Little movie magic in Harry Potter

As the screen focuses in on a close up of a boy with round glasses and disheveled, dark brown hair, the audience breaks into wild applause and cheers. From the sound of things, it seems as if the show had just ended when, in fact, it had just begun.

The much anticipated Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (known originally as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone in Great Britain) earned 93.5 million dollars in its first weekend out in theatres. Hundreds of thousands of both children and adults crowded down long lines, waiting to get into theatres to watch a movie which topped even Star Wars in profits.

Harry grows up with his "Muggle" (non-magical) uncle and aunt when he suddenly discovers his magical heritage. He then goes off to train in a special school for students who have similar powers to his. Once he gets there, however, he discovers that he is actually famous for resisting and defeating an evil wizard in his infancy with nothing to show for it other than a purple lightning-bolt-shaped scar on his forhead when hundreds of others had died.

But what exactly is so special about the movie? Not that much, really. In fact, avid readers of the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling will discover that the movie does not live up to the book. The book is filled with much more life and color, with its story jumping out at the reader like a movie in itself.

Director Chris Columbus tried too hard to stay within the lines of the novel in his movie, which results in a film that often feels as if it is being dragged along, with humor that seems like a shabby overcoat added on arbitrarily at times. The whole film seems as if it were pieced together with bits and pieces that, individually, are wonderful, but the end result is more or less unattractive.

And confusing. For moviegoers who have never read any of the books by J.K. Rowling, the movie is a jumble of scenes, each additional one compounding the confusion. Parts of the story are not fully explained by the movie, and in order to fully comprehend what the book so clearly conveys, a viewer of the movie must first have read the novel.

However, the movie does have its moments. The special effects are simply magnificent. The dining hall where the ceiling is actually an image of the night or day skies is breathtaking, with floating candles and food that appears magically at a word from headmaster Dumbledore (Richard Harris). Monsters such as Fluffy, the three-headed dog, and the ogre could almost have walked off of the screen in their realism. The most spectacular portion of the film, however, was the Quidditch game. Quidditch, a more violent form of basketball on broomsticks, is filmed in such a way as to give the audience a feeling for the speed and intensity (and pain!) that its players feel.

The actors cast for the movie fit their roles quite well, albeit with too little charisma at times. Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson) displayed the courage and bravery required for such roles but didn't have as much of the mischievous nature that Rowling leads the reader to believe in her novels. The staff of their school, Hogwarts, was hand picked by Rowling, and whether it was Dumbledore, McGonagall (Maggie Smith), Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) or Snape (Alan Rickman), the role was well played.

The movie left the audience feeling somehow unfulfilled. People well versed in the written copies of Harry Potter may notice the slight cuts of characters and other items from the text, such as the ghost Peeves and the life of Norbert, the dragon. But, these exceptions can be allowed, given the already long length of the movie.

So Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was not all it was hyped up to be. There are things to improve for the next film. And then, perhaps, it will deserve all of the applause it received before and after the film.