This delightful movie is for anyone who’s old enough to read or listen to and appreciate the book (it may be too scary for very young children). The film is true to J. K. Rowling’s excellent children’s novel and a good beginning to a series of movies based on the “Harry Potter books.” Harry Potter is an 11-year-old orphan who is being raised by his aunt and uncle. They spoil their own son and treat Harry much like Cinderfella—until the day they can no longer confiscate his mail because hundreds of owls inundate the Dursley home with letters telling Harry that he has been accepted to the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Harry is a wizard, as were his late parents. The Dursleys are Muggles, or nonwizards. Harry is famous among wizards for having survived the machinations of the murderous Lord Voldemort, who killed his parents. Harry, who knows nothing about the wizards’ life, is an excellent guide for the movie-goer as he shops for school supplies, finds the correct train, makes friends, and arrives at school. The design of the places in the wizard world is excellent—it seems that different people who have read the book are equally satisfied that the onscreen world of Harry Potter is exactly as they had imagined it, which is a high standard for the production designer to meet. Stuart Craig has succeeded. John Williams’ score, while at times a little repetitive of other John Williams scores, is nevertheless excellent—especially the bell-like magical theme that introduces Harry’s sense of wonder and growing power. The children who play Harry and his friends, Ron and Hermione, almost steal the show with their natural, fine acting. And they have a roster of the best of English theatre and movie actors to steal the show from. One wishes there were time for some of these great actors to contribute more, but it is Harry’s movie. Director Chris Columbus’ ability to bring out the best in young actors is once again apparent. Harry’s desire to know more about his parents adds a poignant note amid scenes of attempts and successes in various classes (“Potions,” “Levitation,” and so on) and exciting games of Quidditch (a combination of rugby, basketball, and the inexplicable, played on flying brooms). Although the children seem to be on their own and dealing with serious, dangerous circumstances at times, the viewer gets the feeling that the adults were not too far away if rescue had been needed—possibly. Further, discipline is imposed when necessary, as a warning to the young wizards (and the audience) not to get in over their heads. After all the exposition needed to get Harry to Hogwarts, the film may begin to seem somewhat long to some viewers. Also, in a couple of scenes the computer-generated special effects are obvious to the viewer, but the great special effects elsewhere are the usual standard. One caveat: Movie-goers may want to read the book first, or at least attend in groups of “Have” or “Have Not Read the Book,” lest the “Have Reads” be bothered by the “Have Not Reads” with unimportant questions that will be explained in good time. Some adults have complained that the entire Harry Potter series is encouraging witchcraft and even Satanism. Poppycock. This fantasy, made up of ingredients used in many fantasies, clearly delineates good and evil—and is clearly on the side of good. The people whom we are to emulate and cheer for are trying to make the world better, safer, and kinder. We can look forward to the next adventure, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002), with the addition of Kenneth Branagh to the cast, as an equally worthwhile treat.
|
Movie Search
|
|||||||||||||||
 | ||||||
