present solid performances. The score by John Williams is simple but effective. The set design, cinematography, and visuals are impressive. Director Chris Columbus does a great job of bringing to the big screen the Enid Blyton-like atmosphere that Rowling's books exude. /Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone/ is a great movie to watch. I viewed it from the perspective of someone who is intimately familiar with the books, and I believe there is strong merit to watching it being completely unfamiliar with the story, a choice I do not have given that I've read the four books a few times. Definitely check it out on the big screen and make sure you goto the bathroom before. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- email@urls || http://www.ram.org || http://www.twisted-helices.com/th Movie ram-blings: http://www.ram.org/ramblings/movies.html ========== X-RAMR-ID: 30199 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 266585 X-RT-TitleID: 1109764 X-RT-SourceID: 302 X-RT-AuthorID: 29 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Sat Nov 17 23:34:59 2001 Path: news.island.liu.se!news.ida.liu.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news01.sunet.se!erinews.ericsson.se!erix.ericsson.se!luth.se!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: Harvey S. Karten Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) Approved: ramr@rottentomatoes.com Followup-To: rec.arts.movies.current-films Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 19:55:33 -0000 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: X-RAMR-ID: 30200 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 266220 X-RT-TitleID: 1109764 X-RT-SourceID: 570 X-RT-AuthorID: 1123 Summary: r.a.m.r. #30200 X-Questions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Submissions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 112 Xref: news.island.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:2186 rec.arts.sf.reviews:146 HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE Reviewed by Harvey Karten Warner Bros./ Heyday Films Director: Chris Columbus Writer: Steve Kloves, story by J.K. Rowling Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, John Cleese, Robbie Coltrane, Warwick Davis, Richard Griffiths, Richard Harris, Ian Hart, John Hurt, Alan Rickman, Fiona Shaw, Maggie Smith, Julie Walters Screened at: AMC NYC 11/12/01 I spent my entire career teaching in New York City public high schools, an advocate of educationally justified field trips--particularly to the magic of theater and movies. Not a single year went by without my having to file forms in triplicate for each excursion. I had to wait for the chairman's signature, the principal's imprimatur and the superintendent's stamp of approval before I could even cross the street with a dozen youngsters. Imagine a school that not only awakened kids to even more magic than the theater could provide but even subjected them to dangers that could easily result in loss of life and limb! This is the situation posited by Chris Columbus's "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," based on the popular novel by J.K. Rowling which has been adapted by Steve Kloves and is scheduled to break box office records. Coming in a cost of $120 million--and don't even bother to estimate the heavy costs of marketing the production--"Harry Potter" is chock full of wizardry, sporting a splendid cast of British actors putting on their classiest accents, and loaded with computer generated effects that trump almost everything that existed before while still providing a simulacrum of credibility. Yet despite the input of all that money can buy,this is no "Wizard of Oz" because "Potter" feels as though it were a series of cleverly designed scenes lacking in coherence to such a degree that one could not be blamed for thinking that some of the scenes were copied and pasted from its forthcoming annual sequels. That reservation aside--and it is a major drawback-- the movie, though targeted to children and lacking the kind of satiric humor that many adults look for in such fare, goes by like a shot, all two and o ne-half hours' worth. Warner Bros. has taken the risk of setting up a children's picture that goes far beyond the usual 60-80 minutes that psychologists have insisted are about the limit of a small fry's attention span. Another risk taken by the studio is to use an all British cast of performers, most of whom are probably not known by the kids in the audience and few by the majority of their escorts. The big advantage of this is that kids accustomed to saying "like" and "you know" and "cool" and speaking in phrases rather than sentences can listen to the language of Milton and Shakespeare as spoke without vulgarity (short of "blood hell"), each word clearly enunciated in the king's English. Since critics generally agree that the filmed version sticks mighty close to the book, one can but wonder not that the novel was just a best-seller but that over 100 million copies were snapped up in a work translated into 47 languages--given the movie's lack of stick-togetherness. The title character, an eleven-year-old played winningly by the preppy Daniel Radcliffe who comes across as bright but not snobbish in the slightest, has had a terrible childhood. Both his parents were murdered by an evil wizard and he is taken in reluctantly by an aunt and uncle who treat him like a Cinderella while doting on their natural, bratty son. They do everything in their power to prevent him from entering the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft & Wizardly, doubtless envious because they are themselves wholly ordinary without a smidgen of magic charm. Harry enters a train on a mysterious platform 9-3/4 by going straight through a wall at the station, where he enters a parallel universe of goblins, witches, long-haired professors and snappy matrons where he meets the adorable and well-spoken Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) and Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint)--escorted and mentored from time to time by the bearish and devoted Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane). The principal issue, emerging late in the narrative, is a Sorcerer's Stone which is in danger of being stolen by an evil and yet unseen Voldemort, a kind of undead horror who is leeching off the body of one of the professors. When the kids are not sitting in their classes being tutored in the use of magic brooms and wands, they are engaged in sporting matches such as a dangerous version of flying dodge ball or playing chess with pieces larger than they are, moving them simply by issuing commands. In this exciting school, the inhabitants of paintings move about at will, flags change colors and designs, and nary a kid would be tempted to cut clashes, because even a smoke in the john would pale in excitement when contrasted with their required daily activities. From time to time Chris Columbus does his best to scare the kids in the audience, principally by refusing to allow a sleeping three-headed, monstrous-sized dog to lie. Episode builds upon episode though without much congruity, so that what emerges is a spectacular piece of work using superb actors spouting clever bon mots but little sense of a clear narrative. All in all, any parent who deprives his or her 8 or 10 or 12 year old of this movie should probably be indicted for child abuse, but were someone like Steven Spielberg called in to remedy the failure in coherence, this could have been something better. Rated PG. Running time: 152 minutes. (C) 2001 by Harvey Karten, film_critic@compuserve.com ========== X-RAMR-ID: 30200 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 266220 X-RT-TitleID: 1109764 X-RT-SourceID: 570 X-RT-AuthorID: 1123 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Wed Nov 21 13:12:08 2001 Path: news.island.liu.se!news.ida.liu.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news01.sunet.se!news.net.uni-c.dk!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!hub1.nntpserver.com!telocity-west!TELOCITY!sn-xit-03!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: Mark R. Leeper Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) Approved: ramr@rottentomatoes.com Followup-To: rec.arts.movies.current-films Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 19:17:18 -0000 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: X-RAMR-ID: 30236 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 266994 X-RT-TitleID: 1109764 X-RT-AuthorID: 1309 X-RT-RatingText: 8/10 Summary: r.a.m.r. #30236 X-Questions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Submissions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 135 Xref: news.island.