Brooms Up

Rating: 8/10 (22 November 2001)

Going into "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," I did not share the current hype surrounding it. Two reasons: one, I did not read the book, and two, I was a little concerned about the man in charge of bringing the bestseller to the screen. Granted, director Chris Columbus knows how to work with kids, as evidenced in his megapopular "Home Alone", "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York," and "Mrs. Doubtfire." I've enjoyed most of his work, even "Bicentennial Man," which many did not. Of course, I hated "Home Alone 2," as I felt it covered familiar territory in rather uninteresting ways. And even though I found his other films to be entertaining at least on a basic level, I also recognized how superficial his work is. Columbus lays on the sap and sentiments in ways that Hollywood loves and film historians loathe (see "Stepmom").
Now he's brought "Harry Potter" to the screen. I enjoyed it. And a bit more than his other works. Does this mean Columbus magically transformed into a different director, overnight, a la Spielberg's shift from "Jurassic Park" to "Schindler's List?" Not really. Thankfully however he also didn't play an act, like say, Michael Bay did with "Pearl Harbor" (Bay: "Oooh look at me I'm making a serious film now... maybe this film has even more sentiment than ever before, but look at those explosions! Feel the power of my godlike filmmaking!"). It seems Columbus knew where his true abilities lie, and with "Harry Potter," he's managed to stray away from forcing emotions. In fact if anything there's not enough emotional punch going for "Potter," which is far better than what I was expecting.
Having not read the book, I came into this over-hyped picture having little idea what I would see, and perhaps give a more unbiased approach. As a film, the atmosphere is entrancing. It's dark, it's fun, and oh boy is it long. I don't share the sentiment of many of my friends that "Potter" races by. A good half hour could have been cut and I wouldn't have really known the difference. I got by through "Titanic" and "Gladiator" without growing antsy. A film should be as long as the filmmaker needs it to tell the story (Terrence Malick should take a hint) and that is all.
The acting is pretty decent; young Radcliffe makes his presence known as the young Potter. We can expect "great things" from him in the future. If I have any one big quarrel with the script, and I apologize to ye loyal Potter fans out there, it is that he doesn't have enough lines. I felt his friends had a tad too much to say. The film finally finds its real power when Harry is on his own, such as the scene with the mirror, or the finale.

The effects are suitable, not terrific, for the picture. I didn't find the CG matte paintings fancy enough for any Oscar nods, but it works. The production design is (as expected) terrific, and the cinematography is just involving enough to... keep you involved. The upcoming "Fellowship of the Ring" has much more of a fantasy-feel to it, which is fitting, and I'm glad that Columbus and co. did not go to great lengths to remove this film from reality.
All in all, "Harry Potter" is an entertaining film. It doesn't have a hold on me like many others, but I can see how it may be remembered by contemporary audiences as this generation's "Wizard of Oz." When "Titanic" came out, it was hailed as our generation's "Gone With the Wind," and I agreed (much to the harsh disagreements of most people I know; ironic that it's much "cooler" now to hate "Titanic" than like it). I guess we'll see in the next twenty years. By then, all seven books will have been filmed, Mr. Radcliffe will be starring opposite Anna Paquin in "The Piano Returns," and we will see if the hype is carrying "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" back to the big screen. 8/10.