Maybe I should have read the book first (or instead)

Rating: Null/10 (26 November 2001)

Like a lot of people, I was very excited when I saw the trailers for "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone". I have not read the books by J.K. Rowling but can certainly appreciate the hold they have exerted over the minds of our culture, and besides, the film just looked pretty damn good. Like a lot of people, I have now seen the film. Unlike a lot of people, I know that the bloom is more or less off of the rose.
"Sorcerer's Stone", the story of a neglected orphan's first year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, is exactly what a film of this type should not be: EARTHBOUND. The whole time I was watching it (and a long time it was, the film runs an I-can't-believe-kids-are- sitting-through-this-when-I-barely-can 152 minutes), I kept wondering what a director like Terry Gilliam or Tim Burton would have made of this material, someone who knows how to put a fantasy world on the screen in all of its foreboding mystery and magic. Chris Columbus, who gave the world such dazzling forays into the fantastical as "Stepmom" and "Adventures In Babysitting", just doesn't seem to have been the right man for the job. The film has all the requisite effects and magical happenings present and accounted for, but that extra special whatever it is that makes a film like this truly memorable is just not there.
As I mentioned before, I haven't read Rowling's book, so I don't know if she made more of the characters than is done here. Overall, however, I felt like screenwriter Steve Kloves (also responsible for the tedious "Wonder Boys") short-changed a lot of Rowling's most interesting figures. Professor Snape (Alan Rickman), Hogwarts' imposing potions instructor, has nothing to do but stand around and glower imperiously. Draco Malfoy, Harry Potter's rival, is evil, I guess, because he has a widow's peak; he really doesn't do anything besides scowl at Harry. Even young Master Potter himself could have used more zip, even though newcomer Daniel Radcliffe gives a fine, unaffected portrayal. These deficiencies are especially egregious considering the running time, much of which is taken up by characters explaining arcane magical concepts to one another (I'm serious about what I said earlier; all I ever hear is that kids have no attention span...how on earth are they getting through this thing?).
What's more, the film never really makes good on its central conceit. This is, after all, a film about a SCHOOL FOR WIZARDS! That's a cool idea in ways I can't even describe, but "Sorcerer's Stone" doesn't really do enough to pay it off. We see precious little of the actual instruction, the whys and wherefores of wizardry, and thus the film almost seems to be shying away from its central concept.
This is not to say that there are not many things to admire about "Sorcerer's Stone". The production design is everything one could ask for, Hogwarts an imposing old manse of stone and spiraling stairways (and be careful...the staircases move!). The special effects are generally impressive, from big set pieces like the Quidditch game to little grace notes like the constantly shifting paintings on the Hogwarts walls. John Williams contributes yet another of his fine scores, complete with a theme you'll walk out humming. In addition to Radcliffe, several other actors also acquit themselves admirably. Robbie Coltrane invests Hogwarts giant Hagrid with blustery charm, Maggie Smith is a fine, tartly English MacGonagal, but newcomer Rupert Grint practically walks off with the film as Harry's friend Ron Weasley. He has one of those faces that always looks apologetic, and his lines ("She seriously has to work on her priorities") are the best in the picture.
Still, my mind keeps returning to one word..."disappointment". Does it even matter? The film's already made ten truckloads of money, and kids who must have fallen asleep during it (as I'll admit I did) are still saying it's their favorite all-time movie. Work has already begun on a sequel, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets", and there was enough I liked about "Sorcerer's Stone" that I'll probably check out this second film, too. Remember, though: you can't fool me thrice. If the follow-up bottoms out, I won't be back for "Prisoner of Azkaban".
Hmmm...maybe they could get Joel Schumacher to direct... ;)