Shouldn't have been made, but good adaption (except Dumbledore)

Rating: Null/10 (26 November 2001)

My main criticism of the film was that it shouldn't have been made at all. Rowling's books are extremely imaginative and filled with small details and philosophy, none of which transfer well to the screen. Fitting a long book such as The Sorcerer's Stone into the constraints of a movie is naturally going to require massive cutting of a story that relies on its buildup to create the magical world. Personally, my favorite character was Dumbledore, who's mysticism, quiet brilliance, and idiosyncrasies of personality and philosophy come to life in the books. In the movie, however, nearly all of his interesting lines are cut, and his character is almost fatally degraded. Hopefully, this will be replaced in the later films, but I think the Sorcerer's Stone would have retained more of Rowling's childlike quality if he hadn't been so heavily edited. Even through this, however, the adaption worked relatively well, considering the nearly impossible task. The characters, too, were well done, though I think Harry should have shown a little more surprise at his new surroundings (an important part of the realism of the books, which is overlooked in the movie, probably because of time constraints). All thoughts of plot and characters aside, the commercialization of Harry Potter sickens me: nothing dulls the magic of such a book more than seeing it everywhere. Bill Watterson, creator of Calvin and Hobbes, understood this perfectly, and therefore didn't allow his syndicate to license his creation. Rowling should have done the same thing, and allowing the story to be made into a movie only makes it worse. Harry Potter has become a catch-phrase for the over-commercial culture, and this commercialization is destroying it. Still, even though it's principle is flawed, the movie was allright.