The Film: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (2001)
The Principals: Chris Columbus (Director). Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Robbie Coltrane, Richard Harris, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith…. Etceteras, okay?.
The Premise: Really? Okay. On his eleventh birthday, young wizard Harry Potter (Radcliffe) is sent to his first year at The Hogwarts School Of Wizardry. Together with his friends Ron Weasley (Grint) and Hermoine Granger (Watson), he gets into many adventures along the way, as he discovers secrets about his past and the murder of his parents by the evil Voldemort – a dark, cursed wizard who will be the great nemesis until Potter leaves the school or finally destroys him or whatever the fuck ends up happening in the final installment of the series.
Is It Good: I’m not really a big fan of this series, especially these first movies. But I have to admit it isn’t bad. The characters are likable and the young actors invest them with genuine enthusiasm so that you buy into it easily enough. Furthermore, Chris Columbus directs the movie with the sort of Spielbergian flare he always strives for. He is aided in this by John Williams and a bouncy score (that lifts quite liberally from his own scores for Hook and Jurassic Park. But Williams is not Williams if he isn’t ripping himself off, so whatever).
The cast of veteran British actors is very well-picked. Though, to be fair, I think they just went to everyone out there and gave them a part. I’m pretty sure that every single available UK/Ireland actor will have participated in this series by the end. The standouts are: Coltrane, who plays the amiable groundskeeper Hagrid with just the right amount of camp; Rickman, who chews the scenery with relish as the ambiguous Snape; and Harris who brings genuine warmth to the character of Dumbledore. It’s a shame Harris didn’t live to continue with the role because I don’t think Michael Gambon found this exact note and the character suffered, in my opinion, as a result. I actually think Anthony Hopkins would have been a better replacement.
My one big complaint with the movie is the same now as it was then. It is too damn long and episodic in nature to really engage you on the level it should. It always struck me as unusual that this was a kid’s movie and they made it so long. I never thought you could get a kid to sit still and watch a movie for more than 100 minutes. But, the truth is, the episodic structure of the piece makes it perfect for kids with short attention spans. There is always something happening and, as they drift in and out of concentration, there will always be a new adventure to catch their interest.
Still, Steve Kloves was clearly very faithful in adapting what must be a very episodic book. There is no real dramatic through-line here. Potter arrives, a series of events happen, a bad guy shows up in the last reel, he is vanquished and the movie ends. It feels a bit like watching an entire season of a TV show squished into two and a half hours. And some scenes suffer from an odd redundancy, with characters repeating the same things over and over again.
Is It Worth A Look: Basically, if this sort of thing isn’t really your cup of tea, there’s no reason you should. Chances are, you’ll find it kind of insufferable. But, as I said, it’s not actually a bad movie. It’s well put together. Most of the effects still hold up (those cgi stunt doubles are an eyesore, though) and it does the job in its genre fairly well enough. It tries hard to recapture the magic of 80s fantasy/adventure movies. And, were it a bit tighter, it might actually achieve that. Some action scenes (the quidditch match, the deadly gigantic chess game…) are unusual and interesting set pieces. (Though the quidditch match will become a kind of repetitive bore by movie number three, I think)
The truth is, at this point, you probably know where you stand on this whole thing. Since it’s all about to end, you may as well revisit the series if it’s your bag, right?
Random Anecdote: Never really interested in anything having to do with Harry Potter, and being relatively disappointed by the movie during its original theatrical run, I actually sought the first book out after watching – just to see what all the fuss was about and if maybe the book had the “magic” I had felt missing from the film.
I remember sitting on a plane about to depart from Miami and beginning to read… I must have gotten about 30 or so pages into it when I realized I had quite enough of goblins and magic nooks and crannies and wizards and broomsticks and all that garbage. I put the book in the magazine pocket in front of me and went to sleep, never to attempt reading it again.
I now realize this means I have no soul.
By the way, I forgot the book on the plane. So maybe some lucky kid got to appreciate what I couldn’t.
Cinematc Soulmates: Chamber of Secrets, Prisoner of Azkaban, Goblet of Fire, Order of the Phoenix, Half-Blood Prince, Deathly Hallows: Parts 1 & 2
15 comments
Guys, couldn’t you have gotten someone to do this writeup who didn’t bring an air of snide condescension to the material? Disappointing.
Please. The internet is filled to the brim with people who unabashedly love the Potter Universe. The article reflects my feelings (or lack thereof) for the Potter series. I am not a fan, never have been and never will be. I could really care less about what happens or how it all ends. It’s downright refreshing to see some people out there who don’t go all jelly in the knees from the mere mention of HP and its ilk.
Hang tight OleJack, before this MOD Potter week is over there will be plenty of HP geekness on display.
Nothing wrong is someone not particularly liking the movies, all I ask is for a reviewer to take the time to watch it – which is what Erix did.
I’m not above pointing out the things that don’t work in both the books and the movies. Neither of them start to get really interesting on their own until the 3rd, although through retcon stuff in 1 and 2 is given extra weight. And I’m not looking for a column of fellatio for the stories either. But if this is a week long series, leading up to the finale on Friday, then what I, as a looooooongtime Chud reader would be hoping for, would be a context-based discussion of the films and how the important pieces are introduced, the elements of the mythology and the overall development of the story over the course of 7 books and 8 movies. Not a “I didn’t like it, so I have no soul” dismissal. And if the Internet is filled to the brim (the Internet has a brim?) with Potter-love, it could be just as easily said that there is an equal amount of Potter-hate out there as well. But this site has always given the books and series the respect and thoughtfulness that I feel they deserved. Hence my disappointment.
All things considered, I think I was fair.
While admitting that I’m a little biased due to my lack of interest in the material, I also concede that it’s a perfectly acceptable film in its genre. I think even the fans have come to admit that the weakest films in the series are the ones directed by Chris Columbus.
