2001, 2 hrs 30 min., Rated PG for some scary moments and mild language.�Dir: Chris Columbus. Based on the novels written by J.K. Rowling. Cast: Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid), Richard Harris (Albus Dumbledore), Dame Maggie Smith (Prof. McGonagall), Alan Rickman (Severus Snape), Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy), Zoe Wannamaker (Madame Hooch), Richard Griffiths (Uncle Vernon Dursley), Fiona Shaw (Aunt Petunia Dursley), Harry Melling (Cousin Dudley Dursley), Ian Hart (Professor Quirrell), John Cleese (Nearly-Headless Nick).

I didn't know much about the story of Harry Potter (this would require reading), and while the filmmakers laugh all the way to the Gringotts bank, I'm not one to fault anyone for catching the craze for a film, being a big Star Wars geek. So I just wanted to see what the fuss was about.

Thus, I am the guy who everyone wonders, "How did you, as a non-fanatical Muggle, appreciate such a fine piece of pop culture?"

I liked it just fine, thank you.

I found Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone to be a fantastical tale with memorable characters, compelling visuals and enough enchantment to get me interested in possibly reading the books, or at least coming back for more as the movies are churned out over the next decade.

Several times I was reminded of Star Wars or Indiana Jones, but I credit that with those two films leaving an indelible mark on the action-adventure genre, not a slight against our magical friends.

Also a plus is that despite initial worries during the run of the trailers, I felt like I caught on to the story and characters easily, and that the filmmakers didn't leave the movie for the "in" crowd, i.e. those who had read every book four times.

Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) is quite the spunky Type A personality, and my favorite character, eking out Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), the big disheveled fuzzball who watches over the kids and the Hogwarts school in general.

Those two, plus the comical Rupert Grint as the redheaded pal Ron Weasley, are a big reason as to why this film succeeds.

The supporting characters of any good film could seemingly carry it on their own, but don't need to since Daniel Radcliffe performs so admirably as the title character, Mr. Harry Potter, boy wizard. Speaking of Wizards, there's a certain basketball team in our nation's capital that has discovered it needs you, Harry, not a 38-year-old wizard-turned-muggle on the court.

I'm pleased the filmmakers left the parts to British actors, not Americans trying to be British. This is especially true for the adults, who were the perfect classical English characters, most likely because they were trained in the proper theaters at home across the pond.

Although at times you could tell they threw in small scenes just to keep some semblance with the book (knowing that millions of adults and kids were just waiting to go off on the filmmakers if they strayed just a teensy bit in the adaptation), overall the pacing still fit, even with the 2 1/2 hour length. Helpful is that John Williams' score was indeed magical, from the tinkling to the sweeping it moved the picture right along.

"'CHOO-CHOO' - Bandwagon train of the Hogwarts Express leaves in five minutes!"

Oops, gotta go catch my ride.

The verdict:

HOME   |   Back to Jeff's Movie Reviews