Harry Potter and The Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

Hello one and all! My goodness, it's been a dog's age since we've last posted, over two weeks! How awful . . . well I have missed you all desperately, but been simply too preoccupied to write. Millie has asked me to let you know that she finds this excuse exhausted at best and is quite glad to be back. So let's get right into it shall we?

I've decided it's about time I just saddle up and read the entire Harry Potter series. After some somewhat embarrassing band-wagoning during my intermediate years (let's just say Titanic was the tip of the iceberg) I grew weary of international crazes, despite the fact that they are, at least part of the time, deserved. (High school Jenny, or obijen kenerdbi as she was called then, would like you all to know that she considered herself an outsider, "mainstream" was for the less original kids, and feels her listening to Elliott Smith in the '90's and waiting in line for 13 hours to buy Star Wars tickets will surely prove that to you.)

Anywho, we thought, how perfect, we can read each book, watch each movie and then compare for you! So we begin at the beginning . . . with Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

The basics - movie: A young boy is left on his aunt and uncle's doorstop as a small babe with an unusual lightening bolt scar across his tiny forehead. The scar is perhaps less fantastic than the fact that he arrives via flying motorcycle with two wizards to see him off. After enduring Cinderalla-esque neglect as he grows from babe to boy, Harry discovers that he is a very famous wizard and is to attend Hogwart's School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, a most magical place indeed! There Harry learns about the evil wizard Voldemort who killed his parents, gave him the famous scar, and is mounting a treacherous comeback . . .

The basics - the book: the same.

Harry Potter and The Sorcerer's Stone is without question a thoroughly enjoyable story. J.K. Rowling is a britriple threat: witty, imaginative, and a darn good writer. Plus one can sense from this first book the enormity of the storyline, it's no wonder that six books followed and millions, perhaps billions of readers, with them.

I am a true fan of the fantastic, but particularly witchcraft, wizards, the idea of that magic exists, and the possibility that one day some big hairy sweet heart (Hagrid for you Muggles that still haven't read the books or seen any movies) will swoop in to tell me that I am actually a very famous witch with magic running through my veins! Rowling lovingly captures this possibility, this anticipation one feels as a youngster that something so miraculous could plausibly happen and her ability to do so makes Harry Potter so readable and watchable a character. Then you throw in Ron, his red headed mate, Hermione, the bookworm-study fiend who eventually befriends this pair of burgeoning little wizards, witches, dragons, unicorns and centaurs oh my! It's an engaging story that reads quickly and delightfully, encouraging the reader to go right out and buy Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets. Now, it's established that Millie and I quite enjoyed the book . . . how does the movie compare?

Quite favorably actually. I doubt you'll disagree that the sarlac pit most books-to-film fall into is changing the story so much one feel loose association at best. Certainly there are exceptions and this particular Harry Potter is one of them. Yes there are small changes, the Dursley's (Harry's aunt and uncle) don't willingly invite Harry to the zoo as the movie insinuates, Neville is on the trip to the forest, and Hermione's skill with the riddle and liquids is completely cut. All in all, however, the movie follows the book quite accurately, and with those moments that do differ, it's easy to see that filming them would have been much more work than necessary. So, it follows that since we liked the book, we liked the movie as well. Which is true.


However, had the cast not been as chock full of talent as it is I would venture the same screenplay would have met with less success. Young Daniel Radcliffe is simply adorable Harry Potter (though seeing him stark naked in Equus this year did make me pause at first). Richard Harris, Richard Griffiths (whom I saw with Radicliffe in Equus), and Maggie Smith embody their characters perfectly, as though each actor took Rowling's words and tone and brought them effortlessly to life. Emma Watson (Hermione) and Rupert Grint (Ron) manage to carefully avoid any poor child actor traits, and in fact, are quite enjoyable. The best performance though, that which is ripped from the pages and put directly onto the screen, has to be Alan Richman's Snape, he's a pitch perfect incantation of the sinister professor of potions . . .

It's Willow's Warwick Davis as Professor Flitwick!

I will say, since I have seen other films in this series, too long ago to remember much, this one is somewhat green. I don't simply mean in content, but a general sophistication. This film, much like the book, is a first year. It's new, somewhat naive, and only scrapes the surface of very dark, sinister good and against evil bruh-ha-ha. It's a charming movie and a delightful book, but we expect a bit more heavy hitting as the story unfolds . . .

Millie's bees to knees meter (1 bee = blah, 10 bees = hoo-rah): 7