Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

I enjoyed this movie immensely. But, like "The Phantom Menace," I've had a very hard time viewing it objectively. There was so much anticipation leading up to its release, I simply enjoyed the experience of being there. Having read all four books in the series a few times each, I am overly familiar with the events in the story. As I watched the movie, my continuing thought was "How well will the next part of the story be translated to the screen?" rather than "How entertaining is this film overall?" I have trouble answering the latter question because I was already entertained by watching a wonderful story dramatized, so I'll never know how I'd have reacted had I seen this movie without having read the books.

Critics talk about how incredibly faithful the movie is to the book, and perhaps I'd have had an easier time detaching the two in my mind had the movie set off on its own course. Indeed, many classic children's movies, like "The Wizard of Oz" and "Mary Poppins," are so successful partly because they're so different from the books that inspired them. But these are exceptions; in my experience, most children's movies reveal their weaknesses in how they diverge from the books upon which they're based. And much of what makes the Harry Potter phenomenon unique is that it is the first time in ages that a children's book, without a movie accompanying it, has generated this much popularity. According to an article I read a year ago, the universe of Harry Potter has become as real in the minds of youngsters and adults as that of a popular movie series like Star Wars. Therefore, it will be very hard for any film based upon it to compete with it. In the minds of die-hard fans, any changes made to the story will be seen as desecrating the fantasy world that Rowling created. That's why it's easy to understand why the filmmakers were so reluctant to change anything.

As a faithful rendering of the book squeezed into a two-and-a-half hour period, the movie is beautifully done. I don't have a single complaint about any of the actors, who successfully bring to life, with the aid of costume design and special effects, the many colorful characters from the book. My favorite character, the giant Hagrid, is played by Robbie Coltrane, and I say with no exaggeration that he is exactly how I imagined him while reading the book. It's as if they took the image in my mind and transferred it to the screen. While I had my own personal image of Snape (for some reason, I always imagined him as the head villain from another Chris Columbus film, "Adventures in Babysitting"), Alan Rickman is perfect in the role. I usually expect to have words of criticism for some performances, but I just don't. The remaining adult actors, including Maggie Smith as Professor McGonagall and Richard Harris as Albus Dumbledore, are as good as they possibly could be, and the kids do an excellent job of holding their own against these veterans. Some have criticized Daniel Radcliffe for appearing too subdued in the title role, but that's exactly how the character is portrayed in the book: modest, unassuming, and laid-back. The kids who play Harry's two best friends are flawless.

I had a lot of worries about the fact that it was being directed by Chris Columbus, whose entire directorial career so far has consisted of over-the-top slapstick films. I was pleasantly surprised that he did not direct the Harry Potter film in this way. Except for brief moments like the children's delayed reaction to a giant three-headed dog they encounter and Harry's swallowing the quaffle ball, there is nothing here to remind us that this film is directed by the same person who gave us films like "Home Alone" and "Mrs. Doubtfire." Indeed, I think Columbus may have gone just a tad bit too far in trying not to make the film seem cartoony. I would have liked to see a little more emotion on the actors' faces at certain times. Overall, however, his restraint works nicely in giving the film the kind of believability the book possesses.

But much is left out. Harry's caretaker Uncle Vernon, a prominent character in the book, is given less attention in the movie than some of the bit characters. The gently satirical aspects of Hogwarts School aren't in the movie at all. We never see the ghostly history teacher who died several years back but kept on teaching. Lines like the following--"Professor McGonagall watched [her students] turn a mouse into a snuffbox--points were given for how pretty the snuffbox was, but taken away if it had whiskers"--find no equivalent in the movie. The movie does include platform nine-and-three-quarters, though the way the kids disappear into the wall isn't as mysterious as I had visualized, and the sorting hat is there, minus the great poem explaining the differences between the four schools.

