We're off to see the wizards

Rating: 7/10 (17 July 2003)

HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE / Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson / Rated PG / ***
If you told me that the director of the 1993 slapstick comedy Mrs. Doubtfire would soon be helming the adaptation of one of the most beloved pop culture books of the late ninties, you could've knocked me over with a feather. Nor would I be able to believe that the author of the five published books would soon become richer than the Royal Family. The film was one of the most anticipated movies of the year 2001, it broke box office records, had a possible hit at the $600 million Titanic and garnered itself three technical Oscar nominations. I stated some of the things that bestowed this film, but there is much more to this, that neither movie or book has reached: This is only the empire known as Harry Potter.
The phenomenon started not on screen but in the head of a single mother scribbling all of this on pieces of paper in a Scotland cafe. J.K Rowling wrote snippets and pieces of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, struggling as a mother on welfare. She had no idea that this little tale would start the biggest franchise (complete with sequels and spinoffs) since the original Star Wars trilogy. Never did she think that in years to come, children and adults around the world would be dressing up as witches and wizards awaiting upcoming stories of her character. Well, magic seemed to have struck her in the head. All of these things have happened and now a film adaptation has arrived (and no one doubted it for a second) of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. The print media was restless, critics were dying with anticipation and crowds of kids young and old are peeing in their pants. And the question comes.....Does it live up to expectations?
The answer is a reassuring yes. Yes, yes, the first installment of the bespectacled boy finding out he is a wizard has been hyped by the readers, the critics, the distribution company (using $40 million to advertise it, of course) and the media, both print and televised. I had almost given up hope that the first movie based on Rowling's first novel, The Sorcerer's Stone, would live up to all these cloud-high claims. But alas! magic is in the world and has also struck me in the head! I'll say it to you once more: Harry Potter lives up to expectations. Relieved? Good, but now let's go deeper into this assured statement: Does it pass expectations? Nah, don't count on it. It doesn't go that deep!
After finding out about his true roots, good lad Daniel Radcliffe, playing the 'boy who lived' himself, treks off to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry (with owl, cauldron and wand in hand). Harry believes he'll be facing school tests and homework by himself, but on the train he meets freckled Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and bossy-brainy Hermione Granger (Emma Watson). All three of these actors have exubrent talent in their character's shoes. Watson hits three homeruns as Hermione, the bookworm bent on following rules and never allowing her homework to be copied. Grint is perhaps not as delightful or as fun to watch as Watson, but the good-hearted redhead has some of the best lines in the whole movie. Consider a scene as the trio are caught in the grasps of a tendril (which you must keep very still to survive) deep inside the school. Grint's Ron is squirming, gasping and yelling for dear life as Harry and Hermione free themselves. After getting loose, Rupert hams it all up: "Phew! Lucky we didn't panic!"
But what about Harry? This mysterious, shady boy in the title role is not quite the same as his colorful comrades but more of a quiet kid in this film than he was in the book. In the book, Harry is pretty uncertain and unsure that he can live up to what everyone around him claims he is to be. He doesn't want to be famous, nor gawked at everywhere he goes. In the film, he is quiet and that's what you can only come up with at a very distance. In the distance, there really is no sense of what he actually feels like, which I really can't call a flaw. A book and a film are completely different media, and in a book you can express what Harry is feeling at every moment. You can not do that in a film. Daniel Radcliffe, however, tries to overcome this obstacle and succeeds very admirably. He is a talented young actor, and even during small facial expressions or even the tiniest piece of dialogue, you can clearly imagine what he might be feeling in the many situations in the film. You just have to look closely and that is what makes a great actor.
Apart from the three main stars, the supporting cast is glittering with magical talent, but director Chris Columbus does not exactly harness the power of these gifted actors. Richard Harris sleepwalks in the role of headmaster Albus Dumbledore. In the book, Dumbledore always shows sense of great excitement or energy. Here, Harris is quite tired and may even be regretting this role, after he was forced to kicking and screaming by his grandaughter. Maggie Smith as the venerable Minerva McGonagall has her share of screen time but not enough of it. Robbie Coltrane is one of the great delights of the adults as Hagrid, slipping up important plot points and possessing a heart of gold, though he never gets enough time for himself. The best adult actor is easily Alan Rickman as the sneaky, slippery Severus Snape. I could write a whole book about everything great he has done in this movie. The film is an absolute thrill ride just when he is on screen. Rickman tries to make the best of his mere five minutes total of screentime and succeeds more than the rich CGI sequences accompaning everything.
Which takes us to another star of this film (besides the title character of Harry): The computer-generated effects. The highlight of the movie is easily the almost completely computer-generated Quidditch match, that sport with three different kinds of balls and fourteen players on flying broomsticks. The digital effects in this sequence, I thought, were quite ahead of the other big budget blockbusters (namely Pearl Harbor and The Phantom Menace). It's not as zippy as I would've liked, like I imagined in it in the original novels, but it does the job well. The trouble with this sequence is that it is too short. Maybe a longer or even two of these scenes would've benefit the film a little bit more. Another big-scale sequence is the death-defying Chess Match. I'm sure it was amazing being on that huge set, but the scene is not much more than a bunch of minor explosions and large set pieces moving. What a wasted opportunity. I enjoyed the more subtle digital work (the enchanted ceiling particularly) as oppose to the heavy CGI scenes.
Chris Columbus is probably the most miss-matched director for a piece of material since Francis Ford Coppola signed on for the awful Robin William's comedy Jack. He would be the last director I'd pick for a Harry Potter movie, but he does it admirably, if not inspiringly. True, his direction for Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is solid, not inspired. It's probably his best-directed movie yet, but even his view can bog the film down into a more bland status. Wouldn't it be more effective to this kind of material to hire someone like Steven Spielberg or Terry Gilliam (who was up for the directing job)? They would probably be my hand-picked directors. Still, Columbus is not bad, but he is a disappointingly bland director. He doesn't let the film breathe in it's 152 minutes (which also could've been shorter) and is too tied to his source.
The glaring problem in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is that though the film is advertising a magical adventure, very few "magical" scenes appear. In Hayao Miyazaki's animated films, 'magic' is described as real subtle element, whether it would be plucking up the spirit you lost to make things happen or even plucking up courage to stand up between the biggest of odds. In Harry Potter, most of the 'magical' scenes involve computer-generated effects. The subtle 'magic' J.K Rowling's books are standing together and trusting your friends that you can defeat all if you really believe in it. The movie is somewhat the opposite. Magic, in terms of this movie, means you must have something irregular or something odd to look at. It loses much of the subtle magic found in countless other 'magical' films.
With all it's flaws, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is solid entertainment. Not even the muggle-ized vision of Chris Columbus can spoil the book's magic. J.K Rowling's characters remain intact and so do the delightful events that affect them. I was just entertained being there, with all the children (and adults alike) pointing at screen, whispering that this must be that character or how this scene looked like they thought it would be in the book. The movie does not match by vision on how the real Harry Potter should look, but that is my problem, not yours. I kind of commend the film for that.