Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

I remember towards the end of high school hearing about the Harry Potter books and in Grade 12, I saw the first movie poster for “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone”. While in my first year of university, I saw the first scene ever shown on television and I decided to investigate what all the fuss was about. I came out of the movie theater understanding fully why there is such appeal for “Harry Potter”. It shares themes with many other blockbusters and literary masterpieces. The story is still original and the characters are so well created. This is a film review of course and so the criticism that follows is centered on how well the first book was brought to life on film. Whenever you reboot a franchise or adapt something for the movie screen, you must satisy old fans and newcomers. I was completely sold as a newcomer and as time goes on, the first film feels more introductory in nature.

The first Harry Potter book is the only one in the series that I have not read through cover-to-cover. I like that I saw the movie first because later when I began to read the books starting with the second, I could clearly imagine everything I read. I could see the characters’ faces and the scene in my mind. The opening shot of “The Sorcerer’s Stone” must have been very exciting for fans as they read the sign: “Privet Drive”. I like the first scene in the film because we feel somewhat lost as to what is going on. This allowed those members of the audience, like myself who hadn't read the book, to see the story through Harry’s eyes. Harry Potter’s known world at the start of the story is very dismal when compared to other heroic characters from film and literature. This sympathy that the audience feels for Harry is very important for the story of the entire franchise. It makes for great drama as Harry ends up accomplishing “great things” (Even that quote feels like an understatement now that all the movies have been released). The Harry Potter books and subsequently the films follow the narrative pattern of Joseph Campbell’s “The Hero’s Journey”. Harry receives the “call to adventure” from Hagrid and at first refuses the call, claiming that he is “just Harry”. He changes his mind at the end of the scene and accepts his quest, just like other characters such as Luke Skywalker or Frodo Baggins. Harry “crosses the threshold” from his known world to the unknown in the Leaky Cauldron and Diagon Alley scenes. The film audience also experiences this figuratively because for the first time, we are seeing the wizarding world. I enjoy how Harry is first exposed to his fame. I like the scene where Hagrid tells Harry the story of Voldemort. It is a well-crafted piece of exposition in the film and is well narrated. I enjoy scene with the troll because Harry, Ron and Hermione become a functional team for the first time. Other great scenes include Snape’s first day of potions class, Madam Hooch’s flying lesson and the Quidditch match. The film, and I must assume the book, portray many fine lessons and themes such as the power of love. I also like Dumbledore’s line: “It does not do to dwell on dreams, Harry, and forget to live.”

I feel that the filmmakers were highly successful in staying faithful to the book. Everyone that I have talked to says that the film looks quite identical to what they have imagined while reading. I also feel that they paid special attention to establishing the film franchise that was sure to follow this film. Some examples of this include the scene with Ollivander because this scene sets up the climax to “The Goblet of Fire”. Other scenes have become more important as the franchise has progressed. The scene on the Hogwarts Express where Harry, Ron and Hermione first meet feels much more monumental today despite the fact that nothing extremely special happens. The boat ride to Hogwarts and the scene with the sorting hat are other examples of moments in the first film that have taken on much more importance with the passage of time. The filmmakers did make some changes in the adaptation and when you consider them, you hopefully understand that they made for wise reasons. I like for example how the enchantments that protect the stones were limited to three. Each of the tasks becomes a proving ground in turn for each of the three main characters. I am impressed by the list of directors that were considered to make this movie. I am happy that Chris Columbus got the job because I love “Home Alone”, “Home Alone 2” and “Mrs. Doubtfire”. I feel that the only other director on the aforementioned list that would have done just as good of a job, if not better, is Steven Spielberg. Columbus’ best directorial quality is his use of environments and color. The film feels magical and childlike because of him. Because of the “Home Alone” movies, he knows how to portray Christmas as seen in the middle of the film. When you look at John Williams’ resume, it gives me such joy to have him as the composer for this first film. His opening theme has become just as famous as other themes that he has written over the years for other movies.

The casting of the film is biggest reason for the success of the movie, indeed the franchise, in my opinion. I feel that casting unknown children in the lead roles was the only way to go. The characters are much more important than the names of the actors in my view. Considering how beloved these three characters were at the time of the release of “The Sorcerer’s Stone”, casting unknowns worked amazingly well. Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson did just fine in performing their roles. I had seen Tom Felton previously in "The Borrowers" but didn't recognize him until long after the release of "The Sorcerer’s Stone". An amazing group of actors supported these child actors. I was familiar with and respected many of them at the time of the film’s release. I loved the Oscar-nominated actor Richard Harris in “Gladiator” and his persona was strongly felt in “Harry Potter” (there was a definite change in the series once he passed away). I like how J. K. Rowling wanted Oscar-royal Maggie Smith to play McGonagall. In my judgment, Smith therefore becomes the only actor who should be in that role. I liked her work in “Hook”. I find it funny how Tim Roth was asked to play Snape but he turned it down for “Planet of the Apes”. I think everyone is glad that Alan Rickman landed the role because I like his work in “Die Hard” and most especially “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves” (his character in “Die Hard” is on the American Film Institute’s list of the top 50 movie villains). I enjoyed the performances of other actors in this film such as Ian Hart, John Hurt, Warwick Davis and John Cleese. I was introduced to Robbie Coltrane because of this movie and he was very appealing as Hagrid. He was also a first choice of Rowling’s and that also means a lot to me. Because I was unfamiliar with Coltrane at the time, I was fooled completely into thinking he is really that tall.

The story, the characters, the direction and the actors among other elements make “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” a very good movie. I became a fan of Harry Potter thanks to this film and as mentioned, I began to read the books starting with the second. This movie received Academy Award nominations for Costume Design, Art Direction and Musical Score but the competition that year was too powerful and that is unfortunate. The themes of the story are timeless and the appeal of this film will hopefully last. Considering the nature of the concluding films in the Harry Potter series, the world will hopefully not view this first installment as childish but rather as the film that started it all. “The Sorcerer’s Stone” was very faithful to the book and this level of quality was maintained throughout the series. The sequel relates extremely well to this initial movie, which is very hard to achieve in filmmaking

4.5 stars