A decent movie, but incredibly overrated.

Rating: Null/10 (3 June 2004)

'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone' is the first installment of the Harry Potter books on-screen. Certainly it is better made than the sequel, 'Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets'. However, I believe the best of the series is yet to come, as the first two books were a bit weak.

I liked this movie when I first saw it, and was overrating it EXTREMELY when it first came out, and praised without glancing at the flaws. Three years later, I have been disillusioned.
The biggest screw-up was nothing but a minor hitch, but it mattered a lot. At one point in the movie, after talking about the 'Sorcerer's Stone' endlessly, Daniel Radcliffe says 'Philosopher's Stone'. What does this say about the editing? Nothing good.
Steve Cloves' adaptation from Rowling's book is a mixed bag. Instead of butchering the source material as he did in 'The Chamber of Secrets', Cloves stayed true to the story, cutting some obstacles along the way. But had these rejected scenes been retained, the movie would be a solid bit of storytelling, and the introduction might not have been a third of the runtime. I don't mean the movie should have been longer, only that the introduction should have been shorter. The movie is too long.

One of the things that saves the movie is the special effects team. Fluffy is utterly believable as a flesh-and-bone dog, no matter how bizarre he might be. That is an achievement, as many fantastical creatures out of stories look like just that: fake and fantasy.
'The Sorcerer's Stone' is at its best when showing off some special effects and mixing action with drama and suspense. The epic game of Wizard's Chess is the highlight, followed by the final Voldemort scene. The Quidditch match is exciting, and again, completely believable. No one could raise an objection saying, 'They don't look like they're flying.' Because they do.

The adult acting in the movie is solid, and I have no complaints. Richard Harris as Dumbledore is a gem. Harris will always be my Dumbledore, and cannot be replaced (although he will be). May he rest in peace.

The young actors, however, leave much to be desired. Emma Watson as Hermione is the best, although she could be better. At times she pulls off an emotional look well, at other times it's flat and robotic. Rupert Grint (Ron) is abysmal. Every syllable he speaks makes his face twitch violently. Every would-be emotional expression looks like a painful convulsion. The exaggeration is beyond such words. Daniel Radcliffe is the title Potter, and shows better acting ability than Grint. He's better in this movie than the sequel, and seems just the balance between Watson's decency and Grint's absolute idiocy. Three of each kind. Lucius Malfoy is better than all three, but he still messed up a few times.
The Harry Potter series should get better with 'The Prisoner of Azkaban'. But the following books, composed of several hundreds of pages of fascinating storytelling, might simply be beyond the scope of this decade's filmmaking possibilities. At least for now, 'The Sorcerer's Stone' hasn't ruined the series, and convinced some viewers to keep track of the series like bloodhounds. Potter will live to fight another year, but only just.