 |
Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) awaits the
decision of the sorting hat, one of the better scenes in
the lackluster Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone.
|
Little humor, fun or sentiment finds its way into director Chris Columbus' extravagant adaptation of the popular children's book, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Despite its abundance of elaborate digital effects, the spiritless film quickly turns long and tedious. Columbus shows little appreciation for author J.K. Rowling's colorful characters. Basically, Harry Potter is just another one of Hollywood's manufactured extravaganzas, void of taste, emotional honesty and storytelling.
I have no doubt that Columbus and screenwriter Steve Kloves approached Harry Potter with the best intentions. Yet, it's also clear to me that neither Columbus or Kloves had the courage to make something different from the book. After all, Rowling's Potter books are meant to be read chapter-by-chapter, over numerous bedtimes. By squeezing all the book's subplots and scenes into the film's 152 minutes, Columbus and Kloves have taken Rowling's simply told story and botched it badly.
For the army of families who can recite the four houses of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry by memory -- Gryffindor, Ravenclaw, Hufflepuff and Slytherin, for those of you who don't know -- Harry Potter is a movie filled with familiar names and sights.
The film's story begins with the elderly wizard, Albus Dumbledore (Richard Harris), leaving an orphaned baby boy in the care of his aunt and uncle. That baby is Harry Potter. Aunt Petunia (Fiona Shaw) and Uncle Vernon Dursley (Richard Griffiths) are Harry's cruel and malicious guardians. They force Harry to live in a tiny room beneath the stairs. Harry's piggish cousin, Dudley (Harry Melling), makes life even worse.
The benevolent Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), now 11 years old, dreams of escaping his hard-knock life. His wish comes true with the door-busting arrival of a giant, Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), who carries Harry's acceptance letter to Hogwarts.
"Harry -- yer a wizard," Hagrid says, speaking in a booming voice.
"I'm a what?" Harry gulps.
"A wizard o' course," Hagrid replies. "An' a thumpin' good un, I'd say once yeh've been trained up a bit."
"I can't be a wizard," Harry answers, sheepishly. "I'm just Harry."
A good part of Harry Potter shows the shaggy-haired Harry discovering a supernatural wonderland. A hidden doorway takes him to the magic shops of Diagon Alley. The goblins at Gringotts Bank show Harry his stockpile of gold. Later, he rides an antique steam train to Hogwarts. At his new school, Harry learns about the shadowy villain, Voldemort (the voice of Richard Bremmer). He makes friends with a tomboy, Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), and a clumsy boy, Ronald Weasley (Rupert Grint). Before long, Harry learns the origins of the lightning-bolt scar above his right eye. He also uncovers a plot by Voldemort to steal the Sorcerer's Stone in order to acquire its powerful Elixir of Life. Of course, Harry aims to stop Voldemort.
It helps that Harry Potter is filled with an ensemble of supporting roles. Harris makes a noticeable impact as the wise Dumbledore. Ian Hart is entertaining as the stuttering Professor Quirrell. Maggie Smith is believably stern as Hogwart's headmistress, McGonagall. Coltrane manages to push his comic personality through Hagrid's bushy hair and eyebrows. Alan Rickman gives the film a much needed boost of energy every time he appears as the dour Professor Snape.
"No foolish wand waving or silly incantations in this class," Snape snaps at his students. Rickman understands the level of theatrical bluster needed for a large-scale movie like Harry Potter.
Grint and Watson are charming as Harry's school friends. It's too bad that the same thing can't be said for the boring Radcliffe. Based on the covers of Rowling's books, Radcliffe looks like Potter. Still, the young actor displays none of the personality or charisma needed to play the hero. Ultimately, I care that Radcliffe can't act because he doesn't have enough charm to draw my attention away from his bad performance.
The heartwarming message behind Rowling's books is that an ordinary boy, dressed in worn, khaki trousers and a red cable-knit sweater, can become a heroic wizard. But this human theme is completely discarded in Harry Potter. Columbus spends his energy cramming more special effects into his movie. There is no time for sentiment. A poignant moment where Harry receives his first Christmas presents is quickly pushed aside for another action sequence. By the time Harry discovers the true villain behind the theft of the Sorcerer's Stone, Harry Potter is a chaotic jumble of elaborate sets, larger-than-life monsters and gravity-defying stunts. Harry Potter is a film in desperate need of some leisurely storytelling.
To Columbus' credit, Harry Potter has some near-magical moments. Harry's arrival at the castlelike Hogwarts -- a nighttime lake-crossing aboard a rowboat -- looks stunning. Harry's first Quidditch tournament, a soccerlike game played on flying broomsticks, is thrilling to watch. Still, Harry Potter is at its best when it practices subtle, shadow magic. I like how a leaping cat quickly turns into Professor McGonagall. The Sorting Ceremony, that moment when Hogwart freshmen are placed in their respective schools, revolves around a talking witch's hat that could very well be a puppet.
Unfortunately, Harry Potter tries to please with a deluge of digital effects and elaborate sets. Appearances from giant trolls, a baby dragon, a kindly centaur, moving staircases and a three-headed guard dog fail to compensate for the film's convoluted storytelling. Narrative jolts fail to generate the desired goose-bumps. Composer John Williams' jingly score is quickly forgotten. By the film's anti-climactic finish, when Harry faces a series of elaborate traps, you wish Columbus would have been confident enough to allow Rowling's storytelling to take priority over redundant special effects.
Harry Potter is a sure-fire hit, but it's not nearly as clever as Monsters, Inc. Shrek remains the year's best family film, a distinct adaptation of William Steig's funny children's book.
I did not read Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, but after watching the movie, I felt I had to see what the fuss was all about. I devoured Rowling's heartfelt story quickly, and I feel confident saying that Potter fans have the right to picket Warner Bros. over the treatment of their beloved Harry. Columbus has taken a charming, magical story and knocked it down a few notches. Of course, all of these things will not make a flop out of Harry Potter. Children and their parents will still watch it again and again. The next Harry Potter movie is in the works. I hope Columbus, who's returning to direct the second installment, might finally get it right.
CityBeat grade: D.
