Review
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
- Director
- Chris Columbus
- Year
- 2001
- Rating
- Reviewed by
- José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris
- Review date
- Wednesday, December 19, 2001
Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) has lived with the over-bearing Dursleys since he was a baby. Finally he is 11 and ready to go to Hogwarts, a school for wizards. Gatekeeper Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) is the first to befriend Harry and introduce him to his new home. It’s all new to him, as it is for Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson), two kids who become Harry’s best friends. The school is also run by a lot of teachers and magicians, of which headmaster Albus Dumbledore (Richard Harris), professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith) and Professor Snape (Alan Rickman) stand out. Slowly, Harry and his friends start to discover all the wonders of this place while also uncovering a possible robbery plot that might involve dark forces.
I want to put it clear first and foremost that I didn’t completely love the movie. My problems with it have little to do with the fact that I’d read the book. I decided to see it as a purely cinematic endeavor. Of course, that was almost impossible, but I managed my way.
Harry Potter could have been a more surprising movie. It is extremely faithful to the book, perhaps a bit too much. With the exception of some subplots tied up, a character that was completely vanished in the process and a couple of new scenes, the movie is almost an exact copy of the material it was based on. And I say “almost” because something was missed in the transition: the aforementioned element of surprise, of wonder. You get the sense that it’s all too straightforward, too family-friendly, more than it should have been for its own good.
That’s not to say the movie isn’t fun, because it is. I’ve seen it two times now and the second viewing felt better, maybe because I knew what to expect and enjoyed it more that way. After all, the story is entertaining, the characters are highly charismatic and the magic is irresistible. This whole world is kind of a dream come true. Everything we always wished as kids is there. It’s fascinating, at least for me.
A lot of CGI was required to bring this world to life. Sometimes it looks fake, but that’s ok because it’s all magic after all. I simply loved the sets and the visual design of the movie. They’re jaw-droppingly good. Not faring as good are the flying sequences, which look quite artificial for my taste. All of this is presented with a great John Williams’s score in the background. It’s amazing how he always manages to capture the spirit of what’s presented. His score screams magic!
The cast in Harry Potter is almost perfect. “Almost,” again, because I had one little problem and that was Harry himself. Daniel Radcliffe might look like Harry, but he isn’t as charismatic as he should be, neither as good an actor as we might’ve expected. He’s wooden and always carries the same expression. One should look no further than to his companions to see what I mean.
Emma Watson, as Hermione, steals the movie. She’s such a great find. A charming girl embodying a great character and making it hers. Rupert Gring, as Ron, is equally good. The older actors do a great job. Maggie Smith plays Professor McGonagall just as I had imagined her. But I was actually surprised by Alan Rickman’s performance as Professor Snape. He’s extraordinary. I loved the way he delivered his lines. As remarkable as Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid. Perfect casting!
Overall, I guess it all comes down to Chris Columbus and Steve Kloves’s script. They made a solid movie. Charming and entertaining in a safe kind of way. I just wish they’d go further...
“Mr. Harry Potter... our new celebrity.”
CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook
Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter
Other reviews of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001): Groucho
Comments
Jacinda wrote at 6/22/2002:
Thanks for your review, Morris. I actually have to agree on most things you said about the movie. It is not a bad one, but it is not a great one either. I enjoyed it in a way, but as you said, Columbus keeps it safe, family-safe.I don't even know how he could have changed things, but the movie simply lacks inspiration. Maybe it's not completely his fault. The appeal of the books lies in the descriptions, the small things that keep surprising you. Rowling's books are full of imagination and bright ideas - you won't find that in the movie.
Maybe this magic got lost because you knew what to expect when the adaptation turned out to be exactly like the book. But I don't think so. People like Gon, who haven't read the books, certainly didn't feel compelled or too surprised. I tend to blame Columbus for that.
Moreover, the first book is more of an introduction to the wizard world. The action is sort of episodic. While the book works because you keep discovering magical creatures, people and places, the movie lacks that drive which could have pulled together the action. The cast is perfect though. Except for Daniel Radcliffe. I totally agree with you. He's my main problem with the film. Somehow he's just not the Harry that I had in mind when reading the books. Of course, he's still unaware of his powers and insecure and so on, but I imagined him smarter and more charismatic. In contrast, Emma Watson is just perfect. Hermione is my favorite character and I am so extremely glad they found this girl. I also liked the casting of Ron and the other Weasleys. Rickman as Snape is definitely a stand-out. Too bad, he didn't have many scenes which is another problem. The movie lacks a villain and the climax is sort of abrupt and unpredictable, but in a weird way.
As far as CGI effects are concerned, I was very disappointed by the Quidditch game. Some creatures also look really fake (like the centaur). I wonder where all the money went. :( But there is one thing that I cannot criticize at all - that's the extraordinarily beautiful score by John Williams.
I hope the next movies will be more imiginative..
p/s: I want my Norbert!!!
Morris wrote at 6/22/2002:
I'm impressed because we seemed to really think EXACTLY the same about the movie Jacinda. I have not yet read the next books in the series so I can't tell properly, but you're right about the first one being more of an introduction and this translating into an episodic and overlong movie. I certainly hope the next movie will be better, but Radcliffe and Columbus are still on board, so I have moderate expectations. Let's cross our fingers, because this fantastic world is truly amazing! New comments are temporarily disabled
Elfote wrote at 6/22/2002:
You are right my friend Groucho! Its too long and lacks appeal for non readers. By the way, wheres your review of fellowship?PD Im no longer receiving messages from our yahoo group :(