*** (out of ****)
Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Gint, Alan Rickman, Robbie Coltrane, Maggie Smith, Fiona Shaw, and Richard Harris.
Directed by Chris Columbus & written by Steve Kloves, from the novel by J.K. Rowling
2001 PG
I have never read a Harry Potter book but “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” is exactly what I would expect one to be like. There’s energy to spare, a quick pace, lots of noise and excitement drowned in special effects, and some likable characters. The story is easy to follow but not stupid, and the characters are fun but nothing in which a Method actor would like to sink his teeth. Also, there’s no real sense of achieving any kind of unique style outside of the Hollywood mainstream, there isn’t much imagination outside of an amalgamation of existing fantasy elements, and there’s not much depth to anything you see on the screen. It’s slight, energetic, and forgettable mainstream entertainment; you see it, smile, and move on, sort of like “The Mummy” aimed at a slightly younger audience. A movie this thin should not overstay its welcome, and there’s about half-an-hour or twenty minutes in the middle that we could probably do without.
The plot is familiar: the overlooked boy spends the first act being wasted in mediocrity with a far-off look in his eye; in the second act his greatness is revealed and he enters a venue for training, where he finds friends, mentors, and rivals; and in the third act he confronts and defeats his greatest challenge. This is more or less the same track followed by Luke Skywalker of “Star Wars,” King David of the Old Testament, and Bruce Leroy of “The Last Dragon.” Oh yeah, and the overlooked boy has special, magic parents.
“Harry Potter’s” overlooked boy grows up under the yoke of his unloving aunt and uncle and his absolute pig of a cousin. His gleam of hope comes from his ability to randomly commit magic tricks—making windows disappear and hear animals talk—and from the far-off look in his eye. His venue for learning magic is the Hogwarts School, which combines magic with pop culture’s view of an uptight British boarding school, with headmasters and schoolmarms and children in neckties and sweaters. His final challenge is the dread wizard who killed his parents and eventually asks Harry to join him. Sounds like the Skywalker-Vader thing, right?
The elements are familiar, but “Harry Potter” has a fair amount of energy and lots of fun in the corners. The supporting characters—played by Dame Maggie Smith, Sir Richard Harris, John Cleese, Alan Rickman, John Hurt, Warwick Davis, and Robbie Coltrane, just to name a few—are all plenty of fun, taking their parts seriously but not too seriously. The physical corners are packed with fun, too; the school is drenched in the Disneyworld version of Gothic excess, with floating candles and pictures that come to life, not to mention lots of high ceilings and wide doorways. Harry himself, as played by Daniel Radcliffe—a brief face in “The Tailor of Panama” as Geoffrey Rush’s son—provides an adequate center of the action. When it comes to child actors, the high water marks are Haley Joel Osment from “The Sixth Sense,” Sean Nelson from “Fresh,” and Danny Lloyd from “The Shining,” and the low mark is closer to Jake Lloyd from “The Phantom Menace.” Radcliffe places nearer the former rather than the latter; he performs with some degree of a reserve, as opposed to many child actors whose only method of conveying what they’re thinking is to blurt it out while their tongues work frantically over their teeth.
As promised there are lots of special effects, including a giant three-headed dog, a ceiling-scraping troll, and a game of rugby played from flying broomsticks. If the movie has any shortcomings, aside from its general innocuousness, it’s that too much faith is put into these effects, as if they would hold our attention on their own instead of supporting the story and characters. They’re good, but not great, and the rugby match isn’t as exciting as the Ben-Hur-on-acid race from “The Phantom Menace.”
The second act is where the movie stalls a little; here the effects get carried away, the plot drags a bit, and scenes where Harry is supposed to be learning magic don’t convey anyone learning much of anything. There’s lots of sneaking around in the school in the dark, and it’s about now that we realize the story isn’t going to take them outside of Hogwarts. Lots of stuff blows up as a result of magic, usually followed by one of the children stating the absolutely obvious as a joke. The first time it’s funny. After that it’s redundant. The third act rolls around eventually, when Harry and his friends face the much ballyhooed nemesis mentioned throughout the movie. There’s a life-sized chess game, flying keys, and a genuinely spooky shock toward the end.
“Harry Potter’s” pacing isn’t as direct and energetic as Robert Rodriguez’s “Spy Kids” from earlier this year. Also like “Spy Kids,” “Harry Potter” is at its best when the grown-ups are on the screen; in the middle, when my attention started to wane, is when Harry and his two school chums do most of the talking. In the end I left the theater happy, expecting the proposed numerous sequels to be more of the same, just as slight, and probably just as much fun.
Finished May 27, 2002
P.S. - March 29, 2003 - My original review of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" clocked it at two-and-a-half stars for its lack of substance, despite all the hype, and how long it takes. I still hold these complaints close to my heart, but it is a children's movie, and a healthy, nutritious one at that, good for their imagination, and a lot of fun.
Copyright 2002 Friday & Saturday Night