Here are my original reviews of all the movies in the Harry Potter series. My review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows — Part 2 will publish here by Thursday.
If you’re not a child or a parent of a child under 15, then just steer clear of movie theaters for the next month or so — they’re booked solid.
The long-awaited movie version of J.K. Rowling’s mega-popular children’s novel, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, is finally in theaters and with a fight to pick (and win) with any films that dare try to stand in its path. So rather than mince words about the voracity of young viewers, or adapted children's books, let's just get on with it: Harry Potter dazzles.
From the mesmerizing visual effects and wonderful set decorations to the huggable heroes and kickable villains, Potter holds up as not just a great film, but also as a gem for youngsters. Yes, the same youngsters who have shocked their parents into comas by actually reading books instead of watching TV, playing one through a video game or freebasing Pokémon characters (or whatever else you do with them).
Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), the orphaned son of a slain wizard and a witch, is dumped off onto his rotten uncle, aunt and spoiled cousin. They’re clearly perturbed when Harry begins receiving elegantly penned letters by the thousand notifying him of his acceptance to an elite school. The postage must have been a nightmare. Admission is not without its hiccups: Mean Uncle and Auntie won’t let Harry leave his under-the-stairs room (dungeon) to go to the school, which is why Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), a gruff errand runner, shows up to whisk Harry away to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. At the school, Harry toils through a university-like institution to learn the ABCs of potions, magic, wand-waving, broom-riding and troll-slaying.
The movie is filled with wonderful visual effects and lavish fantasy sets, many of which alter mid-scene (twisting staircases, reincarnated paintings), but the internal structure — the backbone — is an intriguing plot of deception and sorcery woven into the fantasy by the mystical figure that killed Harry’s folks and now hunts him. Those who have read the book will know every twist and turn and may miss out on the surprises, but even still, Potter turns Rowling’s witty pages with a light, but brisk touch. We aren’t overburdened by the story, yet we’re given enough of the plot to make the story understandable even without reading the book.
Overall, Potter is so much grander and more delicious than anything else that has come out this year. And to think, it’s a kids’ movie!
There’s still something that’s bothering me, though. It's Harry's sudden popularity. As kids empty quiet libraries and Potter reading rooms to fill theaters to lay awe on their bespectacled hero as he clashes with villainy brandishing his magic wand and Charles Manson beauty mark (a lighting bolt scar on his forehead), I’m still left puzzled at how the young Harry Potter has pulled TV-obsessed youngsters away from the tube and into books. I can see the level of articulation that Rowling aimed at in the books — albeit a bit glossed over in the film — and I can see the fantasy elements that have made other films (Star Wars, Willow, Labyrinth) just as majestic, but I still can’t see the sudden gush of enthusiasm for Harry Potter.
In the grand scheme of things, Harry Potter’s just picking up where Pokémon, Barney and Sesame Street left off. Will it last for the other six movies? It's hard to tell now, but my guess is that the series will slowly drift away.
