I can remember waiting in line for movie premieres back in the day. Star Wars, Indiana Jones etc. It seems there was never a shortage of event films worth waiting for. However, most of the 90's seemed to produce event movies that never lived up to the hype. This holiday season, we have two films that have enormous buzz and will probably cause massive line ups across the nation. One is the highly anticipated Lord of the Rings (opening December 19). The other is Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone based on the beloved J.K. Rowling book.

First off, I must confess that I have never read the books despite the fact that I have friends who tell me they're a must read. Secondly, I haven't felt that incredible desire to see the film in the way so many others have which is fine because going into a movie with lower expectations is always a good thing. It usually keeps me from being disappointed. For those not familiar, Harry Potter is a fantasy about a young orphan who's life is plunged into a world of wonder when he is sent to Hogwarts, a school for wizardry. While there, he's introduced to a world that he never knew existed. Potter is much happier in his new home. After all, he's making all kinds of friends (and enemies), and in Hogwarts, he feels his life has a purpose. Of course, what would this picture be without some thrills. Before long, Harry and his new pals are thrust into unexpected adventures.

Harry Potter is a huge cocktail made up of elements from other magical fantasy tales. For instance we have obvious shades of Wizard of Oz and Willy Wonka, while the adventure aspects of the film are reminiscent of Indiana Jones and director Chris Columbus' own Goonies and Young Sherlock Holmes (both of which he wrote the screenplays for). I was even slightly reminded of Top Gun (Hogwarts features teams of students competing for points in various competitions). Despite the fact I was reminded of other films, I never felt that Harry Potter was ripping these pictures off. These moments were subtle enough that they felt more like a wink or a homage to the stories that inspired it. Columbus is more than competent with the scope of the material. This movie is big, but sometimes that isn't enough.

Perhaps Harry Potter's strongest point is the brilliant casting. Having discussed the book with many colleagues, Daniel Radcliffe is the perfect Harry bringing a sweet sense of wonder to his pivotal role. Also terrific are Emma Watson (as bossy Hermione Ganger) and Ron Weasley (as the funny Rupert Grint). Harry Potter also benefits form a supporting dream cast of veterans including Alan Rickman, John Hurt, Richard Harris, John Cleese, Maggie Smith, Julie Walters and Warwick Davis (who you may remember as Willow). My favorite turn comes from Robbie Coltrane as a lovable giant who befriends Harry.

As expected, the special effects are a big part of this picture. Most impressive is the flying broom sporting event, an exciting sequence that stands well on it's own but doesn't really do anything to move the story along. And while most of the other effects are impressive, some didn't cut it (the troll looked like a left over effect from The Mummy Returns.)

Much has been made about Chris Columbus and his attempt to be faithful to the material. That's something I can't really comment on. I've been told that the movie is very close to the book. Therefore, Harry Potter has much more to live up to when being viewed by someone who is familiar with the novels. The screenplay was written by the talented Steve Kloves (Wonder Boys). What I really want to comment on is the pacing and tone of the movie. Harry Potter has a running time of two and a half hours which seems a bit long for a family film. Younger kids in the audience will, no doubt, get a bit antsy. Lengthy movies don't bother me unless they are unable to hold my interest. Sadly, Harry Potter does have tedious stretches that easily could have been cut. I must also confess that I never completely bought into the magic of this picture which is essential if your going to enjoy the experience. Although much of it enchanted me, I was never completely won over like I was in The Wizard of Oz.

It should also be noted that some of this movie will probably scare younger audiences. This isn't a gripe, it's just a warning. After all, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves scared many youngsters as well.

Is Harry Potter a bad movie? Absolutely not. Is is the work of brilliance so many claim it to be? I don't think so. One thing is for sure. I am interested in what the next story has in store for us. Now that the characters have been established, they can leave the confines of Hogwarts and engage in some real adventure. With the money this picture is going to take in, I'm sure the next installment is just a couple of years away.