Not that I'm blaming the movie for omitting some details. Some things from the book would not have translated easily to the screen, and it would have been very difficult to stick everything in. Had Columbus done so and allowed the film to be as long as necessary (eight hours, maybe?), like a BBC miniseries, the film might have been a masterpiece, but few kids would ever have had the patience or attention span to sit through it.

The problem is that the amusing details are much of what make Harry Potter such a special story. A whole universe is created in Rowling's series, in which a magical society exists within our own ordinary "muggle" world and is kept secret by a bureaucracy with its own rules, history and politics. The way magic is treated in her books, not as something medieval but as very similar to the way our own contemporary world works, is a large part of their charm. Take away these details, and you're left with a fairly conventional tale of a young wizard fighting an evil sorcerer.

Although the audience I was with broke into applause as soon as the movie ended (something I've never seen happen before, though I don't go to the theater that often), some people have complained about the movie dragging at certain points. I didn't have that problem, but, as I said, I wasn't really trying to get involved in the movie's story. After thinking about it, it does seem like parts of the movie fail to convey a sense of urgency. Why should this be? I never felt that way when reading the books, and this is without a doubt the very same story.

The answer, I think, is that the books portray much of Harry's anxiety in trying to succeed in school (for if he's kicked out, he'll go straight back to his horrible uncle) and fit in with the kids there. The movie doesn't tap into these anxieties enough, so why should we care whether he wins the Quidditch match (other than that he survives in one piece) and gets through the school year? The only real suspense in the movie after he arrives at Hogwarts comes from the story of Lord Voldemort returning, which in the book is almost secondary. Harry's adventures getting along in the school are fun and interesting, but as they are presented to us in the film, there isn't enough tying them all together.

What we have here is a serviceable dramatization of a wonderful children's series, but it doesn't entirely succeed in standing on its own. Perhaps it should have diverged from the book just a little, to compensate for the difficulties in translating some of the book's delights to the screen. In its current form, it's almost like a preview of the book. Its lack of fullness, and its dependence on the book, might actually increase the popularity and endurance of Rowling's series by making those who see the film yearn for more, which they can get from the real thing.

We live in a world where economics is hard. This forces practical limitations when making a movie. Time and money are sadly finite, cinema owners need to be pleased as well as fans and computer animation ain't perfect. Given these limitations, this film is about as close to human perfection as it is possible to achieve. However, it's extremely clear what an immense challenge it is to turn Philosopher's Stone from book to film.

Two and a half hours is not long to explore a wonderful, magical world. Furthermore, the directors have bowed to the inevitable temptation to show us things that cannot be communicated so effectively in a book. The consequence is the feeling of a slightly breathless sprint in places.

It also means that the movie has to stay true to the spirit of the book rather than to the letter of it. There are omissions and there are changes. The changes that were made capture and maintain the spirit of the story really well; indeed, there are places where the story is more clearly and straightforwardly told in the movie than in the book. Some aspects of the story are fleshed out on screen and the additions are delightful, completely in keeping with the flavour of the world.

The humour of the movie is inevitably more visual than that of the book; no belly laughs, but a lot of smiles. Some punchlines have changed, but the reasons why the jokes are funny remain the same. Not knowing exactly what's coming next is a good thing! It's all kept tasteful, classy and above the belt; there's nothing to cringe about.

The voice acting is almost uniformly brilliant. However, there are occasions where some of the actors are required to convey high emotions and are only given a second or two of face shot, or head-and-shoulders shot, to do so. This isn't as much freedom as they need and they fall a little short. The blame here must fall on the decision to give the actors too much to do too quickly, not on the actors themselves.

Other than these rare jarring instances, the physical acting is frequently excellent and seldom less than completely adequate, judged against the highest of targets set by the book's clear emotion descriptions.

Dan Radcliffe has the look, the mannerisms and the charm of Harry down pat. His strongest expressions are the bemusement that must be inherent at entering a world where science does not rule alone and the bravery that Harry shows in his achievements. Emma Watson possibly slightly overplays Hermione, but does so in a fully endearing fashion. There's one scene which gives her too little chance to truly express panic; otherwise her performance needs no changes.

