Eric D. Snider

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

Movie Review

"Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone"

Review by Eric D. Snider

Grade: B

Rating: PG

Released: Friday, November 16, 2001

Directed by:

Cast:

Here's the long and short of it: "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" is good, but not great.

Director Chris Columbus had the unenviable task of trying to make a blockbuster movie while simultaneously pleasing fans who will be angry if ANYTHING is changed or -- heaven forbid -- deleted. Many readers were saying, "We want it to be EXACTLY like the book, AND we want it to be a great movie."

Well, sorry, but that's impossible. Movies and books are different things. To be successfully adapted, books must be altered, streamlined and sometimes refocused, or else the transfer to the big screen won't work.

Columbus erred on the wrong side: The film is so meticulously faithful to the book that it almost doesn't work as a movie.

So intent was he on getting all the book's physical elements in that he neglected the intangibles. Hogwarts is Gothically gorgeous, the characters look the way we always pictured them and Fluffy the three-headed dog is scary. But the major themes of friendship and courage, not to mention the book's wicked sense of humor, are given only cursory attention. There's no time to establish nebulous things like "loyalty"; we've got to throw together a Quidditch match!

There's also this problem: The book is mostly exposition. It is a long time before the real story, about the plot to steal the sorcerer's stone, kicks into high gear. The movie is the same way. In a book, that works fine. In a movie, it's considered poor pacing. If I hadn't read (and loved) the book, about an hour into the movie I'd have been saying, "OK, this stuff is neat and everything, but where's it heading?"

The actors who play Harry, Ron and Hermione -- Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson -- are charming kids and reasonably good actors. Very few of the other characters get the screen time they deserve -- Snape (Alan Rickman) and Quirrell (Ian Hart) are most badly robbed -- but Robbie Coltrane, Richard Harris and Maggie Smith make the most of it as Hagrid, Dumbledore and McGonagall. (And poor Neville Longbottom: We hardly knew ye.)

The Quidditch match is spectacularly exciting, as are all the special effects. The troll, the goblins, the ghosts -- they're here, and they're fantastic. It's amazing how things look just the way the readers imagined them; I literally gasped when I saw the Gryffindor common room -- a rather ordinary locale -- looking exactly the way I'd pictured it in my head.

The movie is essentially a procession of people and things that have previously lived only in our imaginations. The extent to which you are eager to see such a parade, regardless of how detached the floats are from each other, is the extent to which you will enjoy the movie.

What's missing is the feeling of magic and wonderment the book gave us. It's like a cloning experiment gone awry. It appears to be an exact duplicate of the book, and in many ways it is. But somehow, it's just not the same.

Grade: B

Rated PG, one very mild profanity, some violent and scary images

Digg! Stumble It!

This item has 7 comments

  1. Alice says:

    PHILOSOPHER'S stone, people! sorry, i'm one of those annoying people who gets pissed off about that ;) I totally agree though - there were all those really great actors who didn't get enough screentime.

  2. Ben C. says:

    Here in America it's Sorcerer's Stone. Sorry Alice. You lose. :-)

  3. Andrew D says:

    Movies and books are different things? Since when?

  4. InkStain says:

    It's been a while since i saw this but i remember the biggest disappointment for me was that Ron's charachter was so poorly portrayed. In the books, Ron's most outstanding characteristic is his wicked sense of humour. But in the movie he's a gibbering cowering idiot who's one facial expression is "oh i'm so scared Harry I'm going to wet me pants".

    Am i the only one to notice this?

  5. John Doe says:

    Does nobody else think that Hagrid is the most irresponsible person in the world? In this movie, the kids get in trouble because they hang out with Hagrid for too long. Who should be blamed, a 40+ y/o Giant employed at Hogwarts, or some 11 y/o students? (In the book he's even worse, but that's not relevant.)

    Then what is their punishment? Hey, there's a monster out in the forest so powerful that it can catch and kill an incredibly powerful magical creature like a unicorn. I think we should have a bunch of 11 y/o kids go hunt it ALONE.

    I understand enjoying this book clouding judgment of the movie somewhat, but I would expect Eric to call a movie on it's crap, even if it's in the book.

  6. John Doe says:

    And yes, I'm an idiot and put an apostrophe where it did not belong. It should read "... Eric should call a movie on its crap..."

    While I'm sure there are tons of other grammar mistakes in my post, that is the only one that matters enough to me to be corrected.

  7. Lulu says:

    @Ben C

    "The book was retitled to Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone for publication in the United States. The main reason for this retitle was that the U.S. publishers thought that a child would not want to read a book that sounded as though it was associated with philosophy.

    JK Rowling gives this explanation:

    Arthur Levine, my American editor, and I decided that words should be altered only where we felt they would be incomprehensible, even in context, to an American reader... The title change was Arthur's idea initially, because he felt that the British title gave a misleading idea of the subject matter. In England, we discussed several alternative titles and Sorcerer's Stone was my idea."

    The above was taken from Wikipedia. What I understand from this is that they thought Americans were perhaps too stupid to understand that the word 'philosopher' is not related to 'philosophy'.

    Sorry Ben, but it looks like you lose after all.

Add your comment:

The following HTML elements are allowed: <span class="spoiler">content</span>, <strong>, <em>, <a>, and <img>.

Before posting, please read the rules.

Subscription Center

Eric D. Snider's "Snide Remarks"

This is to join the mailing list for Eric's weekly humor column, "Snide Remarks." For more information, go here.

Subscribe

Eric D. Snider's "In the Dark"

This is to join the mailing list for Eric's weekly movie-review e-zine. For more information on it, go here.

Subscribe
 
Come read about baseball and web development at www.jeffjsnider.com