"I think it is clear that we can expect great things from you."
For a literature series that most everyone thinks is aimed at children (read the novels...they certainly don't seem to be completely aimed at young children at all), Harry Potter doesn't fail delight readers of all ages. I am one of those readers. Before I decided to give the books a chance, I wrote them off as another "Pokémon"-like fad. And believe me, I...hate..."Pokémon"!!! But, alas, Potter has grabbed me by my junk and won't let them go. I am officially obsessed with "the boy who lived" and his exploits with friends Ron and Hermione.
The Sorcerer's Stone tells the story of Harry, the son of famous wizards James and Lily Potter. Infant Harry, after the powerful dark wizard Voldemort kills his parents, is sent to live with his only living relatives: the terrible "muggle" (non-magic people) Dursleys. The Dursleys, despising Lily's (Mrs. Dursley's sister) witchcrafting, decide to hide the truth about Harry's past from him. Harry has a horrible childhood, spending most of his time in the cupboard under the stairs of the Dursley's home. Then, a short while before Harry turns 11, letters addressed to him from Hogwart's School of Witchcraft and Wizardry begin to arrive. The Dursleys attempt to hide Harry from the deliverers, but the Hogwart's gamekeeper, Rubeus Hagrid, soon finds them. Hagrid relates to Harry his true origin, and finally gives him one of the letters addressed from Hogwart's. Hagrid then takes Harry to get his supplies for the following semester at Hogwart's. After Harry arrives at school, he befriends 2 other first-year students, Ron Weasley (8th in his family to attend Hogwart's) and Hermione (pronounced "Her-my-oh-knee") Granger. For the sake of not revealing too much, and for not taking up too much space due to the huge story, I'll leave it at this.
I was a bit apprehensive before I viewed the film adaptation of Harry's first year at Hogwart's. Even at around 2 hours and 40 minutes, I didn't think the flick would be able to adequately appease my taste for accurateness and continuity. But the worry was all for naught: The Sorcerer's Stone is quite possibly the most faithful book-to-movie adaptation I've ever seen. (Reviewer's note: I would've counted 2001: A Space Odyssey had it not been for the simple fact that Arthur C. Clarke wrote the book at the same time as Stanley Kubrick was filming the movie, and the two were in constant collaboration with each other on their respective projects).
The actors and actresses are exceptionally cast. Most of the characters, especially Robbie Coltrane's Hagrid, look exactly the same as the images that were in my head while reading the books. The only one that doesn't really match my interpretation is Snape (Alan Rickman)--I imagined him looking more like Snidely Whiplash from retro cartoon-land. But that's not a complaint: Rickman played Snape with immense perfection, and he will forevermore be the image I have of him. Also, the soundtrack is very appropriate: the tense music is played at the right times, the build-ups are played on cue, etc., and the setting is wonderful and portrayed accurately according to the book's descriptions.
I have very few complaints about this film. For one, James Potter doesn't look enough like Harry. In the books, Harry is described as looking exactly like James--a plot device that is sort-of important in the sequel The Wizard of Azkaban (Year 3). Also, Voldemort doesn't come off as the serpentine creature they make him out to be in the books. In fact, he's more of an apparition here, and what you do see of Voldemort (Quirrell's head) looks nothing like a snake.
Another qualm of mine is the inaccuracy of some of the scenes. One of those is the scene in which the gang is trying to pass the tasks on the way to the Sorcerer's Stone: they completely left out the challenge Hermione conquered (potions). Also, the fight with Quirrell/Voldemort was almost too different from the book's face-off. The encounter with Firenze and the Centaurs was also dramatically altered for the flick.
Other than those, the only other problem I can find with the movie is that many of the minor characters are underexposed here. But the crew took a big risk in making this flick 2:40 anyway, with the target audience being children. So this oversight is excusable.
There is another thing that irks me, but it is mostly relevant to the alternate titles for the film and book, The Sorcerer's Stone and The Philosopher's Stone, the latter of which is the most correct. I'll tell you why:
The Philosopher's Stone, as portrayed in both "reality" and in J.K. Rowling's fiction, was created by Nicholas Flamel, a 14th century alchemist. One of an alchemist's main objectives was finding the steps of the process of turning unprecious objects into precious metals. They were also interested in developing the object that would give a human eternal life: The Philosopher's Stone. Flamel supposedly found this process and created the stone, but he never disclosed his find, and he simply disappeared during the latter part of his life. Most people believe that he just died. But there are some modern alchemists who believe that he's still alive and kicking somewhere. Who knows? Does Rowling? Hmm...
Either way, The Sorcerer's Stone is an extremely exceptional movie (I used the term "it kicked ass" when my mother asked me how it was). I recommend it to anyone who enjoys movies at all. But, I also recommend that you read the novel first. It might actually enhance your enjoyment of the film, which is a very rare thing; take advantage of it.
|
