Faithful and charming, a family classic

Rating: 10/10 (6 January 2002)

And so the first novel of the children's fantasy series that author J.K. Rowling brought into the world is transformed to visual life for the big screen. Directed by Chris Columbus, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone stars Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter, an 11-year-old who has been living his life thus far with his Muggle aunt, Muggle uncle, and Muggle cousin. See, Muggles are humans that possess no magical abilities. Harry, on the other hand, has found that when he's excited or angry, he is able to do things of a sorcerous nature. One day a mysterious letter arrives, which the Muggle adults endeavor to keep away from him. Harry finally gets his hands on the letter, and discovers that he's been invited to attend a school of wizardry. And it's off to a magical world that he goes.
He begins attending Hogwarts School of Wizardry, where he quickly makes friends with Ron and Hermione (Rupert Grint and Emma Watson, respectively). As he acquaints himself with his surroundings and adjusts to the destiny that he must now accept, he becomes embroiled in a mystery whose consequences, unless thwarted, could spell doom for all of wizarddom. See, there is an evil lord named Voldemort, who seeks the power of immortality via the Sorcerer's Stone, which is kept hidden on the school's property. To make things even more lively, Voldemort is the one who killed Harry's natural parents, and he seeks to do in Harry as well.
I approached this quite aware that the story would, based on its source material, be imaginative and probably charming. But I also knew that Chris Columbus was at the helm -- he's the director of some very, very conventional Hollywood hits, including Home Alone, Bicentennial Man, and Mrs. Doubtfire. Yet, I was willing (as I am with any movie) to let the individual film speak for itself.
And it turns out that Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is very good. What works best about it is the non-stop commitment to imagination that is present throughout. Every scene is one of colorful inspiration, in terms of characters, plot developments, and fantastical touches.
The characters are many, and accomplished actors are everywhere. Our three young leads -- Harry and his two friends -- are all very cinematically friendly. They're funny, and they're cute. It's easy to root for these kids, particularly if you're a kid yourself (even one at heart, of course). Unfortunately, a lot of the sideline characters, such as Nearly Headless Nick (John Cleese), Mrs. Weasley (Julie Walters), and Mr. Ollivander (John Hurt), are barely in the movie. Their appearances are little more than cameos.
Many, many scenes throughout the movie (dare I say all of them?) possess a potent creative energy that can be enjoyed during the fact and admired after the fact. The game of Quidditch is a stand-out, reminding me of the speeder bike chase in Return of the Jedi. This sequence is longer than that one, which is probably the reason it seems to work just about as well -- if the effects aren't really wildly new here, they make up for it in length.
And there perhaps lies my main complaint with the film. Cinematically, there's nothing new going on here. Everything is done very well -- and it never sinks to Columbus's brand of schmaltz -- but it's all noticably conventional. No new ground is broken. The effects, the editing, the acting, the cinematography -- all good, but all similar to that which has gone before. Even the score, by John Williams, while enchanting, has a certain déjà vu quality. Of course, none of that will matter to the target audience. And it shouldn't, really.
There you have it. I'm recommending Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Kids are gonna freak over this one. Many, many of tomorrow's adults will be saying, "You know what my favorite movie was when I was a kid?" And they'll be saying it was Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. I happen to think that the movie's primary virtues stem from the source material, the novel itself. But I give director Chris Columbus credit for being cinematically true to that literary vision.
Final Verdict: 8.5/10