Rupert Grint has comic timing way beyond his years, hitting Ron's lines perfectly. Tom Felton makes a stylish Draco; Matt Lewis' Neville character suffers from the acceleration, so the finale does come as a slight characterisation shock.

The Phelps brothers' Fred and George are distinctively cheeky rather than proactive pranksters; Chris Rankin imbues Percy with genuine authority. Sean Biggerstaff shines; his Oliver Wood is likeable and an ideal Quidditch team captain.

Robbie Coltrane's Hagrid is the single dominant adult character, with maximum laughs extracted at every step. The movie changes strongly exaggerate one side of Hagrid's nature, though; probably inevitable considering how much plot exposition his character has.

David Bradley has a vicious Argus Filch; John Hurt's Ollivander is an eccentric treat, giving a wonderful introduction to the Wizarding World. The professors are uniformly excellent, though Richard Harris' Dumbledore comes off as disappointingly flat until the end.

The most ambitious point of the movie is the computer generated imagery. The stills are wonderful, but the fastest animation is restricted by the limitations of real-world technology. The book makes extremely stringent demands of the CGI; sometimes their overall effect in the movie is merely good rather than insanely great. Some of the magic spells and effects look awesome; others don't capture the imagination nearly so much.

The world cannot yet completely convincingly animate human beings doing inhuman things, which serves as a clear reminder that you need fictional magic to make the impossible possible. The Quidditch scene is the most demanding of them all; while the sequence is action-packed and good-looking, disappointingly, it's not a total success. Perhaps some of the scenes would have been better with more conventional special effects? (For instance, the lower-tech-looking Sorting Hat scene is one of the most delightful of them all.)

The set looks gorgeous. However, it may not stand up to detailed analysis. It's fairly obvious that things are shot in many disparate locations, rather than one big Hogwarts School near Hogsmeade.

The score is absolutely wonderful. The soundtrack may rely too heavily on The Famous Bit, but it's clear that the balance and mixture of things in the finished movie are exactly right.

The feel of the whole movie is everything fans could have hoped for. The dialogue is intensely measured, the colouring is suitably epic, the selection of what to leave in is really tightly considered. You get chills in your spine at the right places; you feel the triumphs as all-encompassing endorphin highs. It's clear that the production have thought long, hard and lovingly. They are true fans of the story, they are the right people for the job, it all bodes very well for the second film.

So it could never have been the film that the hyper-literalists were hoping for, then, but it is as good as the practicalities of the real world could possibly permit. Don't expect miracles and you'll love it. I look forward to watching it again and again.

8/10 at the very least. A really satisfactory film!

To millions of children of all ages, November 16 has been more eagerly anticipated than Christmas, as the long-awaited film version of J. K. Rowling's beloved novel "Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone" hits the screen.

Each of Rowling's four Harry Potter books have been critically acclaimed worldwide best-sellers, turning a generation of video-game playing children into avid readers.

In translating Rowling's world of wizards and magic to the screen, the film makers claimed to be intensely aware of the fans' high expectations and had sworn to be faithful to the book.

"Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone" is indeed the most loyal film adaptation of a book that this fan has ever seen.

It's the story of an orphaned boy who discovers on his eleventh birthday that his parents were wizards and that he is in fact a famous and powerful wizard himself.

Released from the clutches of his desperately ordinary (and non-magical) Uncle Vernon and Aunt Petunia - and their deliciously obnoxious son Dudley - Harry takes his place in the wizarding world as a first year student at the venerated Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.

A great deal of "Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone" is an introduction to this fantastic and dangerous world and its richly drawn characters. There's not only a lot of plot to cover in this film, but an entire world to create.

At two and a half hours long (hit the restroom before it starts), the film includes the book's most memorable scenes, bringing many of them to life with pure cinematic wizardry.

