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

From: Jon Popick <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 19:36:08 -0000

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