Still In Theaters: 'Harry Potter'
Atmosphere, Acting Make Impossible Possible
UPDATED: 6:40 p.m. EST November 21, 2001
'Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone' (PG)
Considering all the time countless fans were waiting and all the hype that surrounded it, it almost doesn't seem right to boil down a review of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" to one simple word.
But honestly, this long-awaited adaptation of J.K. Rowling's first blockbuster book can't be described as anything other than "magical."
Granted, this comes from a writer who hasn't read any of Rowling's four novels, but as a moviegoing experience, there's no denying that it's lavish in looks, the acting is impeccable, the script is smart and the action is spectacular.
There are no cheap movie tricks, here, folks, just plain old-fashioned movie fun. And, you have to admit, it's nice to see a movie (appropriately about a wizard) that has the power to make the sorrows of the world vanish, if only for a while.
The movie version of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" introduces us to Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), a boy who learns on his 11th birthday that he is the orphaned son of two wizards and possesses unique magical powers of his own. After much resistance from his aunt (Fiona Shaw), uncle (Richard Griffiths) and spoiled cousin (Harry Melling), Harry takes up the opportunity to explore his powers at the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.
While at Hogwarts, Harry encounters a group of students who have powers similar to his own: Unlike home, he quickly finds a sense of belonging, and becomes fast friends with Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) -- but adversaries with Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton), who is clearly jealous of Harry's powers.
Harry encounters several adults at Hogwarts, too. There's Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) a gentle of a giant groundskeeper who reveals the truth to Harry about his parents' fate and the reason he has a lightning-shaped scar on his forehead; Professors Dumbledore (Richard Harris) and McGonagall (Maggie Smith), who have an affinity for the Potter family legacy; and Professors Quirrel (Ian Hart) and Snape (Alan Rickman), who roam the school's grounds in an air of mystery.
Together, all these new people in Harry's life will help him get in touch with his past, and ultimately, a hope for the future.
It's hard to say who felt more pressure in making "Harry Potter" succeed -- writer Steve Kloves, who had to adapt Rowling's words, director Chris Columbus, who had to interpret them, or Radcliffe, who had to act it out.
Whatever the case may be, the pressure certainly doesn't show on screen. What does show is a mystical sense of atmosphere, where for the two and a half hours on screen, the impossible becomes possible.
Granted, "Harry Potter" is chock-full of special effects, but ultimately, the success of the movie rests on the shoulders of Radcliffe and to a certain extent, Grint and Watson. We're far past the age when eye-candy was enough to appease moviegoers, and when you consider this audience bought over 100 million books about the characters, the expectation level has to be in the stratosphere.
They To begin with, it's great to know that Columbus ("Home Alone") and Kloves ("Wonder Boys") took the time to understand their audience. They tell the story in a way that all audience members can understand, instead of skimping on details, assuming everybody has read the books. That's not to say the story doesn't have its complexities, but Kloves and Columbus make you work a bit for it and it makes the ending (for us non-book readers, especially) that much more satisfying. Some emotions are also layered that make Harry's character all the more relatable.
also nailed the next big task, which was to bring an array of fantastical characters to life without them being too animated. Radcliffe and Grint's performances, especially, are rich with subtlety, and most importantly, believable. One can't help but think, though, that the veteran charisma of Harris, Smith, Coltrane and Rickman only enhanced their young co-star's games. They're all naturals at what they do, and simply inspire greatness.
With that sort of foundation, it's no wonder that it's easy to be captivated by the story. The sets are beautiful and immense and provide the perfect backdrop for the movie's most spectacular effects sequences. The most fun is undoubtedly Harry's Quidditch game (where the players fly around on their brooms trying to capture a ball with lightning speed), which rivals the "Star Wars: Episode One" pod race, one of most spectacular action scenes in recent movie memory.
While the story has an appeal to both adults and children, Columbus may have overstepped the boundaries of his intended audience -- which naturally includes children when you're talking a PG rating movie.
Sure, he establishes a memorable atmosphere, but its dark mood may spook younger viewers at times. Many of "Harry Potter's" supernatural elements are clearly played for laughs and should soften any fears, but a scene at the film's conclusion may be too intense for viewers under age 6. Can it be scary? Yes, but it is hardly evil.
Regardless of any objectionable scenes and a run time that may test kids' limits, it should hardly give viewers any excuses to sweep "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" under the carpet.
