Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
Is the big-screen Harry Potter as delightful as the one in the book? And should you be worried about his witchcraft? Critics and viewers respond.
By Jeffrey Overstreet | posted 1/01/2001
 1 of 6
The long wait is over. Tickets have been sold, fans have waited in line, the lights have gone down, and a major motion picture has begun what is sure to be a memorable run. Yes, that's right, Snoop Dogg's The Wash has arrived. But rather than spend our time drawing more attention to that, instead let's focus on another movie … the one about Harry Potter.
At Thanksgiving dinners everywhere, people will be discussing director Chris Columbus's big screen adaptation of J.K. Rowling's breakthrough children's book. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is a big, clever, fast-paced adventure.
Columbus's movie adaptation broke the box-office record set by The Lost World: Jurassic Park, earning $90.3 million in one weekend. (Potter opened on more big screens simultaneously than any movie ever.) Some even predict Titanic may sink as the top box-office grosser of all time as Potter flies up the charts faster than Harry on his broom.
Ahh … the broomstick. There's the problem. Many religious media critics are troubled by the popularity of the franchise, believing it glorifies witchcraft. Others argue that, with proper guidance, children will understand that this magic is just make-believe, representing the powers and abilities that we can use for good or evil in our daily lives.
Those who discovered the joy of reading before the arrival of Potter probably recognize the influence of many imaginative greats—T.H. White, C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, Charles Dickens, Roald Dahl, and Lewis Carroll, to name several.
The Potter books are unique in that Rowling's style, aimed at kids, appeals to all ages in this hurried, sound-bite culture. Kids love the perpetual humor, and grownups find Rowling easy to read and compelling. Age-old mythical formulas seem fresh again. It is unlikely you'll ever find a college course in Harry Literature 101, but we owe Rowling some thanks. Who would have thought that in the Nintendo age we'd see schoolkids waiting in line to buy a book?
A Moving-Picture Book
Many credit Harry Potter's book success to Rowling's chuckle-a-minute style. Much of the book's narrative wit was certain to be lost in a narrator-less film. Still, with extravagant sets, elaborate costumes, and scenes from almost every chapter, the movie is gaining a good deal of praise … at least for its technical strengths.
Michael Elliott (Movie Parables) writes, "Columbus translates Rowling's vision to the screen with both loving care and sharp awareness of the qualities that have made the Potter stories so immensely popular."
Critics at the U.S. Catholic Conference call it "vividly imaginative," but admit that "the film overreaches in including so much, and a stronger editing hand should have been used to trim the nearly two-and-a-half-hour film. Disappointingly, some of the clever nuances from the book don't come through in the film. Harry's miserable home life, which was vibrantly written, is forgettable here."
J. Robert Parks (The Phantom Tollbooth) writes, "The movie's pace is surprisingly stately. This becomes somewhat of a problem near the film's conclusion, as … Columbus goes for dread instead of excitement and ends up with a rather boring last reel." But he recommends it in the end. "I suspect that Harry Potter is appropriate for any child above the age of seven or eight. Anyone older than that will be charmed."
Browse More Movies
CT Movies Home Page | Now Showing | New on Video | All Reviews
Coming Soon | Discussion Guides | Interviews | Commentary
News & Misc. | Special Sections | About Us
Your Feedback | About Us | CT Mag Home Page
| |
|
Printer view
