Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) review

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (2001)

Directed by: Chris Columbus

Produced by: David Heyman

Screenplay by: Steve Kloves

Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Robbie Coltrane, Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, Ian Hart, Richard Harris

The following two statements are true, and important to emphasize. British author J.K. Rowling is a transphobe, and her ignorant statements on the matter should not be emulated. She has also created one of my favorite franchises in all of media, full of stories and characters that were huge parts of my adolescence. It’s been a sobering thing to realize Rowling’s ethical flaws, but if there’s one thing to take away from French literary critic Roland Barthes, it’s that an author’s intentions and biographical facts should hold no special weight in determining an interpretation of their writing. It’s a concept called “The Death of the Author,” so if you feel morally conflicted about continuing to enjoy “Harry Potter” as a whole, maybe it can put your mind at ease. With that said, let me take you back to 2001, where an odd, impressionable, bespectacled 11-year-old boy embarked on the journey of a lifetime…I am talking, of course, about myself seeing “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” in theaters. The first film adaptation of Rowling’s best-selling book series about