Subject: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

From: David N. Butterworth <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 20:02:55 -0000

HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE
A film review by David N. Butterworth
Copyright 2001 David N. Butterworth

**1/2 (out of ****)

	The phenomenon that is Harry Potter--the orphaned, bespectacled
11-year-old with majorly wizardly powers--arrives in theaters this week in
the form of the eagerly anticipated "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone"
(or Philosopher's Stone if you happen to be reading this across the pond).

	Your appreciation of the film is likely to be colored by whether or not
you've read the book(s).

	If you're one of the umpteen million aficionados of J.K. Rowling's series
of children's books, then you'll no doubt marvel at the look and feel of
the thing, how often director Chris Columbus ("Mrs. Doubtfire," "Home
Alone"), screenwriter Steve Kloves ("The Wonder Boys," "The Fabulous Baker
Boys"), and an able cast (among them Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Robbie
Coltrane, Alan Rickman, John Hurt, and Daniel Radcliffe as Harry) have
gotten things just right.  Just right in the guise of the imposing majesty
of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry with its shifting staircases
and talking portraits and impressive dining halls; the imposing bulk of
Hagrid the giant (delightfully played by Coltrane); the excitement of the
quidditch game and the malevolence of the life-sized wizard's chess game,
as well as some of the smaller details--the casting of Harry's magic pals
Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), for example,
and Hagrid's cute little dragon Norbert.

	The problem for fans, of course, is that knowing the book inside and out
leaves very little in the way of surprises.  And, as with any novel turned
into a feature length movie (even with Rowling herself reportedly on the
set to oversee every single scene of the production), they've left a lot of
stuff out.

	If you've not read the book--all eight of you, that is--then you might
wish you had, since without an in-depth knowledge of the characters ahead
of time "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" is only partly satisfying,
impressive from a production design standpoint with plenty of broomsticks
and owls and cinematic magic but emotionally distant.  The two-and-a-half
hour running length will almost certainly add to your fidget quotient as
you wonder to yourself who are all these people and where did they come from.

	The very first part of the very first Harry Potter book spent a lot of
time inside Harry's head and alas that's what's really missing from part
one of a scheduled series of films ("Harry Potter and the Chamber of
Secrets" is slated to open next Thanksgiving with much the same cast and
crew).  Otherwise you can't much quibble with this translation; Columbus
and Co. promised to be true to the original and they've kept their word.

	The film is rated PG ("a few sequences might to be too intense for some
children") but I wouldn't recommend taking anyone under six to see the
picture.  In addition to a fairly brutal chess game (which has received the
most press in terms of the film's scariest sequence), there are several
scenes and setups which could give a youngster nightmares for weeks--a
snarling three-headed dog, a Shrek-like troll, crumbling bad guys, creepy
forests, mean step-parents... even the lovable Hagrid's entrance is a
little intimidating.  And the tone, especially in the early going, is not
exactly sorcery lite.

	Harry Potter has arrived and, given the rate at which Rowling is cranking
out her stories (and Warner Brothers is optioning them), it looks like he's
going to be around for quite some time.

--
David N. Butterworth
[email-masked]

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