DVD Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (D-)
Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
Directed By Chris Columbus
Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Richard Harris and Maggie Smith
MPAA: PG
Grade: D-
Review By Scott Standish
On the back of the DVD release for Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone, film critic Richard Roeper calls the film "The Wizard Of Oz of its time. A complete triumph". Now I know that movie reviews are often truncated and distorted by the studios for their own marketing efforts. Perhaps this was taken out of context. But trust me on this one, folks: Harry Potter is no Wizard Of Oz.
The Wizard Of Oz is a sensational story with a clear purpose (Dorothy needs to get back home), great acting (Judy Garland even outshines the incredible set decorations), and timeless music (Somewhere Over The Rainbow, anyone?). Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is a convoluted, meandering story with laughable acting and an insanely annoying soundtrack (John Williams needs to lay off the caffeine). Okay, I know that comparing Harry Potter to a film that is widely regarded as one of the greatest of all times is a bit harsh (hey, they started it). So let's bring this back down to reality.
Harry Potter and The Sorcerer's Stone is of course, the much anticipated film version of the popular book (which is in turn, a part of the incredibly successful series of novels). Harry Potter is a young boy with remarkable powers. Raised by cruel adoptive parents in London, Harry gets his freedom when a giant named Hagrid bursts in and tells him that he's a wizard. Hagrid tells Harry of his legacy (he's the son of a wizard that was killed by the evil Voldemort) and takes him to Hogwarts, a school for young wizards. Its here that the story really turns into a mess: he makes friends, learns that the potions master at the school is up to no good, and enters a competitive match of sorcery athletics.
The main problem with this story is that it does not focus on one thing long enough to get the audience to care about the outcome. At over 150 minutes long, what starts off as an interesting fairy tale slowly bogs into a badly acted stew of cliché wizards and inconsistent special effects work (some look great, others are poor). Harry's evil adoptive parents are booted from the story at the beginning, so there are no major antagonists to battle for most of the film. There are small antagonists at Hogwarts, but they seem feeble and not for one minute does one think that Potter will not conquer them.
Harry Potter and The Sorcerer's Stone is directed by Chris Columbus, a Steven Spielberg wanna-be with a penchant for incredibly stupid scripts (Mrs. Doubtfire, Bicentennial Man) and violent slapstick comedy (Home Alone, Home Alone 2). This guy's filmography is a wasteland of shallow Hollywood crap. With the success of Harry Potter (and yes, there are already two sequels in the works) Columbus is really riding high in Hollywood, so unless Dennis Hopper or Christopher Walken takes him hostage, we can expect a lot more bad movies ahead. Oh yes, that reminds me, Columbus is set to helm a watered down, sugary take of the Fantastic Four. I like the Fantastic Four comic book, but with Columbus directing, I bet that will suck too.
With studios releasing "Director's Cuts" all over the place with extra scenes and dialogue, perhaps someone should come out with an "Audience Cut" of Harry Potter, cutting this meandering mess into a movie that is more to the point. Until that happens, I am boycotting all films directed by Chris Columbus.
Buy Harry Potter On DVD From Amazon.com
posted by DVD Confidential at 2/09/2003 11:32:00 AM
1 Comments:
Now that the sixth film is in production and the series itself has been completed, I hope that the blogger has come to realize how foolish his critique of a lack of depth in the first Potter film is. Like any good story line the beginning scenes are meant to introduce the viewer to the world that they are unfamiliar with. Common ideas among Potter fans like the unability for people to speak Voldemort's name, the official rules of Queditch, the owl delivery system, and an explanation for an external magical world all have their birth place in this first film. The mastery of the film is not in its ability to complete a story line, which remains fairly inactive by comparison to other Potter films, but instead in how it teaches the viewer about the world at large, while simultaneously adjusting the scenery to make people realize Potter's own narrative in this magical kingdom. It is unfortunate that critics of any kind have only one view of what constitutes great film, but the fact remains that the first Potter film is the most essential to the other six, because it is the only one that makes the other six comprehendable. Given that the work of this film was done on a tight budget by actors who were mostly children, I believe that its final affect was worthy of the praise it received and at the very least a B. Likewise the Wizard of Oz tells us nothing about Oz itself and had there been six more films about the Land of Oz I am positive that they would have been failures, which is probably the reason why no serious movie has ever bared the title "Return to Oz." The whole point here is simply that a failed film must be one in which reasonable expectations are disappointed consistently throughout, and while there are disappointments in this film, especially in comparisson to other Potter films, there are also remarkable achievements.
2/04/2008 08:19:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home