The paintings. I can't get over the paintings. In almost every scene set in the hallways of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, the paintings are alive. The people in them move about, watching and waving at passers-by in a friendly, if eerie, fashion. They are not the focus of the scenes, but are merely little details. Tucked into the foreground for the audience to find are living paintings, floating Christmas ornaments, possessed books, and other enchantments. They are everywhere.
And unlike many recent big-budget epics, the visual jewels in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone do not come at a high price. There is no awful love triangle to wade through, no expressionless Mark Walberg as a hero, no endless last half hour of pointless philosophizing about the human condition, and no damn Jar Jar Binks. The film is enchantment from start to finish. While those obsessed with the best-selling books might have a few issues, most should come away feeling they got their eight bucks' worth.
To answer fans' biggest question - yes, the film is true to the book. Harry and his friends Ron and Hermione are the heroes, unraveling a mystery while attending their first year at Wizard's school. Harry is a legend, the only survivor of an attack by the evil Voldermort, or "you-know-who," as he is called. One can go down the list of important events in the book that are faithfully executed on screen: Harry's trip to the school, the Great Hall, the Quidditch match, the invisibility cloak, and the final puzzles are all there. There are no serious deviations from book to screen.
But while great efforts were made to make the movie authentic, more effort was thankfully put into making it good. Harry's entrance into the Great Hall is an awesome moment, with a ceiling filled with floating candles stretching up endlessly. The first scene of broom flying is as fun as anything you might have seen in the past year. Forget that bally-hooed pod race; the Qudditch match is both faster and more exciting. Even a short scene in a Goblin Bank is done with polish and originality.
Most of the acting is first rate. All the kid actors accomplish the primary task of being plucky without being annoying, with special credit going to Rupert Grint, whose portrayal of Ron Weasley is dead-on. As for Harry himself, I will say this: he's no Haley Joel Osment, but he is also no Jake Lloyd (of Episode I infamy). He is an every-kid, bewildered and enchanted by his surroundings. He's a charming, shy, and quiet Harry. The person sitting next to me found him too quiet and unemotional for Harry. But we both could agree that while he may not be a huge asset to the film, he is at worse just there.
Rounding out the adults, Robbie Coltrane (From Hell) makes for a grand Hagrid, and Alan Rickman's (Dogma) eye-twitching Snape hits all the right notes. Maggie Smith is well-cast if underused as Professor McGonagall. But of all of the performances, perhaps the best is Leslie Williams (Tomb Raider) as the voice of the Magic Sorting Hat. This is easily the best performance given by an inanimate object since Wilson in Cast Away. I'm serious: you haven't seen anything until you've seen this hat.
It should be said that the special effects work better as sequences than they do with characters. The world the characters inhabit is complete, but the various centaurs, three-headed dogs and trolls that Harry and Co. run into are obviously and distractingly computer animated. The level of animation is also uneven: the troll would be at home with Shrek, while the centaur looked like a reject from The Mummy Returns.
The editing feels a bit rushed. Most of the sequences on their own are brilliant, but they are stitched together roughly. Some transitions seem completely random, or jump away too soon. This becomes less of a problem as the film goes on, but the opening scenes until Harry gets to the school are awkwardly put together.
Some audience members were disturbed by the change of small details from the book. Yes, Harry's scar is moved. Yes, certain events are condensed or ignored, and some characters are underdeveloped. It's slightly annoying, especially if the books are your gospel. However, do any of these changes actually change the story or the spirit of what it's all about? No.
Besides, why complain when so much of the movie is wall-to-wall magic? The moving staircases are done perfectly, as are the ghosts that wander the halls of the school (including a cameo by John Cleese as Headless Nick.) The chess match, the library, the dark forest, even the Golden Sitch is well done.
Director Chris Columbus has pretty much resurrected his career with this film, since there will be sequels for years to come. Some (including me) doubted whether he could handle the material, but he has done wonders with it. And we all forgot that, in spite of all the adults reading the book, it is ultimately for kids and starring kids - and this director knows how to handle kids. This is the same guy who did Home Alone and Mrs. Doubtfire. And while his Bicentennial Man was a huge flop, the special effects were handled well. As for Harry Potter, I doubt any kid watching will be bored. The ones in our audience certainly weren't.
It is a kid's movie, so be forewarned. The monsters are never that scary, and the plot never is all that deep. But as a fantasy, it is captivating and heartwarming. And, thank the lord, there are no annoying computer-generated sidekicks making you grind your teeth every five seconds. Harry's journey is one of wonder, and it's one you will want to take more than once.
