At the Movies: 'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone'

By David Germain
AP Movie Writer

A Warner Bros. release, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" is rated PG for some scary moments and mild language. Running time: 152 minutes.

He buys "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," reads it, remarks that it was mildly entertaining, and becomes as outcast as Lord Voldemort among Hogwarts-addicted acquaintances for failing to find it the greatest story ever told.

More tolerant Potter-ites tell him the sequels are better. So middle-aged bald guy walks into a bookstore, buys "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets," finds it mildly entertaining, and wonders if he's lost his sense of whimsy when people tell him, well, that he's lost his sense of whimsy.

So he walks into a bookstore, strolls past the displays of "Harry Potter" books and calendars and bubble bath and pot-holders. He buys Madeleine L'Engle's "A Wrinkle in Time," a standout among the many fantasy worlds he flung himself into as a boy.

He finds it every bit as clever, enchanting and transporting as he did 30 years earlier. So he figures his sense of whimsy's still there, and has to wonder: What gives with this mania over "Harry Potter," which strikes him as just another reasonably worthy adventure series for kids?

Which is a roundabout lead-in to one guy's take on the first "Harry Potter" movie: Mildly entertaining, but more than a little boring in places given the filmmakers' desire — and obligation — to be as faithful to and inclusive of J.K. Rowling's novel as possible.

Yet that same faithfulness and inclusiveness assure that "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" will score big with devotees, who might have burned director Chris Columbus at the stake had he dropped more than a ghost here or a centaur there.

It's all pretty much here: The shopping spree in Diagon Alley; Platform Nine and Three-Quarters and the express train to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry; the sorting hat; the bathroom troll, the three-headed dog and Norbert the baby dragon; Harry's invisibility cloak; the mirror of Erised; the Quidditch match aboard flying broomsticks; the showdown with the dark wizard Voldemort.

For the millions and millions who read the book, they'll know exactly what's coming, exactly when. That's a drawback for those not greatly enamored of the book: The film has no surprises, and if it failed to grab you on the page, it's not likely to grab you on the big screen.

But it's a plus for serious fans, who want their Harry Potter served up as close to the book as possible.

Special effects, lush sets and lavish costumes aside, recreating Harry's universe really rested with the casting, which Columbus and company accomplished with dead-on precision.

For the three young heroes, Columbus found physically ideal simulations: Daniel Radcliffe as Harry, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson as his pals Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger.

Can they act? Not terribly well, but well enough to carry the story, and they have plenty more "Potter" films to improve. This first outing really just needed serviceable performances, along with round spectacles and that lightning-bolt scar for Harry, an orange mop-top and a few ebullient exclamations of "Brilliant!" for Ron, and bushy hair and a bossy glare for Hermione.

It's the adults that shine, notably Robbie Coltrane's jolly, lumbering groundskeeper Hagrid, Maggie Smith's starchy but compassionate Professor McGonagall, and Richard Harris' regal Albus Dumbledore, Hogwarts' philosopher king.

Alan Rickman supplies priceless glowers as Harry's faculty foe, Professor Snape, Ian Hart is suitably servile as stuttering Professor Quirrell, and John Hurt adds a playful highlight as wand peddler Ollivander.

"Harry Potter" unfortunately shortchanges the comic talents of Julie Walters as Ron's big-hearted mother and John Cleese as the ghost Nearly Headless Nick, whose roles amount to bare walk-ons (or float-ons, in Cleese's case).

Warner Bros. hired seemingly every visual-effects house in the business to craft Hogwarts and its trappings. The results are mostly fine, though scattershot in places.

The Quidditch field is a delightful mix of Camelot tapestry and gravity-defying box-seat towers, yet some of the flying-broomstick visuals seem curiously phony. The troll is a solidly goofy creation, yet the film's lone centaur is so masked in darkness it looks like an unfinished effect.

Perhaps the luckiest crowds to see the movie will be those who haven't read "Harry Potter." To them, with the characters and events entirely new, "Harry Potter" could be just the sort of magical escape they need from dark times in the real world.

As for the middle-aged bald guy, he walks to his bookshelf and puts his two "Harry Potter" books next to his copy of Charles Mackay's "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds." He sets "A Wrinkle in Time" close at hand, on his bedside table.