Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

This review is rather long, and frankly, for no good reason.

For a much shorter review that pretty well meshes with my thoughts on this movie, see Scott29's review.



One finds, eventually, that the way in which people subject things to 'categorization' is simply amazing. Walk into any book shop, and you'll soon see all manner of curious ideas on the subject. Everything (in a book shop) must go into its proper place, and places abound. Certainly, we can't get by with just books piled helter skelter, but the lengths and depths (and often breadths) the book shop industry as a whole has gone to in its efforts to have everything 'easy to find' is nothing short of astonishing.

Unfortunately, the system of book categorization in use works in a sort of general way, but individual items are often confusing. In large part, what goes on in the book will give a clue as to the categorization said book has been subjected to. Rather a normal book, bit of a murder at one point, archetypal hero figure discovers identity of perpetrator, and there you are, file under 'Mystery'. There is a comforting ease with which this sort of classification works. It makes one feel cozy.

However, if we take a supremely similar book, add one minor detail, things get monkeyed up. Rather normal book for the most part, bit of a murder, archetypal hero figure solves crime, one fellow (hardly worth mentioning really, he isn't critical at all) has a laser gun, and Shazam!, the book has a laser gun on the cover, sits in 'Sci-Fi', and Bob's your uncle.

In fact, take any book that would under normal circumstances be shoved, in no uncertain terms, into any other category, add to it (at any random point in the story) the line 'An elf wanders in, waves at you with a wry grin, and wanders off again', and it's straight to 'Fantasy', and thank you very much for stopping by.

Witness two authors, P. G. Wodehouse and Douglas Adams. Adams' stories, whatever else they may be, contain laser guns and spaceships, and are to be found in Science-Fiction. Wodehouse's stories, whatever else they may be, do not, and are found in 'Humor'. Whatever one may think of these two authors, what is clear is that Adams' writing has more in common with Wodehouse than with anything else (except a few other authors suffering from the same 'categorization') one finds in 'Science-Fiction'.

But, I digress (or perhaps simply gress, as I haven't begun talking about anything else from which my attention has been diverted, or rather, hasn't).


The reason this 'categorization' is currently preoccupying my thoughts, is because of, sensibly, 'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone'. It is with this book, that the categorizers have taken a firm stand in their ability to overcome all obstacles. Where one might wonder as to the placement of such a book, no such wonderment plagued our makers-of-certain-delineation. It is really a children's book, and one might expect to find it in a children's section. However, it is staggeringly (and disappointingly) popular among, as the ludicrous vernacular goes, 'children of all ages', some of same perhaps not wanting to be seen dallying in amongst the pastel-colored animals and suchlike. And therein, one might think, lies some difficulty. Not so. For the book has now laid claim to permanent residence in what was heretofore not considered a categorization at all. Thus an inquiry as to the whereabouts of said article of 'literature' is now and forevermore met with the sparkle-eyed reply, 'In the gaudy display stand at the front of the store.' And thus, categorization by way of non-categorization.


And now, the movie. A 'fantasy', one presumes, given that there is a wizard and magic. But, where categorization of the book (as fantasy) is certainly seen as appropriate even to such a one as myself (who thinks that the book is the top cap on just how overrated something in this life can be), the categorization of the movie is purely accidental.

The true meaning (if I might be allowed to purport to know) of being included in the category of 'fantasy' is not so much that some character has cast a spell, but rather that there is something 'magical' about the story, or perhaps the theme/s. The Harry Potter books certainly live up to this sort of classification. They are definitely children/young adult books, and have far too many 'adults' wandering around starry-eyed proclaiming them 'great books', but there is a certain magic about them. The movie, however, not so much.

To borrow from Scott29's review, or at least the general gist thereof, it is a movie about magic that isn't.


What's worse, the movie is only a movie by way of the barest of technicalities. It is more correctly simply something to add to the packaging of the book. What I mean by this is simply what I mean in saying that the movie has none of the magic of the book. That is, the movie is merely the putting on film of a sort of synopsis of the story. It is this that kills the two birds with the one stone. Whatever magic may be in a story is certainly not going to be translated into any synopsis (no matter the level of snazzy computer graphics). And, obviously, the movie can hardly be said to stand alone. It doesn't work at all if you haven't read the book, and if it is insisted that the movie should be taken on its own, it is all the worse. From the standpoint of he who has not read the book, the movie delivers very little information, and much of what is in the movie seems pointless.

For example, why bother with Quidditch at all? About two minutes explanation of what is, frankly, a bit more complicated than your average sport, so that we can witness about five minutes of one match of said confusing sport, with no continuation in the rest of the movie. One is (or one who hadn't read the book likely would be) left wondering if there is, in fact, any point bothering to figure out the fool game in the first place. The 'chess match' at the end occupies more celluloid than everything to do with Quidditch put together.

