Enchanting

Rating: 9/10 (19 November 2001)

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
I've never read the Harry Potter books and probably never will. But as for the movie, I found it surprisingly good. I certainly didn't expect much from Chris Columbus, the director of Home Alone and Mrs. Doubtfire, but his version of Harry Potter is quite a success. I must admit, however, that Columbus could hardly foul things up because the film contains about two-thirds of the book, much of Rowling's dialogue verbatim, and brilliant casting.
The over 153-minute running time of the film is a result of Chris Columbus' slavish faithfulness to book. But don't misunderstand me; I barely felt it. In the opening scenes with Harry's horrible stepfamily, the pacing is a little slow, and so I did start to worry. But that was for naught. The first third of the movie is actually a kind respite doled out to those, like me, who haven't read the book. Rather, this film later hustles and bustles along at an action film's pace. (One critic, referring to the action and look of the film, called it a kind of Indiana Jones for kids.)

That leads me to one of my few quibbles with Harry Potter. I urgently wish the film had slowed down a bit more. By the film's end, I doubt that much of the non-fan audience was aware that one year had passed on screen, had it not been announced by one of the characters. Yes, we receive important visual cues, such as the jack o' lanterns for October and the snow and Christmas trees for winter, but signaling the passage of time in a film is not merely limited to those sorts of things. It's a minor point nonetheless.
All the way through, I didn't feel like I was watching a painfully dreadful kid's film. Instead, I got something that was thoroughly entertaining for both adults and children. Mainly, what worked for me was the completeness of Rowling's world. It seemed as though every possible detail of her imaginary world was fully realized to point that I was convinced--within the confines of the movie theatre, of course--that Harry Potter's magical world was real--more than mere make believe. Frankly, I was enchanted.

This kind of film, of course, relies heavily on special effects. They, unfortunately, were only adequate at best. In these days of Jurassic Park realism, the bar of what's acceptable is now amazingly high. But no matter.
Besides a well thought out story, Harry Potter has a wonderful cast. Of course, the excellence of the Who's Who British cast of celebrities (the adults) is a given. But the emphasis of the story is on a trio of unknowns who did a damn good job. Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson are superb together. Their chemistry is just right. My only worry about these three, as they stand atop a billion dollar empire, is what torture they'll have to endure while make-up and costuming try their darnedest to keep these pubes looking like innocent--well, on second thought, not-so-innocent--young wizards for at least another couple films.
In all, I was surprised to no end. While shaky at first, the film showed itself to be a clear winner.
Worth seeing a second time.
9/10