Get on your brooms and ride.
Considering all the time countless fans were waiting and all the hype that surrounded it, it almost doesn't seem right to boil down a review of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" to one simple word.
But honestly, this long-awaited adaptation of J.K. Rowling's first blockbuster book can't be described as anything other than "magical."
Granted, this comes from a writer who hasn't read any of Rowling's four novels, but as a moviegoing experience, there's no denying that it's lavish in looks, the acting is impeccable, the script is smart and the action is spectacular.
There are no cheap movie tricks, here, folks, just plain old-fashioned movie fun. And, you have to admit, it's nice to see a movie (appropriately about a wizard) that has the power to make the sorrows of the world vanish, if only for a while.
The movie version of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" introduces us to Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), a boy who learns on his 11th birthday that he is the orphaned son of two wizards and possesses unique magical powers of his own. After much resistance from his aunt (Fiona Shaw), uncle (Richard Griffiths) and spoiled cousin (Harry Melling), Harry takes up the opportunity to explore his powers at the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.
While at Hogwarts, Harry encounters a group of students who have powers similar to his own: Unlike home, he quickly finds a sense of belonging, and becomes fast friends with Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) -- but adversaries with Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton), who is clearly jealous of Harry's powers.
Harry encounters several adults at Hogwarts, too. There's Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) a gentle of a giant groundskeeper who reveals the truth to Harry about his parents' fate and the reason he has a lightning-shaped scar on his forehead; Professors Dumbledore (Richard Harris) and McGonagall (Maggie Smith), who have an affinity for the Potter family legacy; and Professors Quirrel (Ian Hart) and Snape (Alan Rickman), who roam the school's grounds in an air of mystery.
Together, all these new people in Harry's life will help him get in touch with his past, and ultimately, a hope for the future.
It's hard to say who felt more pressure in making "Harry Potter" succeed -- writer Steve Kloves, who had to adapt Rowling's words, director Chris Columbus, who had to interpret them, or Radcliffe, who had to act it out.
Whatever the case may be, the pressure certainly doesn't show on screen. What does show is a mystical sense of atmosphere, where for the two and a half hours on screen, the impossible becomes possible.
Granted, "Harry Potter" is chock-full of special effects, but ultimately, the success of the movie rests on the shoulders of Radcliffe and to a certain extent, Grint and Watson. We're far past the age when eye-candy was enough to appease moviegoers, and when you consider this audience bought over 100 million books about the characters, the expectation level has to be in the stratosphere.
They To begin with, it's great to know that Columbus ("Home Alone") and Kloves ("Wonder Boys") took the time to understand their audience. They tell the story in a way that all audience members can understand, instead of skimping on details, assuming everybody has read the books. That's not to say the story doesn't have its complexities, but Kloves and Columbus make you work a bit for it and it makes the ending (for us non-book readers, especially) that much more satisfying. Some emotions are also layered that make Harry's character all the more relatable.
also nailed the next big task, which was to bring an array of fantastical characters to life without them being too animated. Radcliffe and Grint's performances, especially, are rich with subtlety, and most importantly, believable. One can't help but think, though, that the veteran charisma of Harris, Smith, Coltrane and Rickman only enhanced their young co-star's games. They're all naturals at what they do, and simply inspire greatness.
With that sort of foundation, it's no wonder that it's easy to be captivated by the story. The sets are beautiful and immense and provide the perfect backdrop for the movie's most spectacular effects sequences. The most fun is undoubtedly Harry's Quidditch game (where the players fly around on their brooms trying to capture a ball with lightning speed), which rivals the "Star Wars: Episode One" pod race, one of most spectacular action scenes in recent movie memory.
While the story has an appeal to both adults and children, Columbus may have overstepped the boundaries of his intended audience -- which naturally includes children when you're talking a PG rating movie.
Sure, he establishes a memorable atmosphere, but its dark mood may spook younger viewers at times. Many of "Harry Potter's" supernatural elements are clearly played for laughs and should soften any fears, but a scene at the film's conclusion may be too intense for viewers under age 6. Can it be scary? Yes, but it is hardly evil.
Regardless of any objectionable scenes and a run time that may test kids' limits, it should hardly give viewers any excuses to sweep "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" under the carpet.
Get on your brooms and ride.Copyright 2001 by Lifewhile.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
