Metro Pulse/Movie Guru/Harry Potter

Movie Guru Rating:
Enlightening (4 out of 5)

Comment
on this review

The first Potter installment lives up to the hype

by Jesse Fox Mayshark

I scoffed, too, at first, and decided that there was no way that I was ever going to read a Harry Potter book. I had my reasons—I mean, how good could a kid's book be today, really? The books of my youth were controversial, like Judy Blume, or dark, like Paul Zindell, or just plain strange, like Ellen Raskin. But kiddie lit nowadays has become soft, the victim of too many publishers never wanting to hurt any parent's delicate sensibilities. And the more folks insisted that J.K. Rowling's books were different, the less I believed them.

We know how this ends, of course. I was forced to read the third one, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, for a long-ago book review and absolutely swooned. Since, I've read all four a few times through, and have consistently been delighted by Rowling's storytelling ability, and her balancing act of keeping the story charming without ever being twee. The imaginary world she has created is almost hypnotic—what kid (or adult) wouldn't want to go to Hogwarts, even though some very scary things happen there? Who wouldn't want to be a wizard, despite the danger? The books are remarkable, and there's no reason to think that the last three won't hit the same high marks that the first four have.

It only stands to reason that Hollywood's money-making machine would want a cut of the Potter action. There's built-in name recognition—and therefore the opportunity to cross-market all kinds of crap—and a huge audience eager to get more Harry and all of the cross-marketed crap. It's a studio's dream, yet it seems like the story itself, which is really what makes the books so hugely popular, could easily get lost in all of the hoopla or be watered down in order to keep the suits happy.

Fortunately, Steven Spielberg passed on the project (and has been less than professional in his comments about Chris Columbus, the director who did land it), otherwise we would have been treated to a heart-string-pulling treacle-fest that starred the doe-eyed Haley Joel Osment. At first glance, Columbus seems like an equally sentimental choice for this film, given that he's responsible for the pap that is Home Alone, Mrs. Doubtfire and Bicentennial Man. But Columbus seems to have been the best choice—maybe Robin Williams and Macaulay Culkin were holding him back.

Part of Columbus' achievement is wrapped in his ability to cleanly tell Rowling's story about an orphan, sent to live with his overbearing relatives, who later discovers he's the son of two famous wizards that ostensibly saved the entire witchy world from a great badness. The orphan, physically scarred by the attack that killed his parents, is sent to Hogwarts, a boarding school for the young and magically inclined. There, of course, he has all sorts of adventures, which grow increasingly dangerous as Potter, and by extension, the Potter-reader, grows older.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, the film, doesn't veer much from the book and is great fun to watch. Visually, it's simply stunning, fully imagined down to the last detail. The look is rich enough that you feel as if you could almost touch it, and that, if you did, it would be as finely textured as velvet. The special effects, which can be such a distraction in similar story-driven vehicles, mesh seamlessly with Potter's experience and are, at some points like the Quidditch sequence, spectacular. This is a world you can't help but fall into.

The cast, rather than competing with all of the visual magic, is an integral part of it, driving the story rather than being driven by it. (For an example of the latter, I'd suggest watching the latest Star Wars installment.) It helps that Columbus had some of the finest actors in Britain at his fingertips—with the likes of Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, John Hurt, and Alan Rickman, the result would be well-acted, if nothing else. Robbie Coltrane almost manages to steal the show from these steadfast talents, simply, perhaps, because his character is on screen more than the other adults. Regardless, his Hagrid is a study in nuance.

The film would be nothing without the kids, and Daniel Radcliffe as Harry is a solid choice, as is Emma Watson as Hermione. The stand-out, thought, is Rupert Grint, who is by far the most interesting of the three to watch. He's more loose, somehow, than the other two, just having a great time in front of the camera. While some of that is inherent in his role as Harry's sidekick who has a lot less pressure on him to perform, most of this joy of performance seems to come from Grint himself. It'll be fun to experience his progression as the other books are filmed. Right now, Columbus plans to do one a year so that the kids can age in the film as they would in real life.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone has so very, very much to be admired for; yet, somehow, it left me a bit cold. Despite all of film's wonderful spectacle, I'd just as soon read the book again. Which isn't meant to be a comment on Columbus' skill, more a reiteration of the delights of the book and its reliance on the reader's imagination. While I can't wait to see what they'll come up with for the next one, I can't help but prefer the version that I created myself, in my own head—and I haven't the slightest idea how Hollywood will ever be able to compete with that.