Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

3 out of 4

Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Robbie Coltrane, Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman

Director: Chris Columbus

Time: 152 mins

J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter books are a publishing phenomenon that has swept the fiction world and reawakened reading in children and adults alike. Though I have wanted to read the books since the fourth in the series (Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire) was released last year, I still haven't gotten around to it, probably to my chagrin. Time doesn't wait for anyone, however, and nowhere is that more true than in Hollywood. The film of the first novel, Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone (Philosopher's Stone in the UK), has just been released, and this review will be about the film itself.

With its huge built-in audience, director Chris Columbus (Home Alone, Mrs Doubtfire) had an admittedly tough task to begin with. He had to stay as close as possible to the book, or risk the wrath of millions. Artistic licence had to be contained, but Columbus still had at his disposal the dozens of scenes where special effects could be utilised to create a visual spectacle. And what a magical, wondrous spectacle that is. The first half of Sorcerer's Stone is a constant barrage of mystical delights, where brick walls metamorphose into an entrance for an elaborate but compact Dickensian English town, grand castle staircases swing randomly and latch onto various floors in an Escher-esque arrangement, and figures in paintings curtsy to greet you as you walk past. The second half is not as engaging, but still offers enough to please fans and newcomers.

Rowling's tale is children's storytelling at its best. Intended as the first in a cycle of seven books, it is whimsical, imaginative, humorous and exciting at the same time. It tells of the orphan Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), who has a mysterious scar in the shape of a lightning bolt on his forehead. Raised by his uncaring uncle and aunt, Harry's life takes a turn for the better when he is accepted into Hogwart's School Of Witchcraft and Wizardry. There he becomes friends with fellow students Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), partakes in a quidditch (a Hogwart's version of soccer, on flying broomsticks) match, and tangles with rival Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton). Soon, Harry, Ron, and Hermione catch wind of a sinister plot to steal the fabled Sorcerer's Stone, and the three magical adventurers have to solve the mystery and restore order to Hogwart's.

Columbus, by most accounts, seems to have done a fairly good job of evoking the wonder and magic of Rowling's book. Still, the constraints of modern movie going (and limited audience attention spans these days) means there are some elements of the book that have been left out. And even then, the film still clocks in at over two-and-a-half hours. While the first half is a treat for the eyes and soul, the second half falters (and drags) slightly with the dramatic element concerning the Sorcerer's Stone. This portion seems like a plot device necessary for bringing the story to a close. I can't say how it worked in the novel, but in the film the exposition and development is a little awkward. It's almost as if Columbus exhausted his directorial prowess in the first act and felt uninspired in the second. Again, one must note the expectations he is trying to fulfil, and in some cases, exceed. I suppose one could compare this first Harry Potter instalment to Star Wars: Episode 1: The Phantom Menace, which laboured under the burden of having to set up a multi-part story and provide enough action and adventure to entertain. (Incidentally, the similarities to the Star Wars universe don't end there - there is a wizard in Sorcerer's Stone who has defected to the Dark Side, as well as the quidditch game sequence which in all respects achieves the same effect as the podrace in The Phantom Menace. Not necessarily to sell video games as in the case of The Phantom Menace (a cynical point of view, I admit), but to provide a high-adrenaline jolt in the middle of the movie.)

A fantasy film nowadays would not be complete without special effects, especially with the almost perfunctory use of computer-generated imagery (CGI) in the entertainment industry. In this regard, Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone succeeds, not by virtue of the technical excellence of the effects (indeed, they're not as accomplished as one might think, with the quidditch match being very obviously CGI), but in how they're employed. Floating pumpkins, talking wizard's hats, and a lethal chess game are some of the innovative and eye-catching sights created by the magicians in Hollywood. Sorcerer's Stone is not as CGI-intense as, say, The Phantom Menace, but at least it doesn't let the effects take over the story.

Another minor quibble with Sorcerer's Stone is that the title character as written for the movie is fairly bland. Yes, Harry is only an 11-year-old, but his friends Ron and Hermione have more character than he does. It is to be hoped that Harry develops in the following books, otherwise he might fall victim to what I believe to be the Curse of the Bland Hero in a lot of fantasy epics (a case in point is Frodo in the upcoming first chapter of The Lord Of The Rings - as far as I remember he's noble, courageous, and morally correct, but so are most other heroes in fantasy stories). To paraphrase Seinfeld (and, again, remembering that the book was written with children in mind), not that there's anything wrong with this, but sometimes I wish there was a wisecracking fantasy hero in the Han Solo mould.

The young trio of actors who portray the magicians-in-training actually do quite a good job, considering their relative inexperience. Radcliffe fits the part of Harry like a glove, right down to the circular eyeglasses. Rupert Grint is a delight as Harry's redheaded friend, Ron, with a perpetual frown of doubt that is highly comical. And Emma Watson is also effective as Hermione. Her knowledge of spells and other things magical helps them out in many a tight spot.

Then we come to the adult characters. Featuring a host of well-known and less well-known British actors, the adult cast adds to the fun and whimsy of Sorcerer's Stone without overpowering it like some overblown American star vehicle. We have Richard Harris in his best Ian McKellen imitation (McKellen stars as the mighty wizard, Gandalf, in the first Lord Of The Rings chapter coming out next month) as the headmaster, Dumbledore, right down to the crooked wizard's hat and long, white beard. Oscar-winner Maggie Smith (from Sister Act) is appropriately stern as Professor McGonagall, and the always excellent Alan Rickman a hissing success as the suspicious Severus Snape. Perhaps the most memorable performance is Robbie Coltrane as the gruff but gentle giant, Hagrid. Coltrane has always been interesting to watch in the past, whether in comedic farces like Nuns On The Run or as a Russian heavy in Goldeneye and The World Is Not Enough, or even the 19th century policeman in the recent From Hell, but here he is sure to win a few more admirers with his interpretation of the genial gamekeeper. Finally, there are cameos from the always dependable John Cleese, as a near-headless ghost, and John Hurt, as the owner of a shop selling wands.

The soundtrack to Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone is a star in its own right. Composed by orchestral score maestro John Williams (he of Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and Jaws fame), it is instantly catchy, mysterious, and magical, filled with lush marches and beautiful melodies. Normally the music score to a film does not become memorable until one has seen the said film several times, but the recent near-saturation of Harry Potter in the media means Williams' music has achieved almost jingle-like status. It is a wonderful composition, and probably the best Williams work in many years.

Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone will no doubt swamp the opposition at the box office during its opening weekend (Warner Bros, the studio, must be rubbing their hands in glee - there are potentially another six Potter books to go.). Not only is there a huge, built-in audience, but for most children, the opening three days will be the time to see it. Box office analyst Gitesh Pandya (the Box Office Guru) described it best when he says how no child will want "to be that loser kid in class on Monday who didn't see Harry Potter." As it is, the film just falls short of greatness, but it contains enough magic, wonder, and beautiful music to provide two-and-a-half hours of entertainment.

(c) Joe Wong (18 November 2001)