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:2223 rec.arts.sf.reviews:150 HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: A child persecuted by his foster parents discovers he is a great and powerful wizard. J. K. Rowling's fantasy (not just) for children comes to the screen in a very faithful 150-minute (not just for children) version. This is a family film that usually manages to be more intelligent than most adult films this year. It is proof that a film adaptation can be faithful and still be entertaining. Rating: 8 (0 to 10), high +2 (-4 to +4) Let me get out of the way a couple of objections I went to the film fully knowing I would have. First, I hate this title, dumbed down as it is for American audiences. The original title of the book was "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" not "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." "The Philosophers' Stone" was an object sought in medieval alchemy. It was a hypothetical substance with mystical properties like changing base metals into gold. When the book was brought to America there was the assumption that Americans would find the title too esoteric so with one word change they could turn it into something from Dungeons and Dragons. The film has the original title in Britain. Since said stone is only what Hitchcock would call "a McGuffin," I suppose this is only a minor complaint, but I wanted to get it out. I also lightly lament the filming of this book that has gotten so many children to read and use their imaginations. It will now no longer be read by children (or adults). Instead children will for the most part hold the book in their hands and use the words to replay the film in their minds. That is not their fault, but it is inevitable. Of course being fair it may also get them to read the other Potter book and that will still require imagination and reading skills. And it is probably a plus for the film that it is so accurate an adaptation. The film really is, for the most part, the book made visible. The story, as every kid in my neck of the woods knows, is about a maltreated child. He is sort of a male Cinderella or Cosette. When he was a baby he was given to his aunt and uncle to raise. In this family he is used like a labor-saving device, but with not as much concern for his welfare. On or about his 11th birthday, a mysterious letter arrives for him, in spite of the best efforts of his foster parents to keep it from him. It tells him it is time for him to learn wizardry at Hogwart's, a magical school of sorcery. He also discovers in the dark world of magic he is already something of a hero. And so begins his first year at Hogwart's. Hogwart's is an education to the viewer not just in what wizardry school is like, but also in the English boarding school tradition that once was and some places continues to be. Students are put into competing "houses" that try to outdo each other in behavior and excellence. As these things seem to go in stories, Harry's two best friends are people he meets on the train on the way to Hogwart's. Screenwriter Steve Kloves (who also wrote last year's WONDER BOYS) adapted Rowling's book accurately and with pretty much the right feel. This is one film that shows magical sights on the screen but still lets the book drive the story instead of letting the special effects do it. There are lots of ideas, some expanded, and many only hinted at, some that children will understand and others they will grow into. The wide screen holds a magnifying glass to the book, showing flaws as well as wonders. For example, Harry has only just arrived at the school and he is given a position on his house's sports team. It would be severely understating matters to say his position is the most important on the team. The rules are contrived by Rowling to make Harry a hero and the other players almost superfluous. It is as if the rules of basketball were altered so that there was also a side game of thumb-wrestling for a hundred bonus points. Toward the end of the film there is another such contrivance with a different competition. Of course, Harry and his friends being heroes is much of the point. Rowling and actor Daniel Radcliffe conspire to give Harry very little real personality so that any reader or viewer can easily project himself or herself into the space. Hence the viewer becomes the hero. Where Harry does have personality, it is much more that of an adult than a child. Harry is always polite to his elders and absolutely fair and loyal to his friends in just exactly the way that most children his age are not. While the style of the book is flawless, and impressively well translated to the screen, the storyline is a little haggard. As mentioned, events are contrived to make Harry the hero. As he tries to solve the school's mystery, clues seem to just drop into his lap. As a running gag, many clues are simply told to him by the hugely indiscreet gamekeeper Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane looking like The Ghost of Christmas Past). Meanwhile Harry and friends have to hold off an extremely nasty student who takes an early dislike to Harry. Most of these plot elements are cliche. Visually the film is just about all you could hope for. There are only a few obvious fluffs. We have some gnomes with long spindly fingers, but when they grasp objects in their fingers they always use the next-to-last joint on the fingers. There are some places where the CGI effects are little obvious. A boy falling from a building looks like a computer image. There is a "Christmas Carol" feel to the look of the hidden magic shops. This is mostly a matter of interpretation by production designer Stuart Craig, but it fits the book. Hogwart's is fantabulous as the anti- sinister sinister boarding school with its huge vaulted ceilings, its drifting staircases, and its fog-shrouded forest. And flying in everywhere are not the hackneyed bats, but owls who lend the place atmosphere and double as the wizardry world's messenger service. Many of the support roles went to well-established actors. Of these definitely the most fun are Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman. Rickman does not have a whole lot of breadth in the roles he takes, but he plays his one petulant personality to the hilt. Ian Hart from LIAM has a small role as a stuttering don. Surprisingly high billing for surprisingly little work goes to John Cleese. John Hurt has a small throwaway role. People tend to ask me if films I review will be appropriate for their children. I must report that toward the end when the magic gets fast, furious, and a little sinister the four-year-old near me was frightened to tears. She was also a bit frightened of Fluffy, a near relation to Cerberus. Some of even the older children were squirming at the some point in the two and a half hours. But I suspect most of the audience will be back next year for HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS (which begins shooting November 19, rushed so as not to let Daniel Radcliffe get too old for the role). I'll give this one an 8 on the 0 to 10 scale and a high +2 on the -4 to +4 scale. Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2001 Mark R. Leeper ========== X-RAMR-ID: 30236 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 266994 X-RT-TitleID: 1109764 X-RT-AuthorID: 1309 X-RT-RatingText: 8/10 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Wed Nov 21 13:12:13 2001 Path: news.island.liu.se!news.ida.liu.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news01.sunet.se!erinews.ericsson.se!erix.ericsson.se!luth.se!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: Shannon Patrick Sullivan Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) Approved: ramr@rottentomatoes.com Followup-To: rec.arts.movies.current-films Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 19:20:31 -0000 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: X-RAMR-ID: 30238 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 266995 X-RT-TitleID: 1109764 X-RT-SourceID: 886 X-RT-AuthorID: 1699 X-RT-RatingText: 4/4 Summary: r.a.m.r. #30238 X-Questions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Submissions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 128 Xref: news.island.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:2226 rec.arts.sf.reviews:151 HARRY POTTER AND THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE (2001) / **** Directed by Chris Columbus. Screenplay by Steve Kloves, based on the novel by JK Rowling. Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson. Running time: 153 minutes. Rated PG by the MFCB. Reviewed on November 17th, 2001. By SHANNON PATRICK SULLIVAN Synopsis: Orphan Harry Potter (Radcliffe) lives with his loathsome inlaws, unaware that he is actually a wizard. Finally, on his eleventh birthday, Harry is taken by the giant Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) to attend Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. There, Harry befriends fellow students Ron (Grint) and Hermione (Watson) while beginning his tutelage in magic and uncovering an evil plot to steal the mythical Philosopher's Stone. Review: Despite his obvious enthusiasm for the source material, taking on the movie adaptation of "Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone" could not have been easy for Chris Columbus. Given the enormous popularity of the JK Rowling novel and its sequels, Columbus was essentially caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, there's the simple fact that making a movie necessitates a different approach than does a book. On the other hand, there's the pressure to be as faithful as possible to the novel; otherwise, Columbus risked the wrath of millions of readers, young and old, worldwide. Given all this, Columbus and scriptwriter Steven Kloves, have done a truly remarkable job. "Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone" is an enormously entertaining, spellbinding movie which does justice to Rowling's text. Most tellingly, it is a picture which should appeal to both die-hard "Potter" fans and those who have never read the book, to both the younger viewers at whom it is ostensibly targeted and the older audience members who are bound to get caught up in the ride, and to just about everyone in between. Like "ET The Extra-Terrestrial", "Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory" and "The Wizard Of Oz" before it, "The Philosopher's Stone" seems destined to remain a firm family favourite for decades to come. In part, the success of the adaptation is due to the controversial decision to permit the final edit to exceed two and a half hours. At nearly twice the length of many conventional family films, this enabled Columbus to squeeze in far more material than would be otherwise be the case. Were much of this material mere filler, I would agree with those who criticised this decision as being inappropriate for the young target audience. But the fact of the matter is that "The Philosopher's Stone" never feels padded out; indeed, the two-and-a-half hours race by as if the movie really were only half that length, and I'm quite confident that it will keep children thoroughly enraptured throughout. In fact, I would have been quite happy to sit through another half hour if it meant witnessing even more of Rowling's imaginative novel brought to life. Indeed, one of the few criticisms I can levy at "The Philosopher's Stone" is that, because so many of the book's major set pieces are incorporated, it does possess a slightly episodic feel. For example, in the middle portion of the movie, much is made of Quidditch -- a game like soccer played on broomsticks -- leading up to a thrilling depiction of Harry's first match. In the novel, Quidditch hovers in the background thereafter; in the film, it is virtually forgotten. Similarly, we see very little of Harry's classes, and it is sometimes easy to forget that Hogwarts is actually a school. And there are a few odd omissions; Harry's owl Hedwig, for instance, never gets a name onscreen. Further, whereas the novel boasts Rowling's enchanting prose to guide readers through the quieter sections, here we have only Columbus' direction. And, although he does a very capable job of translating the book to film, Columbus' approach is very workmanlike: there is little in the way of directorial flair on display. Surprisingly for a cast whose most prominent members are pre-teens, the acting in "The Philosopher's Stone" is quite good. Watson is charming as supercilious Hermione, and Grint is clearly having a lot of fun as Ron. Radcliffe faces a somewhat larger challenge, because Harry at this stage is a rather unformed personality (a theme of the novels is Harry coming into his own as both a person and a wizard). Nonetheless, he gives the audience a central figure to rally around, and holds much promise for future installments. The supporting cast is mostly limited in their screentime in favour of enacting as much of the book as possible. Despite this, Coltrane has a wonderful comic turn as Hagrid and Alan Rickman is deliciously menacing as the sinister Professor Snape. Also keep an eye out for terrific cameos by John Hurt as wand-maker Ollivander and Leslie Phillips, who voices the enchanted Sorting Hat. The biggest star of "The Philosopher's Stone" is its visual look, and Columbus and production designer Stuart Craig have outdone themselves in this capacity. This is a film which truly looks like a fantasy novel made real. The sets are magical and larger-than-life, but restrained enough to maintain a bearing on reality. The first glimpses of locales like Diagon Alley (where wizards go to shop) and Hogwarts Castle itself are genuinely mesmerising. Costume designer Judianna Makovsky is to be commended on her lavish creations, particularly the lush-looking robes worn at Hogwarts. Also noteworthy is the score, an unmistakable John Williams creation. Williams largely eschews bombastic strains for more subdued, entrancing arrangements which greatly enhance the fairy-tale-like feel of the movie. The special effects are also largely successful. Wisely, much of the magic is kept fairly low-key, only taking on a grander appearance when the situation warrants it, such as a thrilling life-sized chess match in the final act. That said, there is the occasional misstep. For example, although the Quidditch game is exhilarating in a way that "The Phantom Menace"'s pod race never approached, the obviously computer-generated backgrounds (particularly noticeable against shots of the onlookers) do detract from the overall appearance of things. Still, like the novel which inspired it, "Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone" is a wondrous experience. It will fire the imagination of youngsters and remind the adults of the inner child within each of us. I can hardly wait for the sequel. Copyright © 2001 Shannon Patrick Sullivan. Archived at The Popcorn Gallery, http://www.physics.mun.ca/~sps/movies.html | Shannon Patrick Sullivan | shannon@mun.ca | +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+ / Doctor Who: A Brief History of Time (Travel) go.to/drwho-history \ \__ We are all in the gutter but some of us are looking at the stars __/ ========== X-RAMR-ID: 30238 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 266995 X-RT-TitleID: 1109764 X-RT-SourceID: 886 X-RT-AuthorID: 1699 X-RT-RatingText: 4/4 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Wed Nov 21 13:12:17 2001 Path: news.island.liu.se!news.ida.liu.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news01.sunet.se!erinews.ericsson.se!erix.ericsson.se!luth.se!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!usenetserver.com!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: Karina Montgomery Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) Approved: ramr@rottentomatoes.com Followup-To: rec.arts.movies.current-films Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 19:25:26 -0000 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: X-RAMR-ID: 30241 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 266835 X-RT-TitleID: 1109764 X-RT-SourceID: 755 X-RT-AuthorID: 3661 Summary: r.a.m.r. #30241 X-Questions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Submissions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 80 Xref: news.island.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:2229 rec.arts.sf.reviews:152 Harry Potter & The Sorcerer's Stone Full Price Feature for Fans I blame Alan Rickman. I was never going to read these books, never involve my self in any way with Pottermania, and then I saw Rickman in the first preview for this months ago. "Mmmister Potter?" So I read J. K. Rowling's book that reads like a crack pipe, and the next, and the nextŠNeedless to say, by the time I actually saw the film, expectations were high, as were they for the audience of critics(and critics' friends with the greatest bribing power). It is one thing to read about flocks of owls delivering the post, and a whole other thing to see it. Lovely. I can safely say, with nary a qualm, that if you read this book, you will, at the very absolute worst, really like this movie. If you did not read this book, I want to hear from you! How does it play? I for one wondered how non-familiars would take to the story. For one thing, considering the title, one might think it gets to that point awfully slowly, not realizing what a delicious little trip (and important foreshadowing, er, I mean, exposition) it is on the way. My companion and I were constantly whispering, "That's exactly as I pictured it!" and giggling with glee at how dead on director Chris Columbus nailed the feeling of the book. I think that feel is always harder than story, especially when this story is so artfully lean and well-paced. As my boyfriend put it, anyone who couldn't make a good movie out of this book has got to be an idiot. Yes, he crammed for the release, reading the novel (which practically plays out in real time) in two days. Back to the actual film. Daniel Radcliffe initially turned down this role, which would have been insane, but thankfully he saw the light. And I have to tell you, I am not the only adult woman who is waiting for him to grow up. 