Films In Review

Enable frames

POTTERSVILLE

By Greg Walton

Review Film Critic

Click for the Official Site!!

For the most part, the challenge of a film critic isn't pointing out the
positives in a new movie; it's sorting out what doesn't suck.

Readers, audiences, and couch potatoes alike will probably label that as an elitist statement made by a semi-professional wannabe who slams someone else's art for the sake of a smart-ass remark and a healthy shot of creative superiority. But if you consider even a tenth of what gets
released to theaters in the course of a year as "art," then you need to
take a refresher course at the local community college.

Face it, cinema has taken a nosedive since the advent of the "Jaws"
blockbuster in the early 70's, and it's the audiences, not film critics,
who take it on the chin. Sure, we have to write about it, but you have to
pay for it. And believe me, if I'd had to shell out my hard-earned cash
for "Tomb Raider," there would've been hell to pay.

Studios say they just make the kind of movies the public wants.  I say

it's a monopolistic system that produces only what's expected of it, like

an employee who makes it to retirement by working under the radar...all the

while taking 4 cigarette breaks a day and sneaking in 15 minutes extra at

lunch.

So why do we still go? Other than some masochistic escape from network

news, household chores, and the threat of cracking a book, why do we put

ourselves through this? Because maybe twice in a decade something special

happens.  We walk into a theater with the expected expectations and walk

out a different person.

Comedy, drama, horror, documentary - it's different for everyone.  Lost in

the moment - that moving, flickering, magical moment - everything seems

tailor-made for just you.  But this isn't just art; this is the true

definition of cinema - an artistic expression that comes to the masses en

mass.

And for every deep personal experience that occurs, chances are the guy

sitting next to you with the Dale Earnhardt T-shirt could be feeling the

exact same thing.  That's when film becomes phenomena.  And that's exactly

what deserves to happen to "Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone."

Or course, "Harry" was already a phenomena in the literary world - leaping

demographical boundaries like an Olympic hurdler pumped full of steroids.

But the challenges of translating the adventures of the boy wizard become

even more difficult with so many pretty pre-conceived notions floating

through everyone's head.

That's what makes director Chris Columbus' ("Home Alone") work even more

special - it's faithful and fantastical at the same time.  This is a film

that entertains your eyes in every frame and engages your interest with

every uttered word.

For those unfamiliar with Harry's history, he's an 11 year-old orphan given

to magical accidents who's whisked away from his jealous relatives to

attend the prestigious Hogwart's school for Wizard's.  Harry knows nothing

about himself, but in the world of wizards he's the closest thing they have

to a celebrity: the infant survivor of an attack by the most evil and

infamous practitioner of the black arts, Lord Valdemort.

The film follows Harry's education from nervous novice to rookie of the

year, flanked by classmate companions Ron and Hermione.

The story bears more than a slight resemblance to "Star Wars," and several

action sequences (the 2 1/2 hour film packs in so many it's like watching a

TV mini-series in fast forward) allow Harry the same Luke Skywalker sense

of discovery.  The force is strong with both of them and they don't know

why.  But it makes for some show stopping sequences, like the Quidditch

match (a wizard sporting event played on broomsticks) that is a dead ringer

for the pod race in "Episode One."

But while Lucas' latest films are unarguably great technical achievements,

they lack any connection to human emotion.  He's lost his sense of wonder.

"Harry Potter" has that in spades.  The film is like a whisper in every

child's ear, tempting them with secrets, mysteries and just enough danger

to get goosebumps.

Director Chris Columbus - probably no one's first choice to helm a "Potter"

film - does more than just get out of the way of J.K. Rowling's narrative,

he encourages you to look deeper.  The amount of detail in every room of

Hogwart's Academy is mind boggling, pumpkins float, staircases shift, and

pictures talk out of the corner of your eye.

Harry's entire world is dusted with just the right amount of antiquity and

Victorian cobwebs.  And the all Brit cast - Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid, Alan

Rickman as Professor Snape, not to mention Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) and his

companions (Rupert Grint & Emma Watson) - not only look the part but play

them with meticulous care.

It's as if everyone knew the importance of these characters (which, of

course, they did) and put even more heart into their performances than the

Actor's Guild usually allows.

There's some criticism to be had.

Controversy over which moments were left out of the books is sure to get a

little ugly; whose favorite scene was shortened and which special effect

looked a tad on the phony side.  Most glaring is the rather limp-wristed

finale that can't help but look like a letdown after a tireless barrage of

incredible sights and sounds.

The film reaches a point where it simply can't top itself any longer.

But for a solid 2 hours it tops just about any blockbuster released in the

last 20 years.  Open your eyes wide; take in everything you can, because it

may be a long time before a chance like this comes again.

This, my friends, is why we still go to the movies.  Heck, I'll even pay.

Grade: A

Enable frames