I realized while writing this review that it could have been posted either under the movie category, or the book category. This is actually a compliment, since so few films follow the book as closely. Some books need to be translated for the medium of film because they aren’t very visual. While reading the book last year, I actually thought to myself that it could make a great movie. And I was right.

“Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” is the film version of the book “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone”. I’ve read that the title was changed because the producer’s marketing department felt that having the word ‘philosopher’ in the title may turn off some people. God, I hope that isn’t true. The book achieved such a commercial and critical success that I’m surprised any decent producer would feel that changing anything with the title would hurt the film’s success.

Humorously, as mentioned by foreign critics, in Canada and Britain, the movie is correctly called “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone”. Everywhere but the United States, as far as I can tell. The actors actually had to film each scene where they described the stone at least twice so that they could say it each way. Should make for an odd DVD language viewing option: “English or American”.

The story feels very familiar, although no critic seems to be able to place exactly from where. Harry is a boy who by almost every description has an unhappy life. His foster Aunt & Uncle have him live underneath the stairs of their British house, where his parents clearly favor their true son in every way. This all changes when on his 11th birthday, he is informed that he has been accepted into the Hogwart Academy of Wizardry. Harry goes to this school and learns that he is the offspring of great wizards, and that he was somehow involved while still a baby in the destruction of one of the greatest of all evil wizards ever known. Although his parents were killed, he escaped with only a scar on his forehead resembling a lightning bolt.

While attending Hogwarts, he learns about casting magic, and becomes a star athlete in a game where the players fly about on broomsticks. He also learns that the great evil wasn’t fully banished, and with the help of his friends tries to unravel the mystery of who is involved, what they are after, and how they intend to bring back the great evil.

The story of Harry Potter isn’t truly original at all, and many of its sources can be found in fairly common literature. I actually feel that the book’s strength and heart lies in the traditional revenge fantasies of young children. Comic books fifteen years ago had very similar themes. Take a character that is a child who is inherently good. Yet, who hates his stepfamily because he is picked on and teased, and treated by his family as less than his ‘evil’ siblings. The female version of this story is best realized by the Cinderella story, and was seen in a film just this year called “The Princess Diaries”, although without the evil stepsisters.

In each of these stories, the child discovers that he doesn’t really belong in his current horrible home, and is in fact a prince among men. Any child who is constantly picked on, but still feels that he has great potential can relate to this. Harry Potter realizes that he is fact a wizard of potentially great power, goes to a wizard’s academy to learn magic, and makes friends with some of the best students. He even becomes the equivalent of the star quarterback his first time playing a sport. That’s truly the male fantasy version of the revenge fantasy.

The part that appeals to the females is the way that everyone is curious about him, and how he is always the center of attention once his name is spoken. Everyone in this ‘magical’ land has heard of him, and is both curious, and in awe of him at the same time. When he walks through the areas inhabited by the magically aware, everyone stops and stares for reasons he isn’t to find out until later.

The only thing missing to make it fully appeal to young girls is a scene where he takes off his glasses, combs his hair just right, and everyone realizes that he is incredibly handsome as well.

To further illustrate some of the traditional themes seen in these stories are his fellow classmates. While he is the athletic and wise hero, he is surrounded by a very brilliant female sidekick, and another well meaning boy whom performs plenty of comic relief. At school, the ‘bad’ guys are defined quickly by the rude nature of some of his classmates. One boy, Draco, is clearly the sort who grew up with money and an important family, and he makes sure everyone knows it. We also get the wise old headmaster of the school who seems to treat Harry just right, but never seems to be around enough, or when Harry needs him the most. Another teacher, Professor Snape, is set up to be the ‘bad’ teacher, who takes an instant and unfair dislike to Harry simply because he comes with such high expectations. During the sporting match, Harry’s team merely plays well, while the opponents cheat and play with scours on their faces.

As a minor fantasy for kids, Harry gets to play with a cloak that makes him invisible, and ride a broom around in a sporting event. If I was ten years old, I’m certain that this would be my favorite movie of all time, regardless if I had social interaction problems or not.

What always fascinated me about the cult following that Harry Potter seems to have is that it wasn’t created by a marketing department trying to make a video game or a movie. It came from a book, that I’m told wasn’t even released with much fanfare. It was read by some, loved by all, and slowly the word got out exponentially until so many children had read it that even parents started to. I’m sure the witchcraft controversy by some religious groups helped bring attention to the book, but they didn’t even get involved until the book had become to popular to be squashed in any way.

Like I mentioned earlier, when I first read this book last year, I had known that it was going to be made into a film, and when reading it, I could almost picture what it would look like. The author, Rowlings, writes a very clear visual picture. Her story is told almost as if she were transcribing a movie she had just seen. Most good books do not make good films simply based upon the fact that I don’t think novels can translate to film very well. Good novels tend to have a lot of explanations that don’t come from character’s mouths, as well as a lot of internal dialogue by various characters. These never translate to film very well.

I can’t imagine how even a moderately talented director could have screwed up making “Harry Potter” considering how good the source material was, and how well laid out it is. What I am amazed with is that not only did it never make a misstep with the look of the film, but during many occasions surpassed the book. The point of view of the characters in their invisible cloak was an excellent touch. As characters reached towards the characters cloaked by invisibility we held our breaths and flinched. Seeing different crowd’s reactions upon hearing the name Potter was also well filmed. And then there was the Quidditch match. In the book I couldn’t understand the rules, and couldn’t tell what was going on by the brief descriptions of the games that we read. In the movie, I still didn’t get the rules, but they told it so fast that I don’t think we were supposed to. Yet, the one game we saw played was very exhilarating and well done.

The sequels will be even easier to make, and if the source materials of the following books are as good as the first, I’m certain the movies will be as well.

Did anything bother me with the film? Well, I would have liked a little less of the slapstick humor that clearly wasn’t in the book, and felt out of place. It was Christopher Columbus clearly drawing on his inexplicable success of his “Home Alone” movies that probably inspired this. Two scenes come right to mind. One is where a young wizard trying to make a feather float has it explode for no reason. The kid’s face looks blackened like from an old Road Runner cartoon, and we even get a pause in the action as if to allow us to laugh. Even the little kids in my theater didn’t chuckle at this. The other scene had dozens of kids learning to make their brooms fly, and as they are all trying to tell their brooms to rise “up”, one kid’s broom jumps up and smacks him in the forehead. This did get laughter from the kids in my theater, but certainly not from me.

Still, there are no negative points about this film that are even worth mentioning considering how wonderful the story plays out, how visually exciting the film looks, and how universal the characters are. Many of the people, places and things in the film will become adjectives added to children’s language that will be recognizable by all. This film will truly become treasured for years by each generation of kids, just like “Willy Wonka”, “E.T.”, or “The Wizard of Oz”.


Please note that on my own web page I only gave it 4½ stars because I just didn’t feel that it tried hard enough to a little more than it is.



Recommended:
Yes

Suitability For Children: Suitable for Children up Ages 8