No surprises

Rating: Null/10 (20 November 2001)

Say what you will about the hype the fact stands that Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was indeed, a fabulous book. Insightful writing, dry wit, spine-tingling action, heart-tugging emotion, and fantasy action fill the story; naturally the anticipation for the movie matched the reader's love for J.K. Rowling's masterpiece about a boy who attends wizardry school.
One of the biggest complaints about movies made from books is that they don't follow the book. The pressure to keep Harry Potter true to form was immense: here is a story every kid and adult not only has read over and over but knows every minutae by heart. There would be no foolin' those kids this time around. Any detail left out, any stone left unturned, would be noticed and bemoaned. This is a big factor as to why the movie clocked in at 152 minutes. (What are they going to do when book four rolls around? There will have to be an intermission to pick up one's senses from the theatre floor.) So it was director Christopher Columbus' big challenge to stay true to form, capture the essence of the Harry Potter story, and not alienate every crazed and charmed fan out there. While he succeeded at all of these things, did he make a good movie?
It's hard to say. The movie is certainly entertaining, sticks to the book like glue, and is a work of art and special effects. But does it capture the magic of J.K. Rowling's superb storytelling is a good question. Oddly it doesn't. It almost sticks to the book too much. If you have read the book more than once and oozed in the characters and plot line like I have, there's nothing in this film that surprises you. And that, unfortunately, is the element missing from making this a masterpiece of a film. You know what is coming around the corner. You know what Hermione is going to say before she says it. You know that Professor Quirrel is up to something.

However, the all-star cast is wonderful, and the special effects are perfect-they don't overshadow the film and yet add just the right touch to spark your imagination. I was not particularly impressed with any of the three children's performances but they portray the characters just fine. Everyone portrayed the characters a little too well. They seemed like cardboard, in a way-the exception being a surprise cameo by John Cleese.
My recommendation is to certainly go see it, especially if you have read the books. It's fun just to bring a well-loved book to life, even if there are no sparks to the movie version. There may be some scary bits for young children, but hey, afterall the book is supposed to be for those age nine and over anyway. If you are one of the two people out there who have not read the books, you may just find it more entertaining.