The Griffin or the Agate

Just how important are the months of November and December this year to the future of fantasy literature? In terms of exposure and potential, immeasurably. Two of the most highly hyped films of the year are due to be released, and if they turn out to be as engaging and intoxicating as we hope then a whole new generation, both young and old, will be drawn to the literary genre we already treasure. Success in Hollywood increases interest elsewhere, especially in the publishing world. Can the foundering role-playing game be saved? It's all up to a kid wizard and a band of nine do-gooders to make it happen.
     The first film installment of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Fellowship of the Ring, is set for release in the middle of December. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, the adaptation of the initial novel from author J.K. Rowling, burst onto the screen a bit earlier. And what a splash it made! Record box-office receipts, glowing reviews from other critics, and sensational word of mouth have ensured that Sorcerer's Stone will be a smash hit. The sequel is already in production. But what about the film? Is it as good as it needs to be?
     The movie, helmed by director Chris Columbus, stays loyal to the book. And brother, that's a good thing. There's a reason why the Harry Potter books have become an international phenomenon - they're good. They're better than good. Rowling isn't reinventing the wheel but she's quite adept at misdirection, weaving mystery into her prose. The characters that seem the most threatening often end up saving Potter's bacon. While the books are ostensibly for kids, Rowling doesn't shy away from topics like racism, thievery, and even death. Perhaps it's her willingness to be frank and honest that makes the books so appealing. But what does that have to do with the movie?
     Everything, really, because Columbus proves that he gets it by relying so heavily on the original text. While there are action-filled moments like the Quiddich game and perils of the Third Floor, Sorcerer's Stone shouldn't be classified as an action film. The character development that is richly abundant in the book is allowed to develop and flourish on film as well, and therein lies the magic of the piece. The fact that children, even fairly young ones, were utterly enthralled as the story played out stands as testament to a job well done. The premise, for the three or four people in the world who don't know, is fairly simple: young orphan Harry Potter, who lives under the stairs with his horrible aunt, uncle and nephew, discovers that he has been invited to attended a special school to become a wizard. As he adapts to his new life he discovers that he's an odd sort of celebrity, the only person to ever survive an attack by a wizard so evil and frightening that others won't even speak his name. As he makes friends and struggles to understand his new life he becomes embroiled in stopping the strange goings-on at his school, Hogwarts. The ending raises as many new questions as it provides answers to old ones and will leave you looking forward to the next installment.
     The casting, for the most part, is stellar. Many familiar faces pop in and out, and Alan Rickman steals every scene he's in as the sour, menacing Professor Snape. Even the child actors, always a dangerous area, are up to the task. The kid who plays Ron, Harry's friend, does a bug-eye doubletake on par with Stymie from the Little Rascals. The CGI work is perhaps the only real disappointment - while most effects are fine, others, especially during the Quiddich match, are almost cartoonish. But in no way should any of these minor reasons keep you away from Sorcerer's Stone. It's a nicely done work, and an auspicious beginning to the fantasy one-two punch we're being blessed with this winter.
     Does this mean we can put an end to the Beastmaster movies? Please?   §

Official Movie Site