As far as contextual analysis goes, that was not part of the “assignment” so to speak. Throughout the week, you’ll be hearing from other chewers and getting their takes on each film. And I’m sure you’ll get a kind of analysis of the whole series. I’ll be just as curious to see what they have to say, as I’ve been revisiting the films myself. On day 7, you might be pleasantly surprised, Jack. (Already, I can admit right here and now to being wrong about Michael Gambon.)
Hmm…so already your position on Gambon has gone wobbly eh?
Your feelings on this film pretty much echo my own – although I had more of a problem with the child-acting for the most too. It didn’t have the naturalistic feel that the best 80s films had. For all the competent things these films do – throughout the series – they never have captured me emotionally or cinematically. In fact I was most on board after Chamber of Secrets (where I decided I had perhaps been too harsh on the first film and decided that these were good honest family films – I think mostly the flying car and giant spiders won me over) this led to goodwill up to the 4th film. But after that they lost me again and 5 and 6 started to bore me thus my zero interest in either part of this final film.
Erix, thank you for the well-measured reply.
Where can I find someone who honestly respects what Chris Columbus pulled off? Nowhere on the Internet, it seems. Which is a shame, because he’s one of the most important hands this franchise ever saw. He realized this vision of this world so expertly, bringing to life so many details that carried into the rest of the series. It’s almost like people think Alfonso Cuaron just crafted the whole world himself, or that J.K. Rowling was somehow so descriptive that she provided set designs to the crew. But she didn’t. It was Columbus’ guiding hand that helped oversee all of this, bringing this world to life. Like the way Hogwart’s looks? Or Quidditch? Or Diagon Alley? Hey, like ANY OF THE ACTORS in this series? You can pretty much thank Columbus. Nobody seems to, though. He’s just mocked and cast side, foolishly.
He set the template and look for the series, yes. He set the wheels in motion. You’re right about that. But that doesn’t really change the fact that his films are the weakest. There is a fussiness about them and they lack style. Cuaron, Newell (and ultimately even more so) David Yates took that template and ran with it, their films have more personality.
Columbus has never been singled out for his style as a filmmaker. He’s a workman. And the reason he’s “cast aside” is probably because of this. It’s unfair, I suppose, to praise the subsequent installments without giving him credit for the template. But it’s also kind of inevitable. And the truth is none of the subsequent films look and feel quite the same as the first two. Each filmmaker brought their own thing to the table.
I respect Columbus’ first two films very much. Being 24 now, I basically grew up reading the books, starting when I was 11 with the first three already being out. Coming from being a fan of the books before the movies started coming out, Columbus’ films seem much truer to the book than any of the other films, especially the short-in-comparison Yates films. There are basically two sides to this, you can either be a fan of the books wanting to see films that just bring the books to life, or you can be someone who doesn’t give a shit about the books and just wants a good film. I’m on the former side, which is probably why I feel Columbus did a great job. They were definitely filled with much more magic and wonder than the later ones.
I’m curious, because I haven’t read the books, but do the later ones – 4 through 6 – for example, have the same bouncy tone as the first two? Because the darkness of the plots would suggest otherwise. Does Rowling keep that wistfulness running throughout the series?
Considering that Steve Kloves adapted all of them except for one, I would think the screenplays remained faithful enough. And even the Cuaron-directed third one still had some of that “innocence.” So, I remain curious.
Obviously, I’m more interested in a good entertaining adventure film than a faithful adaptation of the books. But I can understand why a die hard fan of the books would prefer utmost fidelity over anything else.
They definitely start to get a little darker starting with the end of the fourth book when they start having people actually die off (Cedric in the 4th book). However, I think Cuaron would have done the rest of the series the justice it deserved. In my head, as I read the books, that was the type of feeling the later books held.
Also, I just really enjoy long movies. And since the first few were long and really didn’t miss a whole lot from the book, I generally liked them more. I remember seeing Order of the Phoenix in theaters when it came out and being so disappointed. They left out so much. And even though it wasn’t technically a short film, it just didn’t seem like much happened, again from a reader’s point of view. And it just took on this weirdly darker naturalistic type of film. The films are about magic, I don’t need to feel like they could be real.
One last thing I can mention is that Harris’ Dumbledore was far truer to the books than Gambon’s. Which is something I felt further separated the books from the films. Not saying he did a bad job with the character, he just made him seen a little too energetic and gave the character a little too much attitude.
Again, this is from a reader’s perspective. I do feel they are doing the last book correctly by splitting it into two, or else it would have just been a cluster-fuck of a movie.
Its funny how the Film quality tends to run the same as the Book Quality. While it would be nice to have someone write that wasn’t so dismissive of what the first one was trying to bring to the table.
The first book wasn’t a real ‘game changer’ and neither was the first film supposed to be. It was supposed to (and did) introduce the world to the world of HP, while keeping to the book and what needed to be kept for future films, while not going to ‘crazy’ and killing the franchise at the start.
It’s true. As someone who doesn’t care about Harry Potter, where am I supposed to get my Harry Potter coverage?
Whether his films are the weakest is up for debate. Do I think Chamber of Secrets is one of the weakest? Yes, but only because the story it tells does NOTHING for me. The weakest in terms of overall storytelling and direction, I feel, is clearly Goblet of Fire, because it actually requires foreknowledge of the book in order to understand parts of the narrative. Half-Blood Prince, on the other hand, is just an incredibly boring film that really made me wonder if keeping Yates around was a good idea; thank god he brought it back with Deathly Hallows Part 1, but that film ALSO suffers from the “if you haven’t read the book, this makes NO SENSE” problem – something that Columbus was NEVER guilty of. Yates’ Order of the Phoenix is still the best thing I’ve seen him do.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.