"No 'Stone' Unturned"
by Scott Mantz

"Harry Potter
and the Sorcerer's Stone"
Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint
Directed by Chris Columbus

Wiz kids! Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson conjure up some magic in "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone"

It goes without saying that the Harry Potter books have to be the most important British import since The Beatles washed up on American shores almost 40 years ago. It also goes without saying that with over 117 million copies sold in just four years, the Potter phenomenon is nothing short of incredible. With such a large fan base and a story that seems tailor made for the big screen, it was only a matter of time before Hollywood got its grubby little paws all over the story of a young boy who learns how to use the incredible powers that he never knew he had (hmm...kind of sounds like another boy who lived a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away).

As fate would have it, Warner Bros. optioned the first book years before Harry Potter became "Harry Potter" (and at $700,000, the house that Bugs built got one of the biggest bargains in movie history). Like all authors who've seen their creations come to life, it's not surprising that J.K. Rowling insisted on final approval over every creative decision that was involved in the filmmaking process. That included who would write the screenplay, who would direct the movie, and who would play Harry himself. Eventually, it was decided that "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" would be directed by Chris Columbus (beating out contenders like Rob Reiner, Ron Howard, and even Steven Spielberg), and the bespectacled young wizard would be played by British newcomer Daniel Radcliffe.

With anticipation building to a fever pitch, and with Warner Bros. sitting on what could be the franchise to end all franchises (easily beating their "Batman," "Lethal Weapon," and "Superman" film series), expectations for the film--and how it compares to the book--were bound to be high. The issue at hand: will moviegoers be "wild about Harry," or will "Harry-kari?" Well, here's the good news: for the tens of millions of readers who were worried that the film would be nothing like the book, you can stop worrying. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" is so faithful to the book, there are times when you can actually follow along with the dialogue.

Now the bad news: by staying true to the book, the film is too long (over 2 1/2 hours), and there's absolutely no element of surprise when watching it. In short, it can be quite boring at times. Despite all the special effects that $125 million can buy, despite impressive set designs that give the film an other-worldly feel, and despite the young actors who seem like they were born to play the most coveted roles on the planet, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" comes up surprisingly short of being the magical mystery tour that it could have been.

For those of you who've been living in a cave for the past few years, here's the story. There once was a boy named Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), who was raised by his cruel Aunt and Uncle. On his 11th birthday, he receives a visit from a big burly giant named Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), who tells him that his parents were wizards, and that he has been accepted to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. There, he will learn the ways of the Force and become a Jedi like his father (oh, wait...wrong movie!). Upon his arrival, he discovers the truth about his murdered parents, and eventually, he and fellow students Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) must thwart the evil force who is after the Sorcerer's Stone--a magical ruby that gives unlimited power to those who possess it.

For fans of the book who've been clamoring to see Hogwarts, Quidditch, Fluffy, and the chess game, it's all there--and it's all very impressive. The problem is that too much of it is there. Introducing hoards of characters and ideas may be fine for a book that you can read at your leisure, but on a cinematic level, adapting the whole kit and caboodle just weighs it down. As it is, while not every single element of the book made it to the screen, enough of it is there where you'd have to dig hard to see what didn't make the final cut. The elements that do survive may please nit-picky fans, but some of them could easily have been dropped to make for a stronger, tighter, and more cohesive film.

Daniel Radcliffe, who ultimately got the part after director Chris Columbus saw him in a BBC version of "David Copperfield," is perfectly cast as Harry Potter (but then again, you could have put those granny glasses on Chris Rock, and he would have looked like Harry Potter too!). While he certainly holds his own and conveys the charm, strength, and curiosity that the role calls for, he is eventually upstaged by Emma Watson and Rupert Grint, who play fellow wizards-in-training Hermione and Ron, respectively. Watson is witty, wise, and irresistible to watch, while Grint plays the comic relief to the many edge-of-your-seat situations that the kids find themselves in.

The reason a film is "based" on a book is so that certain liberties can be taken when making the transition to the big screen. In his attempt to please the book's hardcore fans--as well as the author herself--Chris Columbus left no "stone" unturned, and as a result, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" misses its magical mark. Sure, it could be argued that so much had to be introduced before the story could really get under way (a crutch that future films will not have to deal with), but no matter. "Sorcerer's Stone" will do gangbusters at the box office, Warner Bros. will have its Potter of gold, and Muggles everywhere will anxiously await November 15, 2002. That's when "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" hits theaters, and we get to do this all over again.

Back to Scott's New Movie Reviews

Review Archives