Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

Since I’ve only watched each movie in the Harry Potter series about 100 times by now (thank you ABC Family), I think its about time for me to write some true reviews. It’s almost been a decade since Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was released and the quality of the franchise has improved so steadily that the first couple of movies are nearly unrecognizable. Still, I love me some nostalgia so here we go.

So, I think I’m gonna skip any sort of plot breakdown for these movies. For the later installments I can start pointing out the more significant departures from the books. That isn’t really necessary for the Sorcerer’s Stone because it sticks to the book rather strictly. Outside of no Charlie Weasley, the only really omission is a couple of trials protecting the stone. So no unconscious troll and no potion bottle logic test. Ah well, major stuff will start going missing down the road so this is quite quaint.

When Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone came out there was just no idea of what we were about to get. At that point in time, it was still viewed as a children’s book series. The more adult books hadn’t been released and the phenomenon was still in its infancy. There was a very good chance that the Sorcerer’s Stone would just be a forgettable childish fluff filmed to just cash in. The first sign that this wouldn’t be the case was the their attempt to cast every single top shelf British actor. All of the major adult roles were given to people like Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, Fiona Shaw, Richard Griffiths, John Hurt, and Alan Rickman. This might as well have been the cast for one of Shakespeare’s plays. So even if the child actors were terrible, there was too much talent surrounding them to make a bad movie. Luckily Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint weren’t terrible but since this is about the Sorcerer’s Stone, they were still children here and just trying hard not to get in the way of the story.

The other big positive that the first movie made clear was the tone of the film. The Sorcerer’s Stone is the story of an 11-year-old going to his first year of wizard school but thankfully this didn’t mean that we were subject to cheap jokes and bright explosions. These movies have always been told in a serious tone with the magic being used as either a major plot point or just an every day task. The characters always came first and that is why the movie works. Some of the highlights of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone were all the ways that they were able to translate Harry’s wonder at being exposed to world of magic for the first time. From the introduction of Hagrid, to his trip down Diagon Alley, all the way to his arrival at Hogwarts, these were all great moments. The chess set trial was also very well done. And right from the beginning, Alan Rickman owned the role of the Snape and made it impossible to read the book without hearing his voice.

On the negative sign was that this was 10 years ago and the CGI was weak in some scenes. The centaur, troll, and Fluffy could have all looked better. And they only stand out because the rest of the movie looked so damn good. Ah well, you can’t bat a thousand.

Wow, we have go back more than a decade to think about a time where there wasn't a Harry Potter movie to anticipate. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone set the stage by taking this story seriously and making a fantastic film. Later films will have more heavy plots to deal with and better movies will be made but that is not fault of the Sorcerer's Stone.

8 out of 10