Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone** 1/2 out of ****November 19, 2001 BY ADAM KEMPENAARIf you've heard any of the hype surrounding Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, then you know that it is supposed to be one of the most faithful book-to-screen adaptations ever. Frankly, I wouldn't know. Despite the vast popularity of J.K. Rowling's series, and the repeated assurances by friends who tell me how wonderful the books are, I've yet to read any of them -- which makes me either the worst person to review this movie or the best, depending on your perspective. The most common complaint about films based on books, of course, is that they tend to leave out all the good stuff, whether it's your favorite supporting characters, crucial details about a particular situation, or entire subplots. My feeling is that this criticism probably won't apply here. At 153 minutes, screenwriter Steve Kloves and director Chris Columbus have jam-packed Harry Potter with so many characters and secondary storylines that a little cutting here or there might not have hurt. The movie opens with an infant Harry being delivered to the doorstep of his aunt and uncle's home. Harry's parents were both wizards who were killed by the evil Voldemort. But something prevented Voldemort from killing Harry, and the legend of this story makes Harry something of a celebrity when he is summoned on his 11th birthday to attend the famed Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. At Hogwarts, Harry makes friends with Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint), an inept but good-humored young wizard, and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), an uptight bookworm. He also meets the giant Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) and the eccentric members of the faculty, including Headmaster Dumbledore (Richard Harris), Professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith), and the creepy Professor Snape (Alan Rickman). Like his mother and father before him, Harry becomes an instant star at Hogwarts, first helping to disarm a huge, menacing troll who gets into the school - or was he let in? - and later becoming the youngest "seeker" in the history of Quidditch, a fast-paced sport that resembles soccer except that the participants zip through the air on broomsticks. Watching the film, I understand now why so many children have been caught up in the Harry Potter phenomenon. Along with all the magic, there's also an intriguing little mystery involving Voldemort and the title stone, a powerful jewel that gives its holder immortality. As Harry and his cohorts try to unmask and prevent the would-be thief, I was reminded of the Hardy Boys and Encyclopedia Brown mysteries that I enjoyed reading as a kid. Unlike these young heroes, however, the Harry Potter presented here didn't strike me as very dynamic. Daniel Radcliffe's performance is likeable enough, but the script makes him a rather passive leader. In many scenes it's his friends who push him into action, not the other way around. And although he's smart, inquisitive, and courageous, Ron and Hermione steal the show with their quick wit and humor. Also, Harry's potential is always apparent, but we don't get many chances to see the young wizard practice his craft in or out of the classroom. When Hermione tells Harry near the end that he is the best wizard in the school, her remark rings somewhat hollow, especially when she is the one who performs the most magic. Director Chris Columbus, an American, is known for making by-the-book, box office hits such as Home Alone, Mrs. Doubtfire, and Stepmom. I kept waiting for a scene where Harry and his Gryffindor housemates would share a special bonding moment as they all sang "Ain't No Mountain High Enough," or a tearful exchange when Hermione would reveal she was dying of cancer. OK, that last one was a cheap shot, but the fact remains that Columbus is just a Hollywood hired gun who makes sentimental drivel. Thankfully, with Harry Potter, he respects the material, shunning the melodrama that has marred his previous work. The art direction, costume design, and special effects are all stunning, particularly at Hogwarts, where the staircases randomly shift places, and the ceiling in the dining hall is a convincing illusion of a starry, night-time sky. Still, I can't help wondering what a more visionary filmmaker such as Terry Gilliam (The Fisher King, Brazil) a Brit who reportedly was Rowling's first choice for the project, would have done with the book. After all, the true test of a good adaptation isn't whether it gets all the details right; it's whether the movie is faithful to the spirit of the text. Columbus seems so intent on getting all of the specifics in that I fear he might have missed some of the spirit - and isn't that what Harry Potter should be all about? Agree? Disagree? E-mail CinemaScoped at: cinemascoped@sbcglobal.net |
|
