Don't read this review if you haven't seen the movie.

Even though I enjoyed "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone", I found that Christopher Columbus made a few bad choices in what he would show from the book.  From watching the film, Chris definitely stressed the action scenes and left out the more character building and logic scenes of the book.

For example, the interaction between Harry, Ron, and Hermione was greatly lacking and as such, the character of Harry was very flat in its portrayal.   Whether this was aided by Daniel Ratcliffs acting ability or whether it was how he was directed does not come through.  The character of Ron was more animated and is apparent that it is part of Rupert Grint's personality.  This observation is based on the interviews that were broadcasted on the television after the release of the movie.  Now if Chris Columbus let the children's personality come through in the filming, this could explain the flat performance of Dan Ratcliff since he is very reserved in his personality as shown in the interviews.

Chris Columbus made a glaring mistake in leaving out the potions test on the last charm before entering the last chamber.  This was very apparent and the leaving feast when Dumbledore gave points for logic to Hermione.  Since this scene was not in the movie, it left those who had not read the book wondering what he was talking about.  This was brought to my attention when a friend who deliberately didn't read the book before seeing the movie made the observation.  This scene is also critical to knowing the character of Harry Potter since is showed that he knew his limitations yet was willing to try to do his best in stopping Lord Voldermort.

The character of Neville Longbottom was never developed in the movie, which really doesn't show that exceptional courage that it took to stand up to Harry, Ron, and Hermione.  So the significance of the points at the end of the movie which he ends up with doesn't really stand out as a major achievement.

If you compare Peter Book's Lord of the Flies movie to this one, you can see the difference of styles and importance given to character development.

You can do this comparison because each character of the Lord of the Flies does match up to the characters of The Sorcerer's Stone.

Jack (Draco Malfoy)
Ralph (Harry)
Piggy (Hermione/Ron)
Simon (Neville Longbottom)

Draco Malfoy is very much like Jack of the Lord of the Flies.  He is a leader through only fear and violence.  He also doesn't care about other's feelings.

Harry is an ideal Ralph as he leads through personal example and he cares about others feelings but like Ralph does at times hurt them.

Ron and Hermione form the equivalent of Piggy in The Sorcerer's Stone.  Each is ridiculed for things they can't control (being poor or Muggle born) and Hermione has the brains that Piggy had.  Also they form the close friendship that is needed for Harry.

Neville compares to Simon in that he is the quiet type that sees things for what they are and when he stands up to them, he is harmed.

Now if you compare the two movies, you can see where Brook's filmed it to develop the characters with the action on the island as a means to bring the tension forward (which the remake didn't stressing the action similar to Harry Potter).  Columbus does the exact opposite where he stresses the action and leaves the character development to a minimum.

So Harry Potter is a fun movie of action but doesn't reflect the book as well as it could.  Now, there had to be things left out in order to keep the movie a respectable length but too much character development was lost in the translation.

As a side note, the use of Proffessor McGonagall's transformation from cat to human will cause problems in a later movie since it was in the third book that this was used to set up the comments about divination studies.  Even though we know she is an Animangus, the students don't know until the third book.

Stubborn Mule

Hey, St Mule, this is a great review!

I bet there is no other reviewer anywhere who will make the correllation to Lord of the Flies like that, but you did a very thorough and understandable job of it.  You ought to do this professionally.  

Since I didn't read the book, I would have never known most of the things you mentioned here.  You're right, though; I had a lack of understanding about several things that happened, especially during that awards presentation scene.

As for Harry, I'll just say that I had a special affinity for him after seeing how he was raised as a child, and seeing him sleeping in that closet under the stairs.  From that moment on, I was cheering his every accomplishment, and perhaps giving his character a bit more credit than I would have for most characters' actions and mannerisms.  That was just something personal within me, though, and your assessment here is certainly probably more accurate.  I am now biased in my own feelings about Daniel Radcliffe's acting abilities, because now I love him.  

Love,
Sir Jacob

Cal,

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the movie and will buy the DVD when it comes out.  I hope to go see it again with a certain  9 y/o boy that I know.  I too had read the books awhile back.  However, I did reread them before going to see the movie and then again after the movie.  Right now, I've read all four books four times.  That shows you how bored I am right now.  I reading them because I got tired of spending time on the computer.  Even though a certain boy movie database web script has been put on hold.

In many ways, I wish that they had made it a mini series instead of a block buster because I think it could have been a great series.  I know there were many things that had to be left out because of time.  I just wished there was a few things left in because it made the story flow better.  For example, in the book the trouble they get into for helping Hagrid get rid of a grown Norbert was better then the silly way they did it in the movie.  It showed their caring side and their idea of being a true friend.  As it was, you didn't see anything except Hagrid getting rid of it.  Nor did you get the idea that Neville felt betrayed by Harry and the rest.  The potion scene would not film very well so they should have changed the end of the year speach to say her Herbology knowledge was exceptional.  It would have made more sense.

As for Harry, yes his character being mistreated at the Dursley was done well but the tension over the letters fell flat because it was rushed in the movie.

Stubborn Mule

I would agree that the movie is only so-so based on how good the source material is.  Columbus did go out of his way to stay faithful to the original book and not "hollywood" the story, but the movie did lack both the charm and edginess of the original book.  I thought that the movie was a faithful but bland adapatation.

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

I saw again this movie this evening and I liked the play of the boys actors, in particular Rupert GRINT in part of Ron WEASLEY but also Daniel RATCLIFFE in part of Harry POTTER and Tom FELTON in part of Draco MALFOY. My movie rating is 8/10.