The Quidditch match (a soccer/hockey/rugby thing played on broomsticks) is much more exciting on the screen than on the page, as is the bathroom battle with an enormous mountain troll and the larger-than-life game of wizard's chess.

The frightening aspects of the book are in full force in the film, and its PG rating (for some scary moments) should be taken seriously.

Screenwriter Steven Kloves ("Wonder Boys") has done a fine job of streamlining Rowling's tale while maintaining its spirit. Director Chris Columbus ("Home Alone") makes good on his promise to be faithful to the book. But at times the film is a bit too reverent; you want the actors to cut loose and have a bit more fun.

Columbus clearly understands that fantasy works best when it's played most real. Across the board, his fine ensemble of actors are so perfectly cast that they appear to have literally stepped out of Rowling's book.

In the title role, Daniel Radcliffe pulls off the very difficult task of playing an introverted hero who spends most of the movie reacting to the amazing sights and events around him. He beautifully captures the deep soul and untapped potential of Harry Potter. And when this kid smiles the screen lights up.

Rupert Grint is delightful as Harry's sardonic buddy Ron Weasley and Emma Watson nearly steals the film as their overachieving friend Hermione Granger. Three cheers to the film makers for giving three unknown child actors the top billing they deserve.

The strong cast of veteran actors includes Richard Harris as the wise Headmaster Dumbledore and Robbie Coltrane as the lovable giant Hagrid. Alan Rickman is wonderfully villainous as Professor Snape and Zoe Wanamaker has just the right touch of girls gym teacher as flying instructor Madame Hooch.

As the strict but just Professor McGonagall, Oscar winner Maggie Smith seems born to play the role - and is ready for another Oscar.

John Cleese (as Nearly Headless Nick) and Julie Walters (as Mrs. Weasley) have all-too-brief cameo roles, but if the next film "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" remains true to the book, we'll be seeing more of them.

In addition to being highly engaging, the film is a marvelous thing to look at. From the bustling wizard street Diagon Alley to the magnificently gothic Hogwarts School to the dark and misty Forbidden Forest, the film breaks new ground in imaginative production design.

To paraphrase the film's tagline, let the magic (and box office records) begin.

I watched this movie first time when I was left with no choice. My expectations were extremely low as I always wondered if Harry Potter books were over-hyped. How-ever after watching the movie it did make me a Harry Potter movie fan. And needless to say - this continues to remain my favourite of HP series. That brings to a point here.... the effect of expectations over a movie. True, expectations reduce joy.

Without going into the story I would certainly say Chris Columbus churns out a perfect pot-pourri of emotions, suspense and magic, delivering something appealing to all ages.

Every character brought to life on screen has done justice and leave an impression on you. Particularly notable performances by Emma Watson and Alan Rickman.

CGI are in plenty and made good of. The Quedditch game is picturised amazingly. The wizard's chess is treat to eyes.

Let's hope that the forthcoming HP series carries the similar magical touch.

I really liked this film, but I much prefer the book, which has a lot more magic and wonder. Daniel Radcliffe is very likable as Harry, and he is given solid support by a funny Rupert Grint and a good Emma Watson, though she was annoying at times. The scene stealer was definitely Robbie Coltrane; I actually can't imagine anyone else playing Hagrid, Coltrane was just hilarious. Alan Rickman and Maggie Smith were also great, but for me the standout was the late Richard Harris. Now I much prefer Harris's interpretation of Dumbledore. He was soft-spoken, and actually fitted the part better. Both of these qualities were lost in the interpretation that Michael Gambon gave. I am not saying that Michael Gambon was bad, he just wasn't my ideal choice for Harris's replacement. The film is fairly faithful to its source material, and looks very beautiful. However, it is a bit long, and very young children may find Voldemort too frightening. I know because I have triplet brother and sisters who saw it, and couldn't sleep for about a month after viewing. In conclusion, a very good film, well performed and quite dark. 8/10 Bethany Cox