Country:
USA
Recognizable Faces:
Daniel Radcliffe
Emma Watson
Rupert Grint A.K.A Ginger Kid
Directed By:
Chris Columbus
I dreaded the day I'd have to st through a Harry Potter movie. I loathed it because I knew pertinently that all the smack talk I made about it would not live up to the story. I knew I would like it somehow. And I did. I watched it over at the in-laws and before I had time to think "what the hell is going on"? The movie was over. Don't get me wrong. It's a great family movie (directed by Mr. Home Alone Chris Columbus himself by the way and an entertainment that equals....I don't know...Lord Of The Rings (which I'm not the biggest fan of) maybe? In its Hollywoodian form.I'm just not sure it lives up to the hype stupid people made for it.
So Harry (Radcliffe) is this one kid that survived a Voldemort "death tour" a few years ago and he is forever marked with a forehead scar and some kind of schoolyard celebrity among all the sorcerers. Some bearded dude name Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) picks him up and since Harry's parents are dead, he follows him to the sorcerer's school of Hogwarts, instead of thinking the big man might be a pervert ad go to the police. Over there, his life changes, he's introduced to a new social environment and the whole folklore of his birth, which has to do with Voldemort, who has nothing better to do than to haunt the woods around Hogwarts. There's a reason to that, he wants the philosopher's stone of Nicolas Flamel, that is hidden in the basement. That would give him back his body and since Harry is a little young, that would spell trouble for him. So Harry and his classmates Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Ginger Kid) and trying to not let this happen.
Here you go. That's Harry Potter for you in a nutshell. Real standard "I'm-taking-responsibility-for-who-I-am" kid stuff. And it's well done too. The movie (and probably the books too), channels some images from popular "magician culture", like Dumbledore wearing a Merlin-Wizard-Suit (by the way, why did J.K Rowling bothered saying he was gay? He's like the most asexual character there is), or even less subtle figures like Cerberus, centaurs and unicorns. The Rowling story makes a good job at hinting "well, all the legends you've ever read are true, they are just around the corner, at train station 9 3/4". It's a heartwarming family story about an orphan who discovers he has the power to change his fate if he accepts to take responsibility from an obscenely young age. The premise is great and to some extent, it works throughout the whole two hours the movie lasts.
One of the social effects of the Harry Potter tidal wave was to convince a lot of non-readers into reading the ungodly long J.K Rowling novels. I have nothing against the idea of turning people into reading. It's a good thing. But let's not kid ourselve. It's a CHILDREN STORY. J.K Rowling says it herself on her Twitter: "Children's Author". There's an underlying meaning to be understood here. Harry Potter is not the be-all-end-all of literature. It's a good entry door in the wonderful world of books. It makes a lot more sense than Eat, Pray, Love. But how many hysterical freaks do you see clogging up your favorite book store for three days when the new Harry Potter book comes out, only to disappear until the next one? Harry Potter didn't turn much people into readers, it just turned Harry Potter into that weird cultural icon.
I will never bother reading the Trollopian-length Harry Potter novels. There are too many good books and so little time in life to bother spending that much time with children literature, now that I'm 28. It's just not my thing. Will, I watch the movies though? Hell yes. It's really standard -stuff family entertainment and as you heard me whining for months here about the lack of decent models for youth, I'm not going to spit on a tale that has something good to offer. Harry Potter & The Sorcerer's Stone is about leaving childhood, understanding who you are and taking responsibility for it. People that saw Quiddich, curses and the wonderfully-creative-universe-of-Hogwarts missed the points. It's not "a triumph for imagination" but it's something that you gain to have in your personal culture.
SCORE: 75%
So Harry (Radcliffe) is this one kid that survived a Voldemort "death tour" a few years ago and he is forever marked with a forehead scar and some kind of schoolyard celebrity among all the sorcerers. Some bearded dude name Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) picks him up and since Harry's parents are dead, he follows him to the sorcerer's school of Hogwarts, instead of thinking the big man might be a pervert ad go to the police. Over there, his life changes, he's introduced to a new social environment and the whole folklore of his birth, which has to do with Voldemort, who has nothing better to do than to haunt the woods around Hogwarts. There's a reason to that, he wants the philosopher's stone of Nicolas Flamel, that is hidden in the basement. That would give him back his body and since Harry is a little young, that would spell trouble for him. So Harry and his classmates Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Ginger Kid) and trying to not let this happen.
Here you go. That's Harry Potter for you in a nutshell. Real standard "I'm-taking-responsibility-for-who-I-am" kid stuff. And it's well done too. The movie (and probably the books too), channels some images from popular "magician culture", like Dumbledore wearing a Merlin-Wizard-Suit (by the way, why did J.K Rowling bothered saying he was gay? He's like the most asexual character there is), or even less subtle figures like Cerberus, centaurs and unicorns. The Rowling story makes a good job at hinting "well, all the legends you've ever read are true, they are just around the corner, at train station 9 3/4". It's a heartwarming family story about an orphan who discovers he has the power to change his fate if he accepts to take responsibility from an obscenely young age. The premise is great and to some extent, it works throughout the whole two hours the movie lasts.
One of the social effects of the Harry Potter tidal wave was to convince a lot of non-readers into reading the ungodly long J.K Rowling novels. I have nothing against the idea of turning people into reading. It's a good thing. But let's not kid ourselve. It's a CHILDREN STORY. J.K Rowling says it herself on her Twitter: "Children's Author". There's an underlying meaning to be understood here. Harry Potter is not the be-all-end-all of literature. It's a good entry door in the wonderful world of books. It makes a lot more sense than Eat, Pray, Love. But how many hysterical freaks do you see clogging up your favorite book store for three days when the new Harry Potter book comes out, only to disappear until the next one? Harry Potter didn't turn much people into readers, it just turned Harry Potter into that weird cultural icon.
I will never bother reading the Trollopian-length Harry Potter novels. There are too many good books and so little time in life to bother spending that much time with children literature, now that I'm 28. It's just not my thing. Will, I watch the movies though? Hell yes. It's really standard -stuff family entertainment and as you heard me whining for months here about the lack of decent models for youth, I'm not going to spit on a tale that has something good to offer. Harry Potter & The Sorcerer's Stone is about leaving childhood, understanding who you are and taking responsibility for it. People that saw Quiddich, curses and the wonderfully-creative-universe-of-Hogwarts missed the points. It's not "a triumph for imagination" but it's something that you gain to have in your personal culture.
SCORE: 75%