The short answer to the question seems to be that those who have read the book are going to want to see a bit of Quidditch.


In fact, this seems to be the whole idea of the movie. Whereas one might see the similarity to David Lynch's attempt at 'Dune' (being that it was admittedly made with the idea that a thorough knowledge of the book was a prerequisite), Lynch's movie attempted to deliver the story as readers of the book envisioned it, and Harry Potter is a mere all-encompassing example of pandering to what the audience wants to see. A tricky line, I admit, but a line nonetheless.



Our story, though who I need to tell I cannot fathom, is the story of young lad name of Potter... Harry Potter. As it happens, there is a whole other world going on in the world, and it is a world of wizards and witches, magic and dragons, so forth and so on. Harry is the son of two such magical type persons, but alas, they were killed when he was a mere pup. He had to spend his most formative of formative years with an aunt, uncle, and cousin. Muggles the lot of them.

But the universe has richer things in store for our Harry, and as his eleventh birthday approaches he receives (or rather doesn't, but that's more of the story than you need) a letter informing him that he is accepted to a school of wizardry, and we fast-forward to his arrival.

The rest of the movie is really nothing more than an introduction (and a quick one) to all things wizardly, and a bit of exploration into some possibly curious events. We meet many wizards, and have the occasional encounter with some fanciful creature or other.


The upshot is that the particularly nasty wizard Voldemort, who killed Harry's parents and tried to kill him, may or may not be back, and someone may or may not be trying to steal the sorcerer's (philosopher's actually) stone. And lo, Harry saves the day, and the stone, and there is much rejoicing.


The point of the problem with the movie is wonderfully put to it right here in that this is about the best you can say of the plot. The whole thing really presents itself as being the non-existent 'real movie' of the book seen on fast-forward, with quite a few bits snipped besides.


Being that the characters in the book are one of its best points, let us examine the movie through them. (In no particular order)


Albus Dumbledore is the Headmaster at Hogwart's (the wizarding school). Dumbledore is a kindly, old, Father Christmas sort of wizard, and in the book Harry forms a certain bond with him. He has the undying devotion of Hagrid, and is generally a very powerful, well-respected old chap. Dumbledore is played admirably by Richard Harris who you might know from such things as 'A Man Called Horse' or as King Arthur in the 1967 version of 'Camelot', or, if you are of a different perspective, as the old emperor guy who dies very early on in 'Gladiator'.

The problem with Dumbledore (as with the movie as a whole) is that he isn't really there. We certainly get the impression of the kindly, old wizard running the school and so on, but he is allowed very little 'room to roam'. There is very little development of the character, and one must assume that this is because (as mentioned) you are already supposed to know the character, because you are already supposed to have read the book.


The character of Professor McGonagall is all but removed from the story altogether, and merely puts in a few mandatory appearances which thoroughly waste the potential of Maggie Smith. Maggie Smith might best be known for her work in such films as 'Othello', 'Murder by Death', and 'Death on the Nile', or possibly for (gasp) 'Sister Act'.

Professor McGonagall is hardly in the movie at all, and her character is so left alone that one hardly knows whether we are supposed to like her or not. There is very little interaction between McGonagall and Harry, and he is given no opportunity to form any attachment toward her pro or con, and neither are we.


One of the best characters in the movie version is Hagrid. Robbie Coltrane is one of those actors who has been just about everywhere. From appearances in 'The Young Ones' (if you don't know the show just nod and say 'oh yeah' like you're hip), to a wild variety of movies such as: 'Krull', 'Henry V', 'Nuns on the Run', and 'GoldenEye'. Hagrid is the jolly, large (in fact, jolly large) pink umbrella toting groundskeeper of Hogwart's. Hagrid and Harry become rather fast friends in the book, but again this is hardly developed in the movie. It is only by way of Coltrane's portrayal of general affability that one is led to understand that some manner of great rapport exists.

While Hagrid is 'done' in what most closely resembles a passable way for the movie, the character is sorely underdeveloped even insofar as it is developed. And here again is the crux of the thing. There is nothing that we are allowed to 'come to know', everything is merely thrust before us and we must take it, swallow, and move quickly on lest we miss the next spoonful.


Ron Weasley is given to us by young Rupert Grint (and a finer name one can scarce imagine), and the character is not done too badly, though young Mr. Grint is perhaps not the best child actor to be found. Sadly, everyone in the movie with a last name of Weasley is rather amiss in the movie. Ron, having limited time available to portray a rather general, though easily forgivable goofiness, has to put as much as possible into every opportunity, thus making the character far more goofy than the book's portrayal.

