A very faithful adaptation - perhaps too faithful.

Rating: 8/10 (17 November 2002)

The Harry Potter books are only the single most popular children's stories in existence - most children under the age of thirteen (and a good chunk of adults as well) can recite the books verbatim. Drawing from fantasy literature and owing quite a debt to earlier writers such as Roald Dahl, J.K. Rowling made her stories about Harry the Wizard into a phenomenon. It's been a merchandising groundswell, a boon to children's literature, and a godsend to parents everywhere. What could be better than having your child dive into a 300+ page book for hours on end? Why, making those books into movies, of course. No pressure.
The trickiest thing about adapting a book to a film is striking the balance between what works on paper and what works on screen. Time is a natural restriction: a book has as long as it needs to describe the setting and the events and can delve into as much detail as the author deems necessary. The reader can always put the book down and start up again another time, after all. A movie, on the other hand, is a one-sitting event. Because of this, it needs to be more concerned about not overwhelming the viewer. When transferring a book to the screen, things are usually streamlined, details (and sometimes characters) are omitted, and the end result is usually a reinvention of the original story.
'Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone' doesn't reinvent the book it's based on. It copies it almost word for word to the screen. Almost nothing is left out, virtually no event is ignored, and the result is a dense film that runs two-and-a-half hours and is virtually indistinguishable from the book. If you've read the book, you've seen the movie. So the question is, was this the right decision?
It's a matter of taste, and the backlash on cutting anything from the original story probably would have been marketing suicide, but it definitely affects the film in terms of pacing. While one of the beauties of reading a story like Harry Potter lies in unraveling the details of this new and strange world over the course of the school year, watching the same thing is a much different experience. In an effort to show you as much as possible about the world Harry now lives in, it walks a very tight line between marvel and overload. If it weren't the most popular book in the world, a tighter film probably would have been made.
That said, 'Sorceror's Stone' is still a beautiful film to watch. The set design of Hogwart's School is breathtaking. Every corner hides a little bit of magical (and computer-generated) trickery. Most of the effects are seamlessly done, with a few minor exceptions (mostly involving wide-angles of flying broomsticks). It's a bit overdone at times, with the swelling score by John Williams and the panning shots of the school and the main hall - but that's the point. Hogwart's is a realm of magic and mystery, and is always presented as larger than life.
Casting is critical to a budding franchise like this one, and in general, 'Sorceror's Stone' gets it right. The kids, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson) drive the entire story, so they are key. All are good choices and seem up for the roles, but Radcliffe and Watson don't quite seem comfortable just yet. Grint, for his part as the lovable loser Ron Weasley, nearly steals the show every time he's on screen - he's got just the right balance of whimsy and mischief mixed with his humble down-home origins.
For the adults, the best castings are Richard Harris as Dumbledore (just right in his wizened expertise, always with a sparkle in his eye that says he knows far more than anyone else does), Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid (the loyal lummox with a heart as big as he is), and best of all, Alan Rickman as Professor Snape (who utters every word, even the most benign, while oozing sinister menace. He's delightful.). Maggie Smith as Professor MacGonagall is also excellent, just as Maggie Smith always is.
This is first in a series, and as such involves a huge amount of exposition and explanation. The entire film is consumed with who Harry is, why he's important, what's going on with all these wizards, and opening doors that will be explored in later episodes. This means characters are introduced that don't do much of anything - yet. (Ginny Weasley and Nearly-Headless Nick, to name two.) This means that the plot surrounding the Sorceror's Stone is necessarily thin. This also means, that if the film (and book before it) has done its job, you'll be back for more when the next ones arrive. On that note, 'Sorceror's Stone' succeeds wonderfully in bringing to life this delightful story of the boy who was a wizard and the remarkable world that invites him in.