FILM MISSES J.K. ROWLING'S WHIMSY, HUMOR TWO AND ONE HALF STARS.

Byline: David Kronke Staff Writer

Never before has such a hullabaloo arisen over faithfully translating a book to the screen than with ``Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.'' J.K. Rowling's best-selling phenomenon is a nice book, a perfectly pleasant book - even a highly entertaining book in places. But it's no ``One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest,'' no ``Catch-22,'' no ``The Unbearable Lightness of Being'' - just a few of the memorable, important books that bore the merest of resemblances to their subsequent movies.

Yet getting ``Harry'' right has been the avowed mission of director Chris Columbus, he of such lightweight diversions as the first two ``Home Alone'' movies, ``Mrs. Doubtfire'' (a ``Brady Bunch'' episode writ large), ``Stepmom'' and ``Bicentennial Man,'' the less said about those last two the better.

On ``Potter,'' though, give Columbus credit - he certainly got the visuals and the plot mechanics reasonably accurate. The only way he and screenwriter Steve Kloves could have been more faithful to the book is if he had literally shot someone turning the pages of the book, one at a time.

At times, Columbus' version of ``Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone'' trucks in the very magic that surrounds Harry and his realm. Hogwarts, the school where Harry learns his powers of wizardry, and Diagon Alley, where he does his back-to-school shopping, are imagined with loving care; production designer Stuart Craig is as big a star here as any of the performers.

But there's more to Rowling's book than its plotting. There's its sprightly whimsy, the jaunty spring in its step, and this is what Columbus has utterly missed. His ``Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone'' frequently feels belabored, a version endorsed by the Surgeon General - it's not enough that it's good, it has to be good for us who love the books, too.

For the uninitiated, Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is a young wizard orphaned by the evil Lord Voldemort; that Voldemort spared him has transformed Harry, behind his back, into the stuff of legend. At age 11, Harry takes leave of his buffoonish aunt and uncle (who force him to sleep under the musty stairs) and the dreary world of humans (or Muggles, in Harry's vernacular) for his true calling at Hogwarts.

There, Harry meets Professors Dumbledore (Richard Harris) and McGonagall (Maggie Smith), who rule Hogwarts' roost, while the genial giant Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) keeps things running. Harry likewise befriends Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint), a chess whiz of a wizard in his older brothers' hand-me-downs, and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), a prissy, sassy know-it-all.

Hogwarts, as befitting any school of wizardry with gravity-defying staircases of no fixed direction, is filled with sinister secrets. Of special note is whatever is hidden in a forbidden wing of the school, protected by a fearsome three-headed dog named Fluffy, and whoever it is trying to finagle their way to the purported treasure - smart money may be on Snape (Alan Rickman), the sinister potions professor.

Snape has it out for Harry from the outset: He embarrasses him in class and even seems to sabotage Harry's promising debut at Quidditch, the fanciful airborne game played on broomsticks featuring good balls, vicious balls and a golden fluttering ball worth big points.

Things that seemed cool and lively in the book - Quidditch, for example, or a game of chess with the kids standing in for playing pieces - are transformed into brute spectacle in Columbus' mitts, coarsely violent and slightly drained of their joy. Worse, the humor is wan, not energizing as in Rowling's writing.

Radcliffe, laudably, underplays his role, which unfortunately means he occasionally fades into the background of Columbus' hubbub. Grint keenly captures Ron's sense of playfulness and modesty. In the book, Hermione was forgiven for being overbearing since it seemed she couldn't help herself; she was just a blabbermouth. Here, her hauteur as embodied by Watson is decidedly willful.

The film's biggest offense is committed by composer John Williams, who frequently ladles on the bombast in his movie scores but just as often manages music of subtlety and power. This may be his most overblown work yet - he even cribs a theme from his own ``Star Wars'' compositions - and, sadly, it's virtually wall-to-wall throughout the movie. (Suggestion for the DVD: a separate volume control for Williams' histrionics.)

Our obsession with fawning over ``Harry'' recalls a recent Time magazine cover - do kids have too much power? The answer, of course, was yes. If our progeny squirm or whine over this film, then the elevated expectations will make us feel as if we have failed our kids. Likewise, if this film should meet with their approval, then adults too should be satisfied. On the other hand, kids are also a notoriously easily pleased audience.

Rowling's glorious contribution to the world with the Harry Potter series was in exciting a young generation to the pleasures of reading. What Columbus has managed is to get that same generation to accept blandly workmanlike, outsize Hollywood product. It's hardly the same accomplishment.