Settle in, folks. This is gonna be a long review.
I own all of the "Harry Potter" books, in hardcover. As of this writing, there are only four, though a fifth one will be out next year, and I intend to buy it immediately upon it's release. After that, there will be two more, and supposedly, that will be it. There will be seven books in total, each one representing a year in "Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry." "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" (called "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" in the U.K.) is all about his first year in that school. He's 11 years old in his first year, and he'll be 17 when he graduates. I imagine that the last book will be a bit more mature than the first, but for now, they're still books that can be placed in the Children's section of Barnes & Noble. The thing is, adults have been reading the books in heavy numbers. Before the movie was even in pre-production, the first three "Harry Potter" books were a worldwide sensation. Kids loved them, adults loved them, and when the fourth one was released last year, it became one of the fastest selling books of all-time if not THE fastest selling book of all-time. The "Harry Potter" books were a hugely successful phenomenon, and it's easy to see why.
I remember reading "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" while waiting in jury duty. I was hooked instantly. J.K. Rowling, the author of the "Harry Potter" books, has a wonderful writing style. She writes like an adult, but on a level that kids would understand. Imagine a cross between Roald Dahl and Neil Gaiman. The book is filled with so much imagination, it's a very, very creative book. The whole concept of "Quidditch," for example, is amazing. How can one person come up with something like that? Such a meticulous thing to create, yet it's only a small part of the book, though a very popular one. I remember being a kid when the original "Star Wars" trilogy came out, I wanted to be a Jedi Knight so badly! For this next generation of kids, they wanna be "Harry Potter."
The "Harry Potter" craze isn't just a silly fad that's short-term, it's here to stay. At least until the seven books are completed. The reason is because the books are excellent. They're incredibly entertaining, well thought-out, and amazingly imaginative. It's unbelievable that, like the inside flap of the book says, "J.K. Rowling was a struggling single mother when she wrote the beginnings of 'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone' on scraps of paper at a local cafe." People, that was her very first novel. Every novel she's ever published since has been a huge, smashing success... internationally.
However, there are some striking similarities between the "Harry Potter" books and "The Books of Magic," a comic book mini-series by Neil Gaiman. "Tim Hunter," the main character in "The Books of Magic," basically IS "Harry Potter," but as written by Neil Gaiman... about ten years before "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" was published. The similarities between "The Books of Magic" and "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" are uncanny, but not to the point of being suspicious, I don't think. Coincidences like that are not uncommon.
But wait a minute... what about N.K. Stouffer, the woman who's trying to sue J.K. Rowling for allegedly stealing her ideas? Stouffer claims that Rowling is a plagiarist, and at first glance, I can see why she thinks that. In the mid-80s, N.K. Stouffer wrote a book called "The Legend of Rah and the Muggles." The term "muggle" is a commonly used word in the "Harry Potter" books, and it's used to describe a person without magic powers, an ordinary human. According to Stouffer, "muggle" and "muggles" are trademarks that she's been using on merchandise such as decorative magnets, toys and buttons since 1987. She claims to have filed to register the trademarks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office last year, though she hasn't heard back from them yet. That's not all. In addition, Stouffer has written other books that feature a character named "Larry Potter," who wears glasses and has dark hair like just like J.K. Rowling's "Harry Potter."
A little TOO coincidental, right? Well, it should be noted that while a "muggle" in the "Harry Potter" books refer to a human who has no magical powers, a "muggle" in N.K. Stouffer's "The Legend of Rah and the Muggles" refers to bald, mutated, nuclear holocaust survivors. Also, unlike Rowling's "Harry Potter," Stouffer's "Larry Potter" has no magical powers. In essence, "Larry Potter" is a muggle.
I honestly don't think that J.K. Rowling ever heard of N.K. Stouffer's books prior to the lawsuit (apparently, no one else has either... the books didn't sell well, nor are they selling well now). I think it's just a bizarre coincidence. I DO think it's possible that Rowling read Neil Gaiman's "The Books of Magic" comic book mini-series. There are comparisons that can easily be made, even in tone, but if anything, I think Rowling may have been inspired by "The Books of Magic," but I don't think she "stole" anything. And that's if she even read it.
Don't worry, I'll get to what I actually thought of the movie real soon, you'll see.
When Warner Bros. announced that they were gonna release a movie version of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," I was apprehensive. My God, who would WANT to make that movie? There's no way that the movie would be as good as the book. There's so much to live up to, so much pressure. The movie would be scrutinized like no other. There were tons of rumors as to who was gonna direct it. The names I'd read about were Steven Spielberg, Tim Burton (I thought he woulda been the perfect choice... the books are very "Burtonesque" anyway), Wolfgang Peterson (he directed "The NeverEnding Story," so I thought he woulda been a good choice), David Fincher... but then the director was officially announced. Chris Columbus. WHAT?!?!?! Chris freakin' Columbus??? NO!!!!! Oh God, a thousand times, NO!!!! He's the guy who directed "Stepmom," "Nine Months," "Mrs. Doubtfire," the first two "Home Alone" movies, and "Adventures in Babysitting" (okay, I kinda like "Adventures in Babysitting," but still). He does lame little family movies... safe little family movies... sweet, harmless, innocent family movies. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" is a children's book, sure, but it has a dark side, and it would be the perfect Tim Burton movie. I was so pissed off when I found out that Chris Columbus was directing. Once again, Warner Bros. screws something up, I thought. I mean, I had nothing against Chris Columbus. I actually liked a couple of the movies he directed, and he wrote some great ones, like "Gremlins" and "The Goonies," but he was NOT the ideal director for the first "Harry Potter" movie. His last movie had been "Bicentennial Man." I never saw it, but I thought it looked really stupid.
But then I saw the teaser. I don't remember if I saw it during the Super Bowl, if I downloaded it, or if I saw it before some other movie, but I remember seeing the teaser for "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," and thinking to myself, my God, I think Chris Columbus is gonna pull it off. Then when I saw the full trailer, I was pumped. Based on what I'd seen so far, it seemed like Chris Columbus was going to prove me wrong. Of course, I wouldn't get confirmation until I saw the movie.
Okay, you'll be happy to know that we're now at the halfway point of this review.
"Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" is a great, wonderful movie. Yes, Chris Columbus proved me wrong, and I'm really happy about that. Is it a perfect movie? No, it has some slow parts, but it's incredibly entertaining, a joy to watch, and I assure you, it will make lots and lots of money.
Fortunately, when J.K. Rowling agreed to sell Warner Bros. the movie rights to the first couple of "Harry Potter" books, she did so under the condition that she would have a lot of creative control. Well, she made use of that. For one thing, she insisted on a British cast. Under no circumstances was "Harry Potter" gonna be played by an American. She didn't care how good Haley Joel Osment's British accent was, she wanted Brits only. Also, she wanted the movie to be VERY faithful to the book. I'm really glad that she got that creative control, because for once, the story's creator was in charge. That rarely happens in Hollywood. It needs to happen more, believe me.
The movie was almost exactly like the book. There were some differences, but for the most part, it remained very faithful to the book. The general story was basically just like the book, though how events were unfolded often differed. Still, no one who read the book will complain about it. The movie is extremely faithful to the material.
Not unexpectedly, there are a few idiots out there who have to try to ruin a good thing. Many (though not all) ultra-religious groups are condemning the books (and, no doubt, the movie) because of the witchcraft and wizardry. Pathetic. The "Harry Potter" books are beyond non-threatening. In fact, they're filled with valuable lessons that young people can most certainly use, especially in today's world. The "Harry Potter" books are prying kids away from TV and video games... kids are actually reading now. Trust me, God loves the "Harry Potter" books because of the effect they have on children. The fact that these idiots are using those harmless books to peddle their extremist bullshit is lame, foolish, and silly. I hope they all have kids who dance naked with razor blades while dropping acid and listening to Marilyn Manson.