'Nuff said there. He is perfect. I mean, freakily perfect - not just looking like Harry but he's got the beaten down humbleness and the natural graciousness and - he's great. I may have to break off my engagement with Haley Joel Osment. The whole cast is marvelous. Yes, keen-eyed fans, that's Warwick "Willow" Davis at Gringott's. I was actually panicked, fearing that Richard Harris somehow would not survive to play Dumbledore in all 7 movies. Seven books there will be and Warner Brothers, who hasn't had a profitable franchise since halfway through Batman, is ready to play ball I am sure. The actors completely inhabited their roles, though they were actually not given much screen time to do so. It is possible the filmmaker relied a little much on reader familiarity with the characters. I loved Maggie Smith and John Cleese and of course, Alan Rickman makes everything worthwhile. I have a huge crush on the lad, Sean Biggerstaff, who plays Oliver Wood. The painting which guards Gryffindor's dormitory section is played by no one more perfect than Elizabeth Spriggs, who is not seen nearly enough in this film. Hopefully, Prisoner of Azhkaban will have more of these lovely secondary characters. Here's a potion Snape would be proud of: take Oscar-magnet composer John Williams, Industrial Light and Magic, production designer Stuart Craig, DP John Seale, Jim Henson's Creature Shop, a highly trained and winsome cast of English smartypants, a can't miss concept and a family-friendly director. Mix in a cauldron with (in the spirit of The Hitchhiker's Guide's No Tea) No Icky Pop Song, No Dated References, No Pandering, and especially No Americana, and you have a charming 152 minutes at the movies. And unlike the new Star Wars abominations, this super-hyped movie event is actually worth your time. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ These reviews (c) 2001 Karina Montgomery. Please feel free to forward but just credit the reviewer in the text. Thanks. cinerina@flash.net Check out previous reviews at: http://www.cinerina.com http://ofcs.rottentomatoes.com - the Online Film Critics Society http://www.hsbr.net/reviews/karina/ - Hollywood Stock Exchange Brokerage Resource http://www.mediamotions.com http://www.capitol-city.com ========== X-RAMR-ID: 30241 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 266835 X-RT-TitleID: 1109764 X-RT-SourceID: 755 X-RT-AuthorID: 3661 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Wed Nov 21 13:12:22 2001 Path: news.island.liu.se!news.ida.liu.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news01.sunet.se!erinews.ericsson.se!erix.ericsson.se!luth.se!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hub1.nntpserver.com!telocity-west!TELOCITY!sn-xit-03!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: David N. Butterworth Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) Approved: ramr@rottentomatoes.com Followup-To: rec.arts.movies.current-films Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 20:02:55 -0000 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: X-RAMR-ID: 30252 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 267004 X-RT-TitleID: 1109764 X-RT-SourceID: 878 X-RT-AuthorID: 1393 X-RT-RatingText: 2.5/4 Summary: r.a.m.r. #30252 X-Questions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Submissions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 82 Xref: news.island.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:2238 rec.arts.sf.reviews:154 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 dnb@dca.net Got beef? Visit "La Movie Boeuf" online at http://members.dca.net/dnb ========== X-RAMR-ID: 30252 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 267004 X-RT-TitleID: 1109764 X-RT-SourceID: 878 X-RT-AuthorID: 1393 X-RT-RatingText: 2.5/4 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Tue Nov 27 15:45:07 2001 Path: news.island.liu.se!news.ida.liu.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news01.sunet.se!news.kth.se!uio.no!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: Ronald O. Christian Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) Approved: ramr@rottentomatoes.com Followup-To: rec.arts.movies.current-films Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 19:15:57 -0000 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: X-RAMR-ID: 30291 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 268427 X-RT-TitleID: 1109764 X-RT-AuthorID: 2596 X-RT-RatingText: 3/5 Summary: r.a.m.r. #30291 X-Questions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Submissions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 200 Xref: news.island.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:2264 rec.arts.sf.reviews:159 Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001) Daniel Radcliffe, John Cleese, Richard Harris, Alan Rickman US rating: PG "How long is the movie?" a woman ahead of me asked the teller. "Two hours, forty minutes" was the response. "Three Hours?" the woman exclaimed with theatrical surprise. "Two hours forty minutes" repeated the teller patiently. "Three hours?" the woman exclaimed again, a bit louder. I tried to be helpful. "It's not three hours, more like two and two-thirds." The woman glared at me, at the teller, and abruptly dropped out of line. Well, that was weird. But I guess one should expect weird things when standing in line for Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone, (I refuse to use the dumbed-down US-only title) one of the most anticipated, hyped, and vilified films in years. (Second, this year, only to Lord of the Rings, which may have less hype but perhaps more anticipation and a greater degree of vilification from print-only fans.) But a parent who does not know how many minutes are contained in an hour wasn't really the weirdness I was expecting. There were no fanatic kids wearing round glasses and pointy hats, and an utter absence of bible-thumpers, Wiccans objecting that the characters ride their brooms backwards, or members of the Stutterers Anti-Defamation League. The theater was quiet. Too quiet. Oh some kid in the front row was shouting broken Latin at the screen in various parts of the movie, (perhaps the actors were using the wrong spells or something) but other than that, the fannish insanity I was led to expect utterly failed to appear. The actual running time of Harry Potter is 2:32 including credits, or probably about 2:25 of movie. The teller was probably counting the two commercials and six trailers we had to sit through before the film started. None of the showings on Saturday, November 17 were sold out. Our theater contained a smallish but intensely enthusiastic crowd. I don't know how things are going elsewhere, but four screens in the Hillsboro, Oregon multiplex seemed more then adequate. The presentation: I've only seen the film once, in one theater, and I can only speak to that. The print we saw was very grainy in parts, especially in the outdoor scenes. The soundtrack had an odd defect throughout the film, which sounded-ed-ed li-ike an audi-i-i-o file-e play-ayed on an-n overlo-lo-loaded comp-put-ter. I don't have any idea of the cause, but it was extremely distracting. Hopefully others will have a better experience. The film: (mild spoilers ahead) As I may have already mentioned, I'm more than a little annoyed with the US-only name change, but I was interested in how they were going to patch in "sorcerer's stone" for "philosopher's stone" in the film itself. Turns out there are very few places where the dialog needed to be duplicated, and about half of those were probably done with dubbing, as the speaker was not onscreen. After considerable thought I'd have to rate Harry Potter 3 of 5 stars, for reasons I will explain below. I was tempted to rate it higher, but realized that this would have been more my reaction to the long string of turkeys I had to sit through since 1999 than any objective consideration of this particular movie. Unless you've just arrived on this planet, you are already familiar with plot and characters, so I will not waste your time by summarizing here. If you *have* just arrived on the planet, Welcome. Try the produce. The major questions I wanted to answer, as I sat back with my obligatory cup of flat soda, were (a) the accuracy of the adaption, and (b) how well the movie stood on it's own. The latter may be difficult to objectively quantify. Since I've read the (rather dull) books, the movie contained no surprises, and deficiencies in the script tend to be mentally filled-in. On the other hand, wife and I had to take turns filling in gaps for our 7 year old daughter who had not yet read the books. The adaptation is both faithful and flawed. Faithful in that practically every item that appears in the book appears also in the movie. Flawed in that almost every aspect of the story is cut short, simplified, causing the movie to be a Weekly Reader version of the book. For instance, the flute which Harry uses to get past the Cerberus in the book makes only a cameo appearance in the movie. It's like the producers tried to stuff as much of the imagery of the novel into the film regardless of whether it made sense. So, if a fan asked "is the flute in there?", the literal answer would be "yes". It probably wouldn't occur to the fan to ask "was the flute