Great story on page or screen

ooks always seem to lose something in their translation to film, but "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" compensates for any loss with film's best elements -- motion and detailed pictures. Director Chris Columbus presents J.K. Rowling's novel in a visual arrays of sets, costumes and cast that readers can't imagine with as much detail.\nThe movie starts as the book does; a young orphan with cruel guardians learns of his secret origin. While reading the book, I never gave great thought to the layout of Harry's home, the car in his drive (a Jetta wagon) or a realistic picture of his family. The movie reset my preconceptions by steadying my place in the story and pacing my progress.\nEarly in the movie, I was reminded that this is a children's film. The witches looked too much like fairy tale witches, which conflicted with my image of them as able to blend with modern society. The fairy tale characters are for the children, the core audience. Children want them to look different from average people because witches are not average people.\nHogwart's School for Witches and Wizards is nearly over-stimulating. Everything has intricate details that increases the importance of the setting. The wood grain on the table and walls look freshly waxed. Stones walls and staircases are cold and fitting for a castle.\nThe best use of detail comes in the Quidditch scene. It rivals action sequences from "Star Wars" in excitement. Uniforms are saturated with red, orange and green. Players streak across the screen and make hairpin turns. It is another place where Columbus gives more detail than readers could hope to imagine. It reinforces the novel and turns great into stunning. It is heavy with use of computer graphics, but the final scenes remain true to the book to complete a visual picnic.\nCharacter development is not as strong in the movie as in the book. Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is the average kid. The movie relates this as well as the book. In the movie Harry doesn't look as needy as I imagined from the novel. His hair is not as scruffy and his face is too clean, but I was able to adjust and accept the director's visualization of the main character. Harry's personality did not develop as well as in the book -- it was lost in the translation and something motion can't describe alone. Harry's best friends fit their parts better than Radcliffe does his. They display unforced style and warmth and are as humorous and likeable as in the book. They develop enough to make them familiar without distracting from the main plot. Harry's friends have more moments of simple expression than Harry does. Harry has complex moments of pain that Radcliff's expressions do not reflect with adequate emotion. The audience must remember that Harry is a British boy with modest British sensibility as opposed to a brash American, something that's easy to overlook while reading. \nThere were a few changes in the story, but they were more like corrections of things that could have been left from the novel. Several changes detracted from character development, but you can't expect clear definitions of each character in a movie, children's or otherwise.\nOverall, the book should not stand alone. The movie provided so much additional information that it needs to be seen while the book must be read because the characters are more alive in it. The book also provides a better division of good and evil. Finally, reading the book allows you to compare any differences in the movie and why they might be. In either form, this is a great story.