Potter comes to Hollywood, I say!

Rating: Null/10 (24 November 2001)

The most celebrated fantasy book of our time has come to the screen but maybe you were already aware of that.
I liked the movie but then I don't think it would have been posible not to like a film based on Rowling's brilliant story. The characters leapt from the page right from the start--like the portraits and photos in the wizard world, they were already moving in our minds.
Don't read further if you haven't seen the movie or plan to and don't want to hear specific movie criticism before you go...
I love all the wizardy atmosphere that was a fun part of the series and right up the special-effects-minded Hollywood alley but the film's continuity lapsed somewhere during the trio's search for the sorcerer's stone until Harry's climactic duel with Voldemort.
You can almost hear the pages rustling. The three go here and there--not because they really are on to something that the theater audience can follow but because that's the way it goes in the book. If that continues in the sequel, look for Pottermania to drop off big-time at the box office.
You still need to craft a story for the screen and, as good as Rowling's books are, you can't use everything she puts in or the movie would last for hours and hours (some say this one does already). So...somebody's got to undertake the job of reworking wizardry for the big screen, not just regurgitating a best-selling book.
Here's a vote to favor the freewheeling humor that makes Harry a hit with young and old alike. The Star Wars canteena scenes (gruesome faces and the like) can be thrown in for effect, of course, but don't plan the whole bloody movie around them.
The quidditch game, for example, reminded me of the sequence in the last "Star Wars" movie when the kid won the rocket race. It's all effects without much concern for genuine drama. Harry needed to have practiced or something for us to believe that the little blighter was the real deal up there on his broom. Otherwise, it's just a cartoon and he's supposed to win.
You can come back now if you've been ignoring all this because you don't fancy some ninny spoiling it for you...
There's a lot of good stuff in "Harry Potter"--the movie. Some nice acting--particularly Snape, the custodian (with his red-eyed cat) and Hagrid. Richard Harris and Maggie Smith are both wonderful. The kids are good, too--when they can tear loose of the director's reliance on going by the book.
Conclusion: book, A; movie, B--and you could do a whole lot worse than that.