HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE

By: Abbie Bernstein
Date: Friday, November 16, 2001

It's a funny thing about movies adapted from beloved books. In a way, it doesn't matter how the movies turn out the books will still be there, as worthwhile and exciting and lovable as ever. However, people are still terribly invested in adaptations. For some, it's a little like meeting a favorite pen pal in the flesh; there's a fear that the personality that was so charming on paper won't live up to its promise when seen to stand and move.

HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE passes the test to such a degree that you may find yourself marveling that a movie adaptation can be quite this faithful to its source material. Chris Columbus directed and Steve Kloves wrote the screenplay. You've only got to look at what's on display in every single shot to understand that Columbus had a Herculean job, and Kloves must have had a devilish time reassembling delicate connective tissue and still coming out with something that has all the essential ingredients intact. However, the overwhelming impression is that this is less their film than author J.K. Rowling's the world in the film is very much that of her book.

As even most Muggles (that's non-magical folk) know, Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is an orphaned English boy, living with his unloving relatives, who learns on his 11^th birthday that he's actually a wizard who's hailed in the magical world as the only known survivor of an attack by the evil Voldemort. After some wrangling with his profoundly conventional aunt and uncle (who want nothing to do with magic), Harry is sent to the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. There he makes two firm friends his own age loyal Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and good-hearted know-it-all Hermione (Emma Watson). The three children stumble onto a dangerous mystery that seems to have something to do with the incident that killed Harry's parents, scarred him and may now be endangering Hogwarts.

What Columbus does here (arguably better than he's ever done before) is maintain a sense of true wonder and discovery throughout. We're not banged over the head with how exciting and marvelous everything is (except by the music) for one thing, there's no time for overemphasis. Kloves' adaptation has done a bit of necessary condensing, but the film is still packed with incident. Harry must be delivered as an infant to his aunt and uncle's doorstep, converse with a snake at the zoo, Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) must make his imposing entrance, we must visit Diagon Alley, find the secret of train station Platform 9 ¾ and meet Ron and Hermione all before we ever get to Hogwarts. The pace is intense, but not breathless. The skillful structure (so deft that it doesn't call attention to itself) gives us time to absorb what we need to without dwelling on any one thing. Like magic, this is harder than it looks.

Special note must be

made of Stuart Craig's production design, which borrows from popular concepts to make Diagon Alley exactly what most people will have envisioned reading the book and surpasses any reasonable expectations of Hogwarts. The Great Hall, with its night-sky ceiling and floating candles and flocks of mail-delivering owls, is a creation that perfectly fulfills the promise of once-upon-a-time without making Harry's (and our) contemporary nature seem out of place.

The movie has a couple of noticeable flaws, one expected and one understandable. John Williams' score does its level best to overstate everything, becoming downright interfering in places. There's also a slightly old-fashioned look to some of the CGI shots, especially in the Quidditch match, which (should you have missed the book) is a wizard sport played midair on broomsticks. The airborne children don't always seem to match their environment, but the really curious thing is that we don't care. Columbus makes the game (and even the flying practice sessions) so thrilling, and we're so invested in Harry's progress, that we simply accept the way it looks and go on cheering for Gryffindore House.

Radcliffe is endearingly natural and straightforward, Grint is appealing and Watson is astonishingly self-assured. The grown-ups are all ideally suited to their roles. Alan Rickman is particularly delicious as the snide Snape, draping himself through the corridors like a particularly annoyed Hamlet. Coltrane projects earthy warmth with a becoming mild daffiness and Richard Harris is the soul of compassionate authority as headmaster Albus Dumbledore. Maggie Smith as the strict but sports-mad Professor McGonagall hits her notes at just the right pitch and Ian Hart quavers and faints splendidly as the nervous, turban-clad Professor Quirrell.

There's not a thing in here for older children to worry about, but parents who have small, easily scared kids should note that the violence in HARRY POTTER is comparable to that in RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, with lots of close calls for the good guys and disintegrating villains, not to mention underlying themes of parental loss.

It's hard to guess what people might have made of HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE had the film arrived on the scene as it is without the pedigree of the book behind it. It might be accused of having too much plot, but it doesn't, really part of the fun is its endless variety. It might also be accused of moving through its character paces too quickly, but this is a situation where we can infer emotion through action. Besides, it's a moot point, because the book is behind HARRY POTTER. More to the point, the film is about as close as anybody could reasonably get to a celluloid version of the text. For once, filmmakers demonstrate complete trust in their source material and get it just right.

HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE

Grade: A-

Reviewed Format: Wide Theatrical Release

Rated: PG

Stars: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Richard Harris, Robbie Coltrane

Writer: Steve Kloves, based on the novel by J.K. Rowling

Director: Chris Columbus

Distributor: Warner Bros.