actually used?" The audience seemed to noticed this. My wife wanted to see more of the baby dragon, another pointless cameo. The kid in front of us was disappointed that there was so little time spent on Quiddich. (The film proceeds directly from Wood explaining the game, to Potter's first and only match, with no mention of any training in-between or of subsequent matches.) There are several effects-laden set-pieces throughout the film, some (in my opinion) entirely unnecessary, others abbreviated to pointlessness. As I'm currently teaching chess to my seven-year-old, we were both interested in the giant chess game near the end. But after the initial moves, it became a confused jumble of special effects and shattering plaster, making the scene both too-short and rather tedious. I understand why the scene needed to be in, (it's a major development of Ron's character) but the film would have been better served by dropping the previous two traps as it did the successive two. We already know that Hermione is smart and Harry can ride a broomstick, and the "one signature trap per instructor" gag had already been destroyed. Regrettably, the film retains the somewhat incomprehensible, deus-ex-machina ending of the book. But for all that, the film is still worth watching. Assuming your print isn't grainy and your soundtrack clean, Harry Potter is well imagined and beautifully filmed. The film works extremely well as a companion to the book, less so as a stand-alone. The actors: It has been said that Daniel Radcliffe is rather lifeless as the title character. It's true. Radcliffe pretty much walks through the film, neither touching nor being touched by the events around him. But I'm not sure this is a valid criticism of the actor. We are continually reminded in the books that Harry Potter is an extremely reserved, introverted, rather dull child. He doesn't speak much, and when he does, it's "coolly" or "tonelessly". Radcliffe should not be discredited for playing the character accurately, as written. In contrast, Rupert Grint as Ron and Emma Watson as Hermione play their parts with humor and energy. The contrast between dull Harry and his energetic friends makes the film that much more interesting to watch. Watson in particular, who appears to be making her film debut, bears watching. One of the many frustrating things about the film is the extremely short screen time of John Cleese as Nearly Headless Nick. Cleese does what he can with his thirty seconds, but it's not sufficient. Why would you hire one of the most well-known comics in England and then give him no funny lines? Richard Harris is adequate if a bit dull as Dumbledore, David Bradley (a name I did not recognize) is delightfully crazed as Filch, and Robbie Coltrane plays Hagrid to perfection. But of the adults, Alan Rickman takes the prize as the nasty, disagreeable, but ultimately heroic Snape. I only wish that Rickman had had more dialog. His speech during the first (and only) Potions class is almost worth the price of admission by itself. Rickman gets less screen time than he deserved. In conclusion, the film holds together well enough to be followed by most grade-schoolers, and contains little that would disturb most modern-day children. The acting runs from adequate to remarkable, and if you don't mind too many time-related cuts, the film is generally a satisfying experience. Like the book, the film's moral appears ostensibly to be that goodness and courage will win. But if you ignore the kids for just a moment, another, more important moral emerges. Near the end, the villain says, "there is no good or evil, only power", a chilling reflection, I submit, of the growing moral ambivalence of our society. But the most interesting adult, Snape, gives us another angle: "What you are is what you do". Malevolent, caustic, deliberately unpleasant, Snape nevertheless does the right things when necessary, even saving the life of someone he detests, simply because it is the right thing to do. Snape reminds us that our deeds define us more than our thoughts, emotions or verbal prostrations could ever do. It's worth remembering. Ron www.europa.com/~ronc "If UN peacekeeping had been involved during the US civil war, it'd still be going on today." ========== X-RAMR-ID: 30291 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 268427 X-RT-TitleID: 1109764 X-RT-AuthorID: 2596 X-RT-RatingText: 3/5 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Tue Nov 27 15:45:07 2001 Path: news.island.liu.se!news.ida.liu.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news01.sunet.se!newsfeeds.funet.fi!newsfeed1.funet.fi!212.16.96.3.MISMATCH!news.bbnetworks.net!news.defero.net!neo.defero.net!sonofon.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!171.64.14.106!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: Robin Clifford Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) Approved: ramr@rottentomatoes.com Followup-To: rec.arts.movies.current-films Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 19:17:17 -0000 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: X-RAMR-ID: 30292 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 268351 X-RT-TitleID: 1109764 X-RT-SourceID: 386 X-RT-AuthorID: 1488 Summary: r.a.m.r. #30292 X-Questions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Submissions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 86 Xref: news.island.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:2263 rec.arts.sf.reviews:158 "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" With a record-breaking opening weekend take of over $90 million it is assured that this long-awaited, enormously hyped event film will make millions upon millions more and is the stuff that franchises are made of. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," if you haven't heard (and you must have been living in a cave on a mountain in Tibet if you didn't), is the first film outing for the first book of the wildly popular J.K. Rowling Harry Potter series. For those one or two who haven't been exposed to the Potter phenomenon the stories begin with orphaned Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) forced to spend his formative years living in a cramped, dark closet under the stairs in the house on Privet Drive, the home of Uncle Vernon Dursley (Richard Griffiths), Aunt Petunia (Fiona Shaw) and cousin Dudley (Harry Melling). There is something very special about Harry, a fact that his cruel, selfish aunt and uncle have denied since the boy's parents died in a car crash (or so we are told) when he was just a baby. For years Uncle Vernon has sought to keep important information from Harry about the boy's true self. On his 11th birthday, Harry is visited by a giant named Hagrid (Robbie Coltraine), receives an invitation to attend Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, learns that his parents were masters of the magical arts and that he is destined to greatness. He attends the school, makes best friends with Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), learns oodles of magic from Albus Dumbledore (Richard Harris) and Professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith), becomes a Quiddich hero (read the book or see the movie for an explanation) and has one daring adventure after another, all the while being a good, honest kid. What you will see in the movie "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" (released in Great Britain as "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone") is a movie spectacle that faithfully (within the constraints of runtime - it is 142 minutes long - a truly faithful adaptation would run for hours) delivers the book from start to finish. Sure, there are elements left out or under told, but overall, helmer Chris Columbus and scripter Steve Kloves have succeeded in creating the magical world of Rowling's main character with all the magical details so imaginatively drawn in the book. The screenplay uses the same episodic technique that Rowling utilized, much to the same affect. Production designer Stuart Craig has brought to life the odd and wonderful places that are described in the book from the halls of Hogwarts School to giant Hagrid's cozy cottage to the bowels of the school where Harry and his friends confront the evil Voldemort (Ian Hart) in the film's finale. The fans will have little to fault, either, in the special F/X department. The fast-paced flying Quiddich match puts you in the air (to sometimes queasy affect) and the creatures that make up the magical world of Hogwarts - trolls, dragons, gnomes, owls and more - bring visual life to Rowling's written word. Makeup and creature effects by Nick Dudman gives a real feel to his various and sundry monsters and guardians of Harry's new world. Cinematographer John Seale does a fabulous job photographing the film with a rich texture that captures the necessary magic. All the players do a decent job bringing the characters to life. The three kids, all newcomers, establish themselves well and should grow nicely into their roles as the franchise takes off. There will be seven (at least) Potter books and that should translate nicely into a marketing dream. There are a bevy of veteran character actors who show up in small and cameo roles. The aforementioned Harris, Smith, Hart and Coltraine are joined by the likes of Alan Rickman as the mysterious, serious Professor Snape; John Cleese passes through as the ghostus with the mostus, Nearly Headless Nick; Julie Walters has a brief moment as the loving mother of many, Ron's mother Mrs. Weasley; John Hurt does his bit as Mr. Ollivander, purveyor of magic wands. So, if you have lived in that cave in Tibet and know only the little bit that I told you about the story go see "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." If anything, the film adaptation is too faithful to the book, which may be a turnoff to the less-than-hard-core fans. I like it but I don't love it, which is just the same way I felt about the novel. I give it a B. For more Reeling reviews visit www.reelingreviews.com robin@reelingreviews.com laura@reelingreviews.com ========== X-RAMR-ID: 30292 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 268351 X-RT-TitleID: 1109764 X-RT-SourceID: 386 X-RT-AuthorID: 1488 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Tue Nov 27 15:45:07 2001 Path: news.island.liu.se!news.ida.liu.