A solid if safe adaptation

Rating: 8/10 (19 December 2001)

I am a major fan of the books. Yes, I know what the cinemaphiles
out there are thinking: keep the film and the book separate. I
myself have made this complaint often with those who spend time
criticizing films based on the fact that directors and writers will
often take liberties with the plot and spirit of the book they are
adapting.
Nevertheless, as a fan of the books, I was pleased to see that
Chris Columbus didn't take the low road with this film as he most
certainly is want to do. He has created a remarkably faithful, solid
adaptation of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. He has also
taken virtually no risks in doing so.
The Sorcerer's Stone is Rowling's first and, IMHO, the least of her
four novels to this date. This isn't because the book is bad; no
indeed, the book is quite delightful. It simply lacks the coherence
of the coherence of the next three. This is largely due to the fact
that she is creating a singularly unique and rich environment that
she is just introducing in the first book, with little emphasis placed
on plot and storyline instead concentrating largely on introducing
the environment and the characters that are intrinsic to that
environment.
Columbus' film suffers the same fate, only to a larger scale
because of the inherent limitations of cinema. It would have been
impossible for the film to have anything but a fractured feel to it
when the book itself suffers a similar fate. Nevertheless, he gets
the important points right, from the swept-along-by-fate
forthrightness of Harry himself to the charming know-it-all
pluckiness of Hermione. The setting too is delightful, a magically
twisted barrage of corridors, castles, and dungeons.
I have high hopes for the next film; however, I do hope that some
day Mr. Columbus learns how to hold a shot long enough to
prevent the scattershot feel of The Sorcerer's Stone. Alas, perhaps
this is too much to hope for from the director of Home Alone.