Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone

This was written for the school paper, so it's a bit formal. And yes, the name of the paper is "The Quarterly Roar." The school mascot is a Cougar. Get it? Don't look at me, I didn't come up with it.

There are a few things that just don’t need reviewing. Things that will entertain and make a profit no matter what critics say. I mean, you just try and stop a little kid from attending the next Pokémon movie if he or she has got a mind to do so. The same might be said for the film “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone.” Fans of the book are sure to (and have) flock to theaters to see the first installment of the young wizard’s exploits. However, it is our job here at The Quarterly Roar to inform our readers of what perhaps might be the biggest movie of the year.

“Sorcerer’s Stone” starts off with a baby Harry being left on the doorstop of his aunt and uncle’s doorstep after his parents have died. Apparently Voldemort, the most evil wizard in centuries killed them and attempted to do the same to Harry, but for some reason had been unable to, and had been crippled. Harry is raised by his surrogate family never knowing of this, or of the entire magical world. On his eleventh birthday, Harry receives a letter stating he has been accepted to Hogwarts, a boarding school for wizards. While attending, Harry discovers a priceless artifact is being guarded inside the school, and that a professor at the school might be after it.

The film’s cast reads as a list of veteran British actors. Richard Harris plays the wise Headmaster Dumbledore, and Maggie Smith is the stern Professor McGonagall.  Alan Rickman is the oily Professor Snape, who despite spitting venom in every line, still manages not to overact.  Robbie Coltrane looks and acts the part of Hagrid the Gamekeeper perfectly, and Ian Hart stutters along as the jumpy Professor Quirrell. Daniel Radcliffe plays the title role, accompanied by Rupert Grint and Emma Watson, Harry’s friends Ron and Hermione, respectively. Each hold their own in the movie, in a sort of understated way.

Visually, the film is outstanding. Hogwarts twists and turns around each corridor.  Quidditch is played out fast and furious and feels like a real game (though the scoring system seems a tad obtuse – you wonder why anyone bothers with the red Quaffle.) Diagon alley, a sort of wizard 5^th Avenue, is so over saturated with detail that you wish you had more time to look at it. And that’s where the biggest flaw lies in “Harry Potter,” there just isn’t enough time to cover everything in the movie. Character’s are introduced and then forgotten.  John Cleese’s character Nearly Headless Nick pops up, takes off his head, and is never heard of again. Snape is supposedly worst enemies with Harry, yet we only see them together for about 4 minutes. For a movie set in a school there are an incredible lack of scenes that take place inside classrooms. Watching, I couldn’t help thinking the story would be much better served if it was used as three part mini-series. Even at two and a half hours, a book like “Sorcerer’s Stone” feels cramped.