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news01.sunet.se!erinews.ericsson.se!erix.ericsson.se!luth.se!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: Laura Clifford Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) Approved: ramr@rottentomatoes.com Followup-To: rec.arts.movies.current-films Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 19:24:31 -0000 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: X-RAMR-ID: 30296 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 268208 X-RT-TitleID: 1109764 X-RT-SourceID: 386 X-RT-AuthorID: 1487 Summary: r.a.m.r. #30296 X-Questions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Submissions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 71 Xref: news.island.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:2259 rec.arts.sf.reviews:157 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 laura@reelingreviews.com robin@reelingreviews.com ========== X-RAMR-ID: 30296 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 268208 X-RT-TitleID: 1109764 X-RT-SourceID: 386 X-RT-AuthorID: 1487 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Sat Jan 5 16:00:40 2002 From: Shane Burridge Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) Approved: ramr@rottentomatoes.com Followup-To: rec.arts.movies.current-films Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 19:37:26 -0000 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: X-RAMR-ID: 30420 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 270836 X-RT-TitleID: 1109764 X-RT-AuthorID: 1305 Summary: r.a.m.r. #30420 X-Questions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Submissions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 112 Path: news.island.liu.se!news.Update.UU.SE!puffinus.its.uu.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news01.sunet.se!news.net.uni-c.dk!newsfeed1.uni2.dk!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: news.island.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:2380 rec.arts.sf.reviews:168 Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001) 152m Hype really does make it harder to enjoy a movie. At the most basic level, it is the buildup of expectation that may let the film down, but there are other responses that media saturation can bring: the most obvious is that the film in question is pumped up and celebrated so much by its producers that you come to resent it before even catching a look at it; and in some cases, a movie that you might have been interested in seeing during its pre-production phase becomes just too popular an event, mutating into the sort of thing that you don't want to see not only because "everyone" is seeing it, but because they are expected to see it. In HARRY POTTER's case, it was the media's witless catch-cries of "Potty Over Potter" and "They're Just Wild About Harry" , coupled with the U.S. market's irrelevant retitling of 'Philosopher's Stone' to 'Sorcerer's Stone' that I found most offputting (I don't suffer fools and bylines gladly) but the arrival of the staggeringly banal tag on the movie poster - "Journey Beyond Your Imagination" - nearly had me boycott the film on principle alone (J K Rowling wrote the source material: the only thing the marketing geniuses had to do was think of one lousy line for a poster, and all they could come up with was a hack phrase that was not only conceptually accurate but also ironically devoid of any imagination). Besides all of this, I wasn't in any particular rush to see the film - I'd read the books and had pretty much 'seen the movie' in my mind already. There was also the issue of Chris Columbus as director. This is the same man who just can't help dolloping sentiment into his movies for the sake of an audience response. The director of STEPMOM and NINE MONTHS doing HARRY POTTER? Insert shudder here. But then again, Columbus started out with an edge when he wrote GREMLINS and THE GOONIES, and when I'd heard that Rowling had insisted on an all-British cast and was on hand during filming for 'quality control' I began to concede that the film might be worth seeing after all. But if any of the above reasons weren't enough to deter would-be ticket buyers, there was also the make-a-movie-of-a-phenomenon stigma that had attached itself to the film. HARRY POTTER, however, is born of a different type of mania. Unlike POKEMON, STAR WARS, BATMAN, or every other pop culture juggernaut that has been fabricated into a movie over the last couple of decades, HARRY POTTER has a more upmarket lineage: not of comics or video games or cartoons, but honest-to-goodness books. Yes, POTTER is born of literature, and for once the media obviously felt that it was justified in contributing to the hoopla, as evidenced by an interminable onslaught of bimbos and newsreaders (they prefer the term 'journalists', but it ain't gonna happen) gleefully informing us of such insights that "books are cool again!" and kids with glasses are no longer "nerds" (they would do well to remember that the very children whose praises they are singing are going to be the same ones who'll be skeptical of everything they say on TV in the years to come). In similar vein, you'd have to assume that the average Harry Potter/J K Rowling fan would be among the more informed of their contemporaries, and likely to view the film a little more critically than most other PG-fare. The London premiere was host to a throng of such fans, all pressed waist-high against the railings and enthusiastically clutching their copies of different Harry Potter volumes. Obviously any of these kids would have given their eye teeth to get into this showing, but they had to make do with watching less deserving personalities stroll up the red carpet in their stead ("Nah, I haven't read the book" Cher informed a TV cameraman while swishing past in a thousand dollars worth of sparkles, even though it's only a children's book and she could have read the freakin' thing on the plane over). Are these reasons not to see the film? No, they're just preconceptions, and the point of this spiel is to voice the doubts that several potential viewers may be sharing and, having done so, erase them. Forget the hype, ignore the commercial exploitation, wipe the slate clean and see HARRY POTTER for what it is: a jolly good adventure that can be enjoyed by all ages. Foremost among the movie's achievements is its adherence to the book: the tone is right, the pacing is right, and most significantly, the look is right. The film-makers have somehow managed to tap into a collective subconscious and portray the book in the way that most people would probably visualize it. This not only includes the locations and sets, but also the characters - it will be hard to read Harry Potter again without seeing Robbie Coltrane's Hagrid or Maggie Smith's MacGonagall peering out from among the pages. But it's Alan Rickman who steals the show in as Harry's ambiguous foe Professor Snape: by speaking in a low, fruity gurgle and keeping his face almost immobile for the whole movie he turns underacting into some kind of overacting, or vice versa. Harry's friends Ron and Hermione don't translate to the screen as effectively, but Daniel Radcliffe fits the title role effortlessly: I'd always felt the hero of the books was quite an anonymous character despite - or probably because of - his constant presence throughout the stories, but Radcliffe is both personable and believable (Harry's distracting scar is sensibly covered up by his hair during the movie). It has probably escaped the attention of most people that subsequent films in the HARRY POTTER series (paralleling the series of books) will come under a different sort of scrutiny. The first film inevitably bears the burden of being compared with