A perspective almost nine years after the hype

Rating: 8/10 (4 October 2010)

"Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" marked the first time I ever counted down the days to a film's release. I had read the first four books, loved every single one of them, and I was eagerly anticipating seeing one of my favorite world's come to life on the big screen. I was not disappointed. It remains, to date, one of the best cinema going experiences of my life.
Nine years later, I decided to rewatch it, unsure if, after all these years and subsequent installment, my enjoyment would be diluted. Thankfully, that was not the case. While "The Sorcerer's Stone" may not have been the magical experience it was when I first saw it, it was nonetheless entertaining, sometimes inspired, usually engaging, and fast moving.
One of the things that struck me about this film was the production design. Stuart Craig, who remained production designer throughout the series, is masterful in bringing the wonderful world of "Harry Potter" to life. From the bustling streets of Diagon Alley, to the autumn-colored, medieval halls of Hogwarts, Craig terrifically brings this alternate world to life.
Most of the adult actors are quite good. Robbie Coltrane gives arguably the best performance as Hagrid, the deeply-caring gamekeeper who treats Harry almost like a surrogate son. Even when he's doing wrong, like hatching dragon eggs, you still root and sympathize for him. Richard Harris is also wonderful as the (mostly) soft-spoken and strong-hearted Albus Dumbledore. It is saddening that he only got to play the role in two movies and we never got the chance to see him evolve his character to the finale. You also have Fiona Shaw and Richard Griffiths are quite funny in their over-the-top performances as the Dursleys. Alan Rickman oozes contempt as Severus Snape, the lone teacher who can't stand Harry. And Dame Maggie Smith lets everyone know who's in charge as the stern Professor McGonagall.
The cast of children are sometimes hit-and-miss, but overall there are more hits. Daniel Radcliffe usually makes a compelling lead as Harry Potter, although there are a couple of points where he seems to be just making sure he gets out his lines. Likewise, Rupert Grint (as best mate Ron Weasley) has a little trouble playing off other characters, although his comic timing is usually good. Emma Watson is not afraid to show off as the bossy, sometimes pretentious, but ultimately clever and well-intended Hermione Granger. She tends to get the best bits of comedy in the film; I laughed the hardest when, after Harry breaks a rule that could lead to his expulsion, Watson mutters with pure pretentious contempt, "What- an- idiot." One other child actor who makes a good, evil impression is Tom Felton as Draco Malfoy. I need not mention how much of a shock it was seeing all of these actors so young after watching them in "The Half-Blood Prince"!
Steven Kloves wrote the script, and while I wish he had let some scenes last longer, he makes up for that by trying to keep focus on the characters in Hogwarts and inserting a good amount of humor into the film. Kloves, probably trying to ensure he could please as many book readers as possible, sticks close to the original text, and that leads to both good and not-so-good traits of the film. While there are plenty of random pleasures, the direction of the story doesn't become very clear until halfway through.
Chris Columbus would not have been my first choice for director but he holds his own here. He clearly takes a great interest into the sheer wonder of the world of magic, and he strikes many tones correctly in the picture, from comic (anything with the Dursleys), to horrific (in the Forbidden Forest), and to emotive (the first encounter with the Mirror of Erised, one of the rare scenes that feels as long as it should). Still, some scenes leave more of a punch to be desired. When poor Neville Longbottom accidentally goes veering into walls on a broomstick, Columbus doesn't perfectly capture how absurd it it that Madam Hooch's reaction is for him to somehow come back down on his own will. No wonder J.K. Rowling had Terry Gilliam as one of her first choices for director.
Two other quibbles significantly bring down the picture. The first is a plot inconsistency. "Voldemort" is apparently a name that is so feared, people say "You-Know-Who" instead. However, these same character tend to quickly proceed to say "Voldemort" anyway. I'm kind of surprised Columbus, Kloves, and editor Richard Francis Bruce somehow missed this. Second, the special effects, while usually effective, sometimes get too herky-jerky, particularly during the Quidditch game.
Still, those are minor to what I consider to be the greatest strength of "The Sorcerer's Stone"... THE SCORE! John Williams perfectly captures all of the appropriate feelings of the film, molding the music into becoming integral to the storytelling itself. No doubt Williams would have won the Oscar had it not been for Howard Shore's also brilliant score to the first "Lord of the Rings" film. Frequently while watching this film, I found myself simply listening to the picture, allowing John's score to carry me through the scene. I strongly believe that had his score not been in this film, my score would be a 7 and not an 8.
So there you have it. While "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" is probably not the best installment in the Harry Potter series, it is nonetheless effective. There's good acting, great production design, fantastic visuals, funny comedy, a great deal of wonder, and all sorts of other things that make this an entertaining and fast-moving film. The sense of joy I got back in 2001 isn't there anymore, but there's still pleasure, and that's good enough.