Review
HARRY POTTER (2001) *** (out of four)
Heres a method of evaluating a movie based on previously published material ask yourself if the film makes you want to read the material from which it is based
Before the release of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone" I was one of the few remaining souls who had not read J.K. Rowlings fantasy book series. After screening the first film installment I did want to read the book. Borrowing the novel from a family member I briefly skimmed over the chapters. The books intelligence and similarities with the film really surprised me.
With over 100 million copies sold in over 46 different languages J.K. Rowlings bestselling series of books has become a worldwide phenomenon. Naturally with soaring expectations abound the filmmakers felt great pressure to create a faithful adaptation. They have. This film is essentially a visualization of the words in the novel with very few differences.
That said the film does run into a few conflicts with the books story. The middle of the movie has nowhere to go. Its like a false second act almost nothing of major significance occurs in this period of the film. The young characters wander from scene to scene with nothing much to do and nothing much to say. Were left with a grand display of eyepopping special effects.
"Harry Potter" certainly dazzles us with a solid beginning and an engaging final act however. We first meet a young wizard boy named Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe). Soon after the film opens the boy discovers he has magical powers. Hes then thrust into an enchanting world of sorcery magic and witchcraft. Hes sent to a school for young wizard children where he meets new friends learns about magic and participates in fun competitions. But someone at the school doesnt like Harry as mysterious events begin to occur. Harry soon finds himself in the middle of a diabolical scheme of revenge. Who is the culprit and what do they want with Harry
The film asks some involving questions. Too bad it doesnt give enough depth to the side characters or subplots. We dont really care about the mystery because we dont know enough about the suspects. The movie does conclude with a twist but it doesnt encourage another examination of the movie. It lacks a foundation altogether. The story spends so much time foreshadowing the villains identity it is pointless for the story to abandon its proceeding plot points and develop a new villain at the end. The book gets away with this the movie does not.
After his gentle "Home Alone" and sweetnatured "Stepmom" many questioned the ability of director Chris Columbus to bring a sense of darkness to the storyand for good reason. "Harry Potter" contains charming likable characters and a rich pallet of lush inventive images. Unfortunately the film lacks an edge. Its missing the dark atmosphere Rowlings novel so vividly brought to life. Columbus does construct some memorable sequences but the individual scenes themselves are much better than the movie as a whole.
Despite its childish story and preteen characters many define "Harry Potter" as a film for all ages. While thats debatable during my screening adults were plowing through the isles every five minutes. Going to the bathroom Getting drink refills Buying concessions Who knows But not a single child budged from their seat. Their eyes were glued to the big screen.
Conclusion Its a surefire experience for children especially if theyve read the books. But adults may not encounter the same enticement as kids. Then again if I had nothing better to do than to count the people leaving the theater why am I recommending the film