The best looking "B" grade film in history!

Rating: Null/10 (1 December 2001)

Now pay attention students (You thought I was going to say "007" then, didn't you?), lets get this straight...HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE (PHILOSOPHER'S STONE in just about every country but the US) is NOT a great movie. The most expensive to date maybe, certainly hyped and marketed into the stratosphere, but despite many redeeming features which I will get to later, it remains curiously ordinary!
The over-riding problem with the film can be summed up in two words. Daniel Radcliffe! Critics, devotees, Potter obsessionalists can say what they like..."but, but he's SUPPOSED to be just an ordinary boy..."Yeah? well where does it say he has to display not one shred of charisma? Rowling's Potter is a bit of a lad...heaps of charisma on tap, Radcliffe looks OK, but the instant he opens his mouth in the opening scenes, the film is doomed! The lad just doesn't have it!!!! This is WIMP with a capital W! His two co-stars, Rupert Grint as Ron "Know wot I mean?" Weasley and Emma Watson as Hermione "just watch out for me when I grow up" Granger leave him for dead. Watson especially acts the other two off the screen. She "has it!" Bitchy little thing and cute as all hell, she should have her own spin-off series! But, back to Radcliffe! He spends the majority of the movie looking totally bemused and looking for the chalk-marks to stand on! Victorious, more by luck than judgment in the Quidditch match, he seems as surprised as anyone at the outcome! To be fair, it is his first 'spin at the wheel' and perhaps he may improve, although I suspect it will be more a case of having to having to block him out and concentrate on other things, to get much out of the sequels.
Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid the giant gatekeeper, carries the movie! He is wonderfully convincing and imparts both the gruff kindness and moral strength the role demands. At times, especially early in the piece, you can see him clearly trying to WILL Radcliffe to act, hoping to lead by example. He supports his willing but clearly over-awed co-star to the very best of his ability. You can see him giving Radcliffe a hug after the first take saying "Not bad Daniel, not bad....now, lets try it THIS way!!!" The flick is in "worthwhile" mode, whenever Coltrane is on-screen, which fortunately is quite often!
Richard Harris excels as Hogwarts Headmaster, Albus Dumbledore. He can play this type of role in his sleep now. At all times however one could be forgiven for thinking that here again is Marcus Aurelius, deeply self-contemplative and dignified. Look closely at the scene where he is explaining to Harry to forego the delights of the magic mirror and to be aware of the need to rely on self-determination rather than the false promises of dreams. Is he not back in his tent with Russell Crowe here, saying much the same thing? Unfortunately, Harris/Dumbledore have little enough screen time, cut down significantly from the original book.
The same might be said of Alan Rickman, who's performance as professor Severus Snape is the thespian highlight of the movie. As teacher of Spells and Potions, he just oozes menace and hidden ambition. His contribution to HARRY POTTER is unfortunately somewhat restricted, much like John Cleese's thirty odd seconds screen-time which are a complete waste of his presence.
Maggie Smith, who has propped up British movies for decades, is perfect as Deputy Headmistress Minerva McGonagall. She imparts just the right blend of loftiness and kindly understanding that J K Rowling had in mind when she wrote the book.
Amongst the other star roles, Ian Hart is fine as Professor Quirrell and John Hurt, looking way over 100 (what's happened to him????) is Ollivander, who gives Harry his first wand (Another scene where Radcliffe simply looks too stunned for words!)
Besides the casting of Radcliffe, the principal fault with the movie is its lack of continuity. Columbus has obviously tried to remain faithful to the book, knowing that millions of readers worldwide would have screamed the place down had he veered much from the original. In doing so however we now are presented with a series of "sequences" from the book, but which are not linked with any particular purpose or intent. It is obvious that the production team have decided, "Right, well lets start with Harry's home in Privet Lane!" It looks like it WAS the first scene shot too, Radciffe appears to be a stunned mullet at this juncture! After that Columbus has decided "OK, now we'll shoot the Quidditch match!" then the 'Platform 9 and three quarters' bit (sheesh, forget Julie Walters wouldja!). The Hogwarts Express comes over well (must have cost a truck load of $'s in makeover!) The all up result though is simply loosely related scenes as they have ticked off their filmed wish-list! In doing this however, a principal Rowling plot development centering on Lord Voldermort has been butchered and then puttied-in with the Unicorn sequence.
The FX however, are the real stars of the movie. The London parallel/universe streets, the goblins, the wonderfully gothic Hogwarts School of Magic, its grounds, Quidditch field and corridors. The changing steps with a touch of the DARK CITY's! and of course, the owls, three-headed dog and other magical creatures, most especially Hagrid's cutest of cute, baby dragon! (It almost redeemed the entire film just on its own) All THIS the younger viewers will see, caring not one bit about continuity, acting accomplishments etc. From THEIR viewpoint, the film delivers all the magic of the book, it is the adult viewer will see through it.
Maybe WE weren't ever supposed to be there?