Movie Reviews: “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone”

In what is likely to be regarded as a backlash to the buzz and
hype, few critics have welcomed Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone with unqualified praise — and a several have expressed
growling complaints about it. “The most highly awaited movie of the year
has a dreary, literal- minded competence, following the letter of the
law as laid down by the author,” writes the New York Times‘ Elvis
Mitchell.”But it’s all muted flourish, with momentary pleasures.” His
critical flak aimed at the movie builds to the end of his review:
“Someone has cast a sleepwalker’s spell over the proceedings, and at
nearly two and a half hours, you may go under, too.” But Mitchell’s
reaction is extreme. More typical is Jay Carr’s in the Boston
Globe, who comments: “No, Harry Potter hasn’t been ruined in
the move from the printed page to the big screen. There’s more right
than wrong with it, at least visually. It looks great. Still, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, while having blockbuster written
all over it, remains a thing of calculation rather than inspiration.”
Many critics have faulted the film for remaining too faithful to the
book. Jami Bernard in the New York Daily News writes, for
example: “It is powered solely by the book, and in this satellite role
lacks a beating heart of its own.” She then quickly adds, however: “But
that is surely quibbling.” Rita Kempley in the Washington Post
puts it this way: “Everything is just as you might expect. …
Potter-philes are sure to get what they want — if what they want
is, in fact, an exacting version of J.K. Rowling’s charming children’s
fantasy. If it’s enchantment they are after, that’s quite another
matter.” And Kenneth Turan in the Los Angeles Times complains
that the filmmakers have treated J.K. Rowling’s text “like holy writ.”
The problem, Turan concludes, is that the film merely copies the book
and “copies don’t leave much to object to or get excited about.” He then
reins himself in. “It won’t do to be unyieldingly grumpy about Harry Potter,” he comments, then remarks: “There are moments — not nearly
as many as we’d like, but still moments — when some of the magic of the
books rubs off on the screen.” Joe Morgenstern in the Wall Street
Journal also complains of the “cautious approach” the filmmakers
have taken by remaining so faithful to the novel, but, he notes
tellingly, “the most magical part of the movie is what kids will bring
to it.” Among the major newspaper reviews, there are two out-and-and-out
raves. Peter Howell in the Toronto Star, anticipating the
complaints of his colleagues, writes: “Scrupulous in design, faithful in
execution and boasting a near-perfect cast of faces new and old, it will
delight the many who want the big screen to match the images they have
in mind of boy wizard Harry and his friends and foes. … It’s a case
where giving the people what they want outweighs any grander artistic
pretensions.” And Roger Ebert in the Chicago Sun-Times hails the
film as “triumphant,” and goes on to describe it as “an enchanting
classic that does full justice to a story that was a daunting
challenge.” Ebert puts it in a class with The Wizard of Oz, Willy Wonka, Star Wars, and E.T. “It isn’t just a movie,” he
concludes, “but a world with its own magical rules.”