Harry Potter in print; the others will inherit this to some degree but will also be compared to the previous movies. Ironically, the success of adapting the first novel has only made things more difficult for the film-makers from this point on. Future adaptations will need some judicious editing to work effectively as films, as Rowling expands upon a ritualistic formula throughout her series. We've already seen the Dursleys, Diagon Alley, the train trip, the sorting hat ceremony, the quidditch game (one of the film's highlights), et al: there's no need to see these repeated when there is so much new material within the other stories. I would hope that the film-makers believe they have proven themselves this first time around and don't treat the remaining books as some kind of Holy Writ that must be followed verbatim to avoid the wrath of Rowling's fans (the length of the fourth book, 'Goblet of Fire' has brought speculation that the film version may have to be released in two parts, but in truth there is much extraneous matter that can be trimmed without hurting the story). It's going to be tough. Audiences don't want the next one to be just as good: they want it better. ========== X-RAMR-ID: 30420 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 270836 X-RT-TitleID: 1109764 X-RT-AuthorID: 1305 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Sat Jan 5 16:00:40 2002 Path: news.island.liu.se!news.ida.liu.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news01.sunet.se!news1.ebone.net!news.ebone.net!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newsfeed.telusplanet.net!sjcppf01.usenetserver.com.MISMATCH!sjcppf01!usenetserver.com!sn-xit-04!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: Jerry Saravia Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) Approved: ramr@rottentomatoes.com Followup-To: rec.arts.movies.current-films Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 19:42:16 -0000 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: X-RAMR-ID: 30424 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 270838 X-RT-TitleID: 1109764 X-RT-SourceID: 875 X-RT-AuthorID: 1314 X-RT-RatingText: 2/4 Summary: r.a.m.r. #30424 X-Questions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Submissions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 103 Xref: news.island.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:2384 rec.arts.sf.reviews:169 HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE (2001) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia December 8th, 2001 RATING: 2 stars Harry Potter has become a hero for children and adults alike in the last couple of years. I suppose this is a good thing considering that Potter's origins stem from books and if young kids are reading books, then that is always cause for celebration. I have not read any of the books but I am considering reading the first book, just to get a taste of what is delighting kids so much nowadays. The movie version of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" gives me little enthusiasm though, a loud, frenetic comic book movie that has plenty of good ideas but has no idea how to orchestrate them into a whole movie. In the opening scene, Harry Potter is an abandoned baby found by wizards from the Hogwarts school who is given to a good family to be taken care of. Good family? I should think not. The next scene shows an 11-year-old Harry Potter (played by Daniel Radcliffe), as we learn that his parents were killed by an evil wizard named Voldemort who left Harry with a scar on his forehead. Potter lives with his mother's sister and her family, which includes her mail-hating husband and their son. They are all mean to Harry and keep him in a closet staircase as if he was an animal. Letters are sent everyday to Harry from owls. It turns out the letters are from the Hogwarts School of Wizardry and Witchcraft and they want Harry to attend. Thanks to a hulking man named Rubeus Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), Harry is sent off to the school, picking up an appropriate wand and other magic devices for his training (there is even a bank for wizards!). He arrives at the school and becomes friends with Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermi one Granger (Emma Watson), though Granger seems to be the one who actually reads the assigned books. So we see floating candles above the dining room, snappy professors, goblins, rampaging giant trolls, mirrors that may tell information about the past and future, invisible cloaks, and a dangerous game called Quidditch. Oh, and how can one omit the use of magic brooms! I have heard complaints from real witches that brooms are to be ridden with the bundle of straw on the front, not the back, and am still waiting for a movie to get that detail right. Most of this sounds like great fun, and some of it is. But I felt curiously uninvolved throughout "Harry Potter," as well as detached from the characters, including the beaming Mr. Potter himself. He is always smiling and almost always triumphant but he possesses no individual personality. It is not Radcliffe's fault but one wishes director Columbus and writer Steven Kloves ("The Fabulous Baker Boys") instilled some dimension in this brave tyke. Same with most of the other young wizards except for the clever Hermione, a girl who spends her time telling Potter and Weasley secrets of wizardry and the inner secrets of the teachers at Hogwarts. She is strong and determined and educated, qualities that Potter seems to lack. "Harry Potter" never quite feels magical or joyous. There is no actual sense of fun or adventure either. Part of the problem is the film has too many close-ups which cramp the screen - there are too few exterior shots to convey a mood or sense of place. The entrance to the Hogwarts school is mystical and magical but what takes place inside is not. Columbus's use of close-ups in movies like "Mrs. Doubtfire" and "Home Alone" worked but a magical adventure like this needs some spaciousness, some sense of mysticism. After all, this world in "Harry Potter" is entirely fictional. The special-effects are well-done but are too frenzied and cramped, as if the editor lost patience and kept cutting away too fast before the next scene took place. The Quidditch sequence is a highlight as it depicts a game where an orb has to be caught and thrown through a hoop by the players riding on brooms - sort of a high-flying hockey game. But as soon as the sequence begins, there is discoloration in the scene, as if it was overcast considering it takes place outdoors. The beginning of the scene shows vibrant colors but then the special effects take over and desaturate whatever color there was. This is one more example why CGI effects do not always work, and one of the reasons why similar outdoor shots in "Gladiator," specifically the arena, also looked faded and colorless. Other effects involving the giant troll and a centaur are wondrous to watch but the three-headed dog leaves something to be desired. On the plus side, the performances by titanic actors like Alan Rickman (my favorite in this cast) as Professor Snapes, the teacher of the dark arts, Maggie Smith as the stern Headmistress Mistress McGonagall, who can turn into a cat, and Richard Harris, the serene Albus Dumbledore who looks like Merlin, are all terrific and filled with wit and energy. Unfortunately, they do not occupy much screen time, leaving it all to the tykes who did not exactly rouse me or get me in the mood for their adventures. Yes, "Harry Potter" might please kids and readers of the best-selling books no matter what I have to say. But consider "Young Sherlock Holmes," written by Mr. Columbus himself, an imagined look at Holmes in his youth solving a case in London. It was involving and exciting and had a definite sense of adventure and some magic. Also worth seeing is "The Witches," which is about tykes that change into rats under the spell of a mean witch (Anjelica Huston). Both of these films involved kids or teens caught in a dangerous world of supernatural circumstances, some seen and others unseen. The elements of a great adventure about a young wizard in training had lots of potential. Columbus turns it into a harmless, impersonal film. Maybe he just needed a magic wand. For more reviews, check out JERRY AT THE MOVIES at http://moviething.com/members/movies/faust/JATMindex.shtml E-mail me with any questions, comments or general complaints at faustus_08520@yahoo.com or at Faust668@aol.com ========== X-RAMR-ID: 30424 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 270838 X-RT-TitleID: 1109764 X-RT-SourceID: 875 X-RT-AuthorID: 1314 X-RT-RatingText: 2/4 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Sat Jan 5 16:00:40 2002 From: Homer Yen Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) Approved: ramr@rottentomatoes.com Followup-To: rec.arts.movies.current-films Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 19:39:21 -0000 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: X-RAMR-ID: 30472 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 273025 X-RT-TitleID: 1109764 X-RT-AuthorID: 1370 X-RT-RatingText: B Summary: r.a.m.r. #30472 X-Questions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Submissions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 84 Path: news.island.liu.se!news.Update.UU.SE!puffinus.its.uu.