Ron's twin brothers, Fred and George, have what amounts to a cameo role in the movie, and this is doubly sad because they were rather entertaining characters in the book. Even in the book they were only to be found infrequently, but they might as well have been written out of the movie, and their best line (the joke about mom not knowing which is who) was given in the movie with terrible delivery that really killed the whole thing.

Now I suppose there is something to be said for the adage that poor is as poor does (or somesuch), but in the book there was some manner of weight put on the fact that the Weasleys were poor, and the effects of that fact. In the movie, however, if you happen to blink at the right second (and I mean this quite literally), you would miss the one and only reference to the idea in the whole movie, and it is given as rather subdued, as though mentioning that someone is poor might not ring true on the PC meter.


Harry's other cohort is Hermione Granger played by Emma Watson. It is difficult to give severe criticism towards an actress who is all of 11, but her portrayal of Hermione is a rather distracting feature of the film. To be fair, Hermione is perhaps a character rather on the complex side for a child actor, but nevertheless. Unfortunately, the Hermione in the movie is rather too far over-the-top in most attributes she is meant to display to be liked at all.



Then we have Alan Rickman playing the very seriously important role of Professor Snape. Nothing wrong with Rickman in this, but again, the character just isn't there enough.

Suffice it to say, that this is the way with all things. Snape is hardly around enough for us to gather any sort of thoughts of creepiness about him. Except, of course, insofar as the movie simply tells us that we are supposed not to like him.

The ghosts are hardly around at all, and serve no purpose whatsoever. Clearly, if this is all we are going to do with the ghosts they ought to just be taken out, but our Potter fans will be screaming if they don't see them.


And then there is, and I think Rickman's Snape put it best when he said, Mizztrrrr PoTter. Happily, I cannot fault Daniel Radcliffe in his portrayal. Quite to the contrary, he gave as good as could be expected.




What we have in the end, is the general smushing together of the glorious talents of the writer who gave us 'The Fabulous Baker Boys', 'Flesh and Bone', and 'The Wonder Boys', and the director who gave us 'Adventures in Babysitting', 'Heartbreak Hotel', 'Home Alone', 'Mrs. Doubtfire', 'Nine Months', 'Stepmom', and 'Bicentennial Man'.

It is difficult to put one's finger quite on what point in either of these resumes made the sale, but there it is. Working this story into a movie is clearly far beyond the talents of either man, and more's the pity, because it could have been a movie that rivaled the book.


The acting talent is, for the most part, quite on board. The look of the movie, simply put, wins. From the simple 'stages' such as the train and train station, to the halls and classrooms of Hogwart's, everything about the look and feel of the movie is excellent. In most ways it has what it takes. It has the fanciest of wrapping paper, complete with watermarking and high gloss shine. It has the most expensive, gold ribbon money can buy, and you are intrigued by the fanciful 'To. From.' sticky which pokes almost nonchalantly from under the glittery bow. Nevertheless, when you open it up, there is nothing there.



As a companion to the book, this is a pretty decent working of 'something', let's call it a movie. As a movie it fails in many, rather serious ways. Seen only from the perspective of what the movie gives us, most of what we see is irrelevant, few of the characters offer us any reason to care about them (or even remember their names), and the plot is delivered to us in a way which might be considered akin to being on the receiving end of a machine gun.

Only the most impressive of photographic memory possessors might have bothered to recall the name of the two other Houses by the end of the movie. And there you have it really. There's no sense in (or likelihood of) remembering anything apart from that which is shoved at you full force.

It has a nice look though, and if you have read the book you'll enjoy it.




When we take a look at the categorization of things, we find that 'magic' comes up in relation to fantasy novels and movies (the often talked about but rarely seen 'movie magic' being the idea I'm looking for here). And, here is a book about magic, containing a certain amount of magic of its own, turned into a movie with no small budget, and there is no magic in it apart from that which you bring to it yourself.

Perhaps that doesn't necessarily make it a bad movie, but it is sorely disappointing.




The final tally is that it is a nice bit of fun, with some adventureish moments, and it is a feast for the eyes. Perhaps with the movie we have turned the thing back towards what it was meant to be in the first place, which is to say, something for children/young adults. While I have no doubts that children will enjoy the film, as will the adult fans of the book/s, I do find it hard to see any attraction for adults who haven't read the book (barring possibly those who have some of magic of their own to bring with them).




And after all that do I recommend it? Oddly... I do. It doesn't have the magic, but it tries to, after a fashion, and it really does look great. Much of it will disappoint in the ways that I have mentioned, but life has its disappointments. I give it three stars on the basis that there is some effort, it at least does not ruin the story, and it is something of a triumph in creating a look and feel.



Yes, I rambled at great length on the many reasons the movie fails (or perhaps the many examples of the one reason). Yes, I then recommended it. Yes, I put tongue to cheek at some points. And, yes, there is, at this juncture, little to no point in this review's existence.

File under 'To Be Filed'.