And so began a decade-defining saga...

Rating: 9/10 (11 November 2018)

"What's a Muggle?"
Two minutes after the film started and that was the first question I asked, my young brother told me the word defined people without magical abilities. A sort of wizard-goyim I guess. Anyway, I can't describe the satisfaction I felt over getting that simple information. Knowing the meaning of "Muggle" was strangely overwhelming.
Indeed, the series stopped almost one decade ago, started nearly two, and the books are now part of pop (and legitimate) culture and children's literature heritage... so the fact that I resisted so long gave an additional aura of mystification and I was getting my first real peek on the classic. Forget about Harry Potter, Hermione, Voldemort and Dumbledore (names I got amateurishly mixed), I lost a virginity when I knew what the Muggle was. My curiosity deepened and I was ready to embrace J.K. Rowling's universe. I wasn't a Muggle anymore.
And I was glad I waited for so long, I knew I wouldn't get all the names right, I hadn't read the books (I was a teen when the film came out), I wasn't millennial enough to be part of the Harry Potter mania unlike my brother (who's ten years younger) and had his childhood shaped by the bespectacled sorcerer, Pikachu and Lizzie McGuire. I didn't even have the basic curiosity of the average movie lover because I was never into fantasy or movies about magic to begin with. I thought such stories could provide any contrived twist or last-minute Ex Machina simply by toying with their own rules. When a curse can be done or undone, when powers leave no holds barred, what are the stakes? Where's the danger?
I'm glad I could undo the curse of my lousy stubbornness and watch for the first time the first opus of the century-defining saga "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone". I enjoyed every bit of it and I found it a charm I knew was going to fade over the course of my discovery. You know when you look back to the first movies. I suspected the tone was going to get darker as the kids grow up, as JK Rowling got more confidence in her success and didn't try to make something trendy or fun. So I savored the first film not as a franchise starter, but like as a standalone, charming fantasy movie, confident that Chris Columbus was the right director and that every cast-member was the right choice.
Cast-wise, the director respected Rowling's condition before selling the book's rights so the film is a roll-call of all established British and/or Irish actors: Richard Harris as the Merlin-like wizard Dumbledore, Maggie Smith as Professor McGonagol, scene-stealing Robbie Coltrane as the gentle giant Hagrid, the one who gratifies us with every information we'd need to let the plot move on despite a catchphrase that consists of "I shouldn't have said that". Also starring John Hurt, Alan Rickman, Richard Griffith, Ian Hart, Fiona Shaw, and three baby-faced newcomers named Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint.
The film is a school-case of how to get the right actors to play the right parts... and that goes for the little ones. If you examine the child actors, they're not perfect but never is the imperfection undermining the believability of their characters: they're kids with magical powers so we have to consider that their normal behavior is also conditioned by such abilities. And maybe that was the core of Harry Potter's appeal, ordinary children dealing with extraordinary powers. When they listen to advice, they know more than anyone the extent of the danger awaiting them... when they learn tricks or magical spells, they can't be too excited either, they learn it like stuff they would teach you in class.
The adult actors convey the perfect mix of normality-within-strangeness. In fact, the whole film is about an extraordinary world showed in the most mundane and matter-of-factly way, and the reason why it works so well is the same as comedy. Comedies don't feature people making other people laugh, actually, seeing someone angry can be the funniest thing. Fantasy works the same way, you can't have characters being impressed every second, let the viewers do all the wowing... but then again, Harry Potter is the newcomer so he represents our own perspective, he's got that capability to be impressed, to enjoy his powers like a "normal" child would do.
And that's the charm of the film: we're amazed at the magic and at Harry's own amazement, it finds the right balance between fantasy and "reality" in every single department: acting, storytelling and naturally set design. Hogwarts Schools looks like your typical British school with its high walls, Victorian decorations and Dickensian interiors but never exactly feels like a haunted mansion. There are also sscenes set in plain daylight with a comforting blue sky like the brooms training and the unforgettable Quidditch game.
And here and there, you have a few effects to keep you on guars. There's a scene where Harry Potter opens a book and I got my first jump scare, I like that this scary gag isn't overplayed, one is just enough, like Ebert said: it is scary but not too scary. The story never lets itself being dependent on "effects", and cares about Potter and his friends above everything else, providing him a promising backstory, explaining his scar on the forehead, his magical gift and why he's got a nemesis already.
On a side note, 2001 was a terrific year for the fantasy genre as it saw the release of three successful franchise: "Shrek", "The Lord of the Rings" and "Harry Potter" as the most family-friendly. I read about the title's translation that the producers were afraid to use "Philosopher" instead of "Sorcerer". I think they should used the French title; "Harry Potter and the Wizard School", that was catchy enough without being too misleading.