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news01.sunet.se!news.kth.se!uio.no!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: news.island.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:2432 rec.arts.sf.reviews:175 "Harry Potter" – The Book Magically Comes to Life Never having read any of the "Harry Potter" books, I can not be considered an avid fan. I was not swept up by the fanfare that preceded the release of this film. But I am in the minority. Its opening weekend take shattered box office records by generating over $90 million, surpassing the previous record holder which was "The Phantom Menace." Tickets were even sold out for most shows at the Cineplex Odeon at the White Flint Mall. If you live in the DC area, you probably know that the only good thing about this theatre is that it occasionally shows a movie that is otherwise impossible to find in Montgomery County (I saw "Amelie" there and noticed the sold-out status and long lines for HP). This is arguably one of the worst theatres in the entire DC area in which to watch a film. The screen is small and the sound system is lousy. And there aren't any prime seating locations. Either you're sitting too close and have to painfully tilt your head up at a 30-degree angle or you're too far away and have to squint in order to see the screen. You'd be better off watching a film in your basement. Still, the Harry Potter magic was so strong that it even brought people out to this cinema. I can only imagine that these people were hardcore fans of the book, and they came out to see its magical transformation from hardcover to the big screen. Happily, they'll probably be excited at how the film vividly captures the details, atmosphere, and creatures of JK Rowling's book. The characters, like Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) who would mistakenly blurt out secrets and then be amazed at himself for saying such things, are wonderfully eccentric and amusing. The world of Harry Potter is mystical. The big city looks like something out of a Charles Dickens novel and the grand halls and rooms of Hogwart's School of Magic are gothic masterpieces. Also stunning is a sequence that features a game called Quidditch, which is sort of an airborne combination of soccer and rugby. Meanwhile, the obstacles such as trolls and other beasts are daunting and even a bit scary. The author reportedly had enormous input from the landscapes rendered down to the color of the broomsticks. And all scenes had to be approved by her prior to filming. Even the actor who plays Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) looks just like the image on the hardcover books. So, watching this fine-looking film saves me from reading a 700+ page book. Yet, at the same time, I also very much wished that I had read the book first. It's obvious that great care had been given to this adaptation. For example, when Harry goes to buy his first magic wand, there are dozens from which to choose and all of different designs. And, when he wanders the hall of Hogwart's School of Magic, paintings take on a life of their own. There are dozens of other examples, but it is clear that the book is able to spark your imagination in wonderful ways. Meanwhile, watching the film is like having everything spoon-fed to you. That's not necessarily bad, but I believe that the film's beauty and grandeur would be more pronounced if you had read the book first. Grade: B S: 0 out of 3 L: 0 out of 3 V: 1 out of 3 ========== X-RAMR-ID: 30472 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 273025 X-RT-TitleID: 1109764 X-RT-AuthorID: 1370 X-RT-RatingText: B From rec.arts.sf.reviews Sat Jan 5 16:00:40 2002 Path: news.island.liu.se!news.ida.liu.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news01.sunet.se!erinews.ericsson.se!erix.ericsson.se!luth.se!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-01!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: Eugene Novikov Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) Approved: ramr@rottentomatoes.com Followup-To: rec.arts.movies.current-films Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 09:46:11 -0000 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: X-RAMR-ID: 30567 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 275156 X-RT-TitleID: 1109764 X-RT-SourceID: 610 X-RT-AuthorID: 1577 Summary: r.a.m.r. #30567 X-Questions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Submissions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 106 Xref: news.island.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:2521 rec.arts.sf.reviews:185 Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) Reviewed by Eugene Novikov http://www.ultimate-movie.com/ "Mr. Potter. Our new celebrity." Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Alan Rickman, Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane. Directed by Chris Columbus. Rated PG-13. I've long jumped on the "Harry Potter" bandwagon. I've read and reread the four novels and I am giddily waiting for the fourth, which seems forever stuck in its perhaps too effective anticipation-building stage. I am convinced that J.K. Rowling's work is a literary masterpiece as well as a pop-culture phenomenon; she will be remembered both alongside Tolkien as a great fantasy writer and alongside Roald Dahl as a gifted author with an uncanny gift to penetrate the hearts and minds of children. It should be noted, then, that I went into Chris Columbus's film adaptation of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone convinced that there was no way I was going to dislike it. This review should be read with that fact in mind. The story should be familiar to everyone who hasn't been in solitary confinement for the last three years or so. Like most fairy tale heroes, Harry Potter emerges from a traumatic childhood to do extraordinary things. He lives with his Aunt Petunia and Uncle Vernon Dursley on Privet Drive, in a cupboard under the stairs. He's abused in various exaggerated ways until a mysterious letter arrives and turns his family's contempt into fear. It seems that Harry Potter is a wizard, and a famous one at that, and he has been invited to attend the prestigious Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Harry is picked up by Hagrid, a giant "gamekeeper" at Hogwarts, and is taken to Diagon Alley, a wizard street concealed in the heart of London where he can pick up the things he will need for his first year at the School, including a magic wand, an owl and a cauldron. Then Harry takes the Hogwarts Express from Platform 9 3/4 at King's Cross Station. Hogwarts itself, of course, is a fascinating place, with changing staircases, a magical sorting hat and wizard and witch professors that are by turns stern, kind, irritating or downright evil. And then there's the third floor corridor, which no one is allowed to enter for fear of dying a very painful death... From the film's opening shot of the "Privet Drive" street sign, set to the spine-tingling first notes of John Williams' accomplished, Danny Elfman-like score, we are drawn into the universe that Rowling and, to a lesser extent, director Chris Columbus have created. Columbus's approach is indeed mostly straightforward and "workmanlike" -- a word that has been thrown around derisively to signify his alleged "lack of imagination" -- but there is the occasional punch in the gut (the unexpectedly brutal flashback to the demise of Lily and James Potter; the entire opening sequence) that shows that if we're not working with a Steven Spielberg here, we are working with his one-time protege. It's a good sign that Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone feels rushed at two-and-a-half hours. I would easily have sat twice as long. The movie jumps from event-to-event like it has a checklist that it has to fulfill (and it does), and its abruptness was sometimes distracting. I wonder if I would have felt this way had I not read the book first; perhaps I longed for the leisurly, flowing pace that would have been impossible to translate to the screen. But I quibble. The movie is faithful to the book, and it retains its genuine sense of awe and wonder. The performances from newcomers Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson are uniformly solid, and the all-star British cast provides a formidable background of support. When the credits rolled, I got the same feeling that I got when I put down the novel: I was disappointed that it's fiction. If that's not a touchstone of excellence for a fantasy film, I don't know what is. Grade: A- Up Next: Amelie ©2001 Eugene Novikov ========== X-RAMR-ID: 30567 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 275156 X-RT-TitleID: 1109764 X-RT-SourceID: 610 X-RT-AuthorID: 1577