Day One: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (78%)

Welcome to another RT watching party!  So far, we've Bonded, Trekked, Terminated, and... Fridayed?  Jasoned?  Anyway, with the upcoming release of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, we thought it would be a good time to take a look at how the series has progressed so far.

Before I get started on this first installment with my review of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, let me give you a little background.  I've seen each one of the movies when they were released, and for the most part, I'd seen many of them before I'd read the corresponding book.  I typically don't like to read a fantasy series until the final book has been published, and so I hadn't read any of the books until Deathly Hallows was available.  That means that I'm now looking at these movies again in a slightly different light, which will definitely color my reviews.  One last note: I can't guarantee that I won't be spoiling some of the plot details of the past movies, but if you've been living in a cave and haven't seen the movies, I don't know why you're reading this anyway (except for you, Mom).

As an adaptation of J.K. Rowling's first novel, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is a solid film.  It may not equal the stunning triumph of Peter Jackson's first Lord of the Rings adaptation, but it's a pretty good movie just the same.  The filmmakers take great care to show loving respect to the source material, and for the most part, that's a good call.  But the film follows the book's plot a bit too slavishly, and that makes for a very long (and sometimes slow) movie.

The film opens with an old wizard turning out streetlights in a sleepy English neighborhood, and he's soon joined by a shapeshifting witch and a giant of a man riding a flying motorcycle, who is carrying a newly orphaned baby boy.  At this point, I shouldn't have to tell you that we're talking about Dumbledore, McGonagall, and Hagrid, but it's a nice scene that introduces what will be a recurring element in these films: high-profile actors from the British Isles (in this case, Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, and Robbie Coltrane).  The trio leaves the baby, Harry Potter, with his non-magical relatives, hoping to keep him safe from a danger that's undefined at the moment.

We next see Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) about 11 years later, sleeping in a small cabinet under the stairs at the home of what must be one of the worst families in England, the Dursleys.  In Rowling's novel, the Dursleys lend a very Dickensian feel to Harry's early home life, but that doesn't translate as well to the movies.  The book had me hating the Dursleys and empathizing with Harry.  But the movie presentation of the Dursleys made me wonder why no one had ever called Child Protective Services (or the LADO, since they live in England).  After a disastrous trip to the zoo for his cousin's birthday, Harry starts getting letters, which his uncle promptly burns and throws out.  More and more letters show up, delivered by owls of all things, and the Dursleys take Harry away to the coast to escape the onslaught of unwanted mail.  To make a long story short, Hagrid shows up, tells Harry that he's actually a great wizard (or at least has the potential to be) and whisks him away from the awful Dursley family, off to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.

But first, Hagrid takes Harry to a place called Diagon Alley, which seems to have been mostly untouched since the early 19^th century, to get supplies for his first year of school.  Here we're treated to a look at the world of wizardry that's hidden behind the everyday façade of London.  We get to see a wizard's bank run by goblins (it turns out Harry's pretty rich), and most intriguingly, the wand shop Ollivander's.  The shop's proprietor is played by John Hurt, who plays the part with such an impish glee that I found myself thinking it would be great to see the stories behind some of the wands in the musty old shop run by the mysterious old man (and then I remembered Jim Henson's Storyteller series, which I've just added to my Netflix queue). Harry gets loaded up with supplies, Hagrid drops him at the train station, and poor Harry has to figure out how to walk through a brick wall to get to the train platform.

Alright, so I've realized that I'm going into entirely too much detail here, which leads me to the biggest problem with the movie; it's trying to do too much.  There are so many things to introduce that it's almost 40 minutes before Harry makes it to Hogwarts.  Every major character (and there are plenty) gets significant screen time for an introduction, and although it's great to see English stars like John Cleese and Warwick Davis, the film's pace suffers from the endless introductions to both characters and various aspects of the world of magic.

That's not to say it's a bad film; it really is a good movie.  It can be risky casting unknowns, but Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson all turn in very natural performances, and the bigger names in the cast aren't just phoning it in, either.  In fact, I could go on and on about how Alan Rickman steals most of his scenes, but I'll save that for a later installment.  Suffice to say that I'm not sure I could possibly imagine anyone else playing Snape.

Chris Columbus reins in his Home Alone-style wackiness here, and delivers a film that manages to capture a fair amount of the wonder and mystery from Rowling's novel.  The film is beautifully shot, and the effects are top notch, although I found the Quidditch scenes to be a bit awkward.  (I'm well aware of the irony in complaining that the characters flying on magic broomsticks didn't look natural.)   

For those that read the novel, the film makes sure to cover all of the important points from the book, but still takes the time to please fans with smaller details (i.e. candied frogs) as well.   Harry gets assigned to a house, makes new friends (Ron and Hermione) and enemies (Draco Malfoy), learns about Quidditch, takes classes on the various aspects of wizardry, and also manages to take down (again) the man that killed his parents, Lord Voldemort.  Like I said, a lot of things get covered, and you start to feel every minute of the film's 2 1/2 hour run time.

Now, I know I've just been complaining about the film's length, and that there are too many details for fans, but I felt some details were sorely missed.  For instance, at the end of the movie, Hagrid gives Harry a photo album with a picture of his parents, which is nice.  In the novel, it turns out that Hagrid had spent weeks collecting old photos from friends of the Potters, and that he hoped the photo collection would help Harry feel like he knew his parents a little bit better -- a much more poignant scene than what we see in the movie.  The movie does show us that Harry wants his parents more than anything else in the world, as shown in the Mirror of Erised, but I feel the filmmakers missed the opportunity to really hammer that home.  In fact, this won't be the first time that Harry's love for his parents gets glossed over in a film.

Ultimately, the movie works best as an introduction to the series for someone that hasn't read the source material.  The endless introductions, if not exactly required, certainly lend reality to a very detailed imaginary world.  But there's not much in the film to really recommend a second viewing, except for maybe Alan Rickman's scenes.  The chemistry between most of the actors isn't quite there yet, and we won't see that until later installments.

Deconstructing Harry Dates:

• Day One: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
• Day Two: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)
• Day Three: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
• Day Four: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
• Day Five: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)
• Day Six: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)