|
|
|
|
|
Harry Potter fans of all ages eagerly awaited the release of the young wizard’s first movie. As soon as it hit the big screen, it shattered attendance records as fans swarmed to the theaters—again and again.
I wasn’t a part of the initial Harry Potter rush. I waited a few weeks—until the crowds started to die down. Then I raced back to the theater to see it again. And when I picked up the DVD last week, I was again reminded of how exciting and enchanting the movie is. In fact, I’m going to be so bold as to publicly state that I believe that it’s even better than its competition in the theaters, The Fellowship of the Ring (see Brian’s review).
For those of you who have been excavating the Antarctic for the past few years—long enough not to know the Harry Potter story—I’ll try to summarize. Harry (played by Daniel Radcliffe) is a young boy who grows up living in the cupboard under the stairs in his aunt and uncle’s house. His parents died when he was just a baby—though he doesn’t know that they were famous wizards who were killed fighting the evil wizard, Voldemort. He tried to kill Harry, too, but Harry survived, left with a lightning-bolt scar on his forehead.
On Harry’s eleventh birthday, he gets a visit from a huge man named Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), who announces that Harry’s been accepted to Hogwarts, the prestigious school for wizards. Once there, Harry meets Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson), two fellow first-year students who join Harry in trying to figure out what’s being guarded on the third floor of the school—and why one of their professors seems eager to get to it.
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (or Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, depending on where you live) was beautifully done. It’s a cinematic (and special effects) work of art. And the selection of the cast was almost perfect. Radcliffe does an excellent job as Harry. And Alan Rickman is perfectly sinister in the role of Professor Snape. The only problem I have with the cast is Watson, who plays Hermione. While the character is supposed to be a bit annoying, she got on my nerves a little more than she should have.
Be warned, though, that Sorcerer's Stone may not be the best for younger kids. In fact, parts of it are enough to give adults nightmares. And it’s also a strain on the attention span (two and a half hours, cut down from the original four). It makes me wonder how long the upcoming installments will be, considering that the first book is the shortest book in the series so far.
Overall, however, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is an excellent movie—full of action and adventure and unusual wizard sports. Now’s the time to pick up a copy of the latest book in the series, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire—and maybe reread the rest of the books again. After all, you’ve only got a couple more weeks to prepare for the next movie.
Ed. Note: If you're interested in the book, check out Deborah's review.
|
|
|
|
