Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone lays out the groundwork for J.K. Rowling's simple and imaginative book series. The story follows the legendary wiz-kid, with the infamous lightning bolt scar on his forehead, through his first year at the renowned wizardry school, Hogwarts. One of the first striking things about Harry Potter is how much the actor, Daniel Radcliffe, is Potter. Besides looking exactly as drawn on the covers of the series, Radcliffe shows Harry's sincerity, confusion and humility.
And while I was skeptical at first, Robbie Coltrane does accurately portray Hagrid, the forgetful and sincere groundskeeper and Harry's first friend. The rest of the cast includes well-known British actors like Alan Rickman, precisely cast as Professor Snape, and Ian Hart as the goofy, bumbling Professor Quirrell. Casting, in combination with detailed sets that reveal everything the original novel describes, would make it appear that the Potter story had fully come to life.
But what makes Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone noticeably different from other novel-to-film adaptations is that this one very closely follows the book--to almost every plot twist. Other movies, such as the recent Bridget Jones's Diary and High Fidelity, don't follow their original books down to the letter, allowing the essence of the novels to come across on screen. Although Harry Potter's thoroughness seems necessary within Rowling's master Potter-plan, such close attention to plot detail--aside from making the movie quite long, at about 2 1/2 hours--takes away a little heart. The visuals and characters are all there, but something about it is just not as funny--or, dare I say, magical--as the original.
Not to say the movie is bad; it deserves merit for such an impressive outcome. Harry Potter may feel drawn out to those who haven't read the book. But for Potter fans like me (There. I admit it. I have read all four books.), it's not too big a deal. Over everything else, it's bloody fantastic to see the novel come to life.
