 | Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone * Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Robbie Coltrane, Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, John Cleese |
"Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" may very well be the biggest moneymaker in film history. It was destined to be so when the film was still on the drawing boards. The Harry Potter books by J. K. Rowling have become the most beloved books in the world. The adventures of the talented young wizard and his friends have sent children and adults alike into the fascinating world of imagination and magical possibilities. If you don't know who Harry Potter is then you must have been living in a cave in Afghanistan for a number of years. Now we have the long awaited Harry Potter-The Movie (just the first one, another is already in production). That most critics have been positive toward the film would hardly have made a difference. The first showing at midnight in Los Angeles had lines for several blocks. Entire classrooms and teachers are visiting theatres all over the world. The film is a delight with plenty for the parents to enjoy along with the kids. Director Columbus has assigned seven of the top art directors in the biz to serve up a sumptuous visual feast. Few will be disappointed with this reverent and faithful adaptation. It is obvious that Columbus holds Harry Potter in great esteem. He was most careful to play it safe and by the book. After paying US$125 million for the screen rights, I wouldn't think he would want to drift too far astray. So...the film looks great, the kids are cute, the audiences are happy, and the producers pocket a lot of money. What's my problem? Sorry folks, but as a movie "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" ultimately succeeds as entertainment yet fails as a film. While I appreciate the difficulty in filming Harry Potter, Columbus missed the mark and has given us a flat vision of the book that (with the exception of Robbie Coltrane's smashing performance as Hagrid) is entirely forgettable. Like Chinese food, this film pleases, but two hours later you forget that you ever came to the table. It's still the book you remember, not the film. Columbus played it too close to the book, clouding his vision as a film director. This moving illustration, albeit an impressive one, is just another pretty picture. LA Times Critic Kenneth Turan said it better than I: "Columbus failed to take any risks!" I completely agree. I am only commenting on the film because Hollywood loves moneymakers and "Harry Potter and The Sorcerer's Stone" will likely be up for more than a few Oscars. I was also somewhat offended by the studio's spin that this film is the new Wizard of Oz. Don't buy it! It's not even close. "The Wizard of Oz," based on Frank L. Baum's classic children's tale, was a good idea but few involved in the film production were sure that they were making film history. It was quite the opposite. Most were unsure if the audience would buy a fast maturing Judy Garland as young Dorothy and producers were doubtful if audiences would accept Bert Lahr, Jack Haley and Ray Bolger dressed up in ridiculous costumes freely cavorting on screen while chewing all of the scenery in sight. It all seemed a bit silly. The artists pushed the envelope with cutting edge matte techniques and experimented and expanded the potential of the Technicolor process. Departing freely from the book and adding a wacky, comical wizard (Frank Morgan), "The Wizard of Oz" began on shaky ground. But when it was all put together, along with some of the best popular songs in film history...it worked! A classic was born. With sheer energy and talent, "The Wizard of Oz" remains a symbol of Hollywood at it's best. All involved took a number of risks and it paid off handsomely. The movie enhanced the books and the characters came to life with a renewed vigour that will last forever. Are you beginning to get my point? As for "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone"...John Williams' bombastic score damn near ruined the film for me. It was difficult to see so many talented actors with so little to do. Columbus seems content to have his actors look like Rowling's characters rather than breathe life into them. One gets the feeling that Richard Harris' best scenes are on the cutting room floor. The one scene where he is allowed to truly act is all too brief. Too bad, Harris could have made a strong contribution. Only Coltrane jumps off the screen and rescues the film. The kids are capable but one gets tired of the many close up cuts to Harry's face. All right, he looks like Harry Potter...enough! It's all a bit too cute and contrived. I could go on and on...and in fact I have. Sorry. It will make enough money, get enough Oscars and entertain enough of the populous to silence 1000 Guido Mezzabottas. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" as a film, is lacking the one important ingredient that is necessary for any young wizard. Magic! * Ed. Note: The original title, of course, is "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone." Hollywood evidently decided that a word referring to intellectual rigour would make most Americans uneasy. |