|
| Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone |
|
  (6/10)
|
Runtime: 152 |
| Public Rating: 6.97 (113 votes) |
Director: Chris Columbus |
MPAA Rating:  |
| Genre: Fantasy |
Year: 2001 |
| Writer(s): J.K. Rowling (Novel), Steven Kloves |
| Reviewed by: Movieman |
| |
The first book from the popular series, Harry Potter has finally hit the big screen. Sorcerer's Stone tells of Harry's past and what great things we can expect from him in future films (the next is Chamber of Secrets due out in 2002). Having never read any of the "Harry Potter" books I came into the theater with just the film in mind and not if it translated well or is as good as the book. But based on what I saw- I wouldn't bother reading the book.
Sorerer's Stone explains Harry Potter's beginnings starting with the headmaster of Hogwart with another teacher placing little Potter on the doorstep of Harry's uncle and aunt. We find out that Harry is the son of a wizard and a witch both of who were killed by Lord Voldemort but somehow Harry escaped with his life leaving only lighting bolt-type scar on his forehead. Years go by and we find Harry (Daniel Radcliffe; The Tailor of Panama) being treated with disrespect and almost a slave with Aunt Petunia (Fiona Shaw; Jane Eyre) and Uncle Vernon (Richard Griffiths; Sleepy Hollow) giving their love and affection to their true son. Soon Harry gets several (hundred) acceptance letters to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.
On the train to Hogwart, Harry meets Ronald Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) both of whom have a predisposition to magic along with Harry. At Hogwart they have classes like at any boarding or private school. Each of them take specialized classes from how to fly on a broomstick to making potions taught by Professor Snade (Alan Rickman; Die Hard), a mean looking and suspicious character that immediately catches Harry's attention. With Harry on his journey is Rubeus Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane; From Hell), a giant man in charge of security of a stone guarded by a Fluffy, a three head dog-beast. The students discover the origins of the sorcerer's stone through midnight investigating and find out that the stone has the power to give it's possessor unlimited power and life.
That is the basic plot structure of Harry Potter, not bad and sounds interesting but the sheer length of the film takes away from what this film could have been. Officially the movie is two and a half hours (The Godfather was just as long) and although the reason was obviously to develop Harry for future Potter films, it's just too much.
What Harry Potter does succeed in is stylish set decoration in trans-forming a fictitious school and town to life comparable to the original Batman. The set can be described as lavish and pleasant to the eye. Like fantasy films in the past (i.e. The Wizard of Oz), the creators bring the stores and people to life off of paper and do a great job that gets my approval.
The second thing that came to my attention about Harry Potter is the acting from not only young actors Radcliffe, Grint and Wilson but also semi-veteran Robbie Coltrane who can be seen in the recent release From Hell. Coltrane gives a brilliant performance giving a shot in the arm as the film wore on and helping the young talent out at the same time. This was Rupert Grint and Emma Wilson's first big screen appearance while Radcliffe has appeared in a few TV specials and in the Pierce Brosnan film, The Tailor of Panama. Radcliffe does a great job in the title role and has established himself as the 21st century Macaulay Culkin but has so much more promise and if given some good advice might be a solid star.
Overall, Harry Potter is delightful in almost all the categories from plot to characters to set decoration but fails miserably of over-length. The plot in itself is good but not stretched over such long running time. My other complaint is the violent content that may not be suitable for young children. Many scenes (towards the end) are very violent and parents should be warned before taking their 5 or 6 year old. Other than those complaints, I would say that Potter is a failure due to over-length and over-hype. Maybe the next one will learn from the first's mistakes, but don't count on it as sequels rarely have done better (i.e. Batman Returns, The French Connection II).
|
 Printable Version
|
Do you agree/disagree with this review of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone? Let your opinions be heard in our forum.
|
Buy the Poster of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (Click Here)
|
|
|
|