Wow, that was harsh. Okay, I take it back. But the anger remains.
Anyway...
The special effects are amazing, but not flawless. Maybe that was on purpose, though. The world in "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" isn't supposed to be the real world, so maybe it's supposed to look slightly fake. Either way, the movie is filled with breathtaking visuals. The Quidditch game is something that needs to be seen to be believed.
The casting of "Harry Potter" was crucial, and lemmie tellya, they nailed it. Daniel Radcliffe is absolutely perfect as "Harry Potter." I mean that, he was PERFECT. He looked like him, acted like him... I mean, he really was "Harry Potter." That may work against him in the future, though. Sorta like how no one could see Christopher Reeve as anything but "Superman" after he donned the tights. I've never seen Radcliffe before, but I know that he was a young "David Copperfield" in the BBC TV-Movie of the Dickens classic, and he was in the Pierce Brosnan movie, "The Tailor of Panama," as the son of Geoffrey Rush's character. The casting of "Ron" and "Hermione," (pronounced "her-MY-uh-nee"... I always wondered how her name was pronounced), the two best friends of "Harry Potter," was no less crucial, and again, they nailed it. Rupert Grint played "Ron" just as I envisioned him when reading the book. This is his debut film, and it's an impressive debut. Same with Emma Watson, who played "Hermione." Again, her debut, and she was very impressive. The casting of these three characters was of the utmost importance. It was gonna make or break the movie. Well, it definitely didn't break it. All three were nothing less than excellent in their roles.
There are a lotta well-respected big name actors and actresses in this movie, people like Richard Harris (he was "Marcus Aurelius" in "Gladiator"), Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman (he was "Hans Gruber," the villain in "Die Hard"... he was also in "Dogma" as an angel named "Metatron"), Robbie Coltrane ("Fitz" in the British TV series, "Cracker"... he was Johnny Depp's partner in "From Hell"), John Cleese (famous Monty Python alum), and John Hurt (he was the eccentric billionaire, "S.R. Hadden," in "Contact," he was also "John Merrick" in "The Elephant Man," and few will ever forget his role as the unfortunate "Kane" in "Alien"). They were all great, basically doing what you'd expect them to do. I don't wanna make it seem like they did nothing special in the movie, but you have to realize, these are all excellent actors. They did exactly what was expected of them, and they're so good, it's not a big deal when they deliver great performances, they do it so often! Besides, in this movie, the kids are the stars.
Steve Kloves adapted the screenplay from J.K. Rowling's novel, and it was superb. He did a fantastic job adapting the book, he truly is a talented writer. He wrote "Wonder Boys," which I haven't seen, but I really want to. Years ago, he wrote and directed "The Fabulous Baker Boys," which I never saw, but I remember that critics liked it a lot. As for Chris Columbus, the director, I can't say enough good things. I have to eat my words, because he did a spectacular directing job. I hope he directs all of the "Harry Potter" movies, though it's very doubtful he will.
I need to mention the music by John Williams. John Williams has created some of the most memorable movie music ever made. "Star Wars," "Superman," "Indiana Jones," "E.T"... the music in "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" is just as good as the music in those movies, just as memorable. The music doesn't sound nearly as majestic, but it's certainly more magical. I'm definitely gonna buy the CD. John Williams is the man.
Wow, this is my longest movie review ever. That is, as of this writing. The longest used to be my review of "Sleepy Hollow," but this review is almost twice as long. For the first time ever, the file size of the HTML document is bigger than the file size of the photo up top.
Clocking in at two and a half hours, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" is a long movie. The time doesn't exactly fly by, but a child's attention span is very short, and the kids in the theater I was in loved every minute of it. There are slow parts, but as a whole, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" is a wonderful, magical movie, an instant classic that actually lived up to it's hype. I'm REALLY looking forward to "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" next year.
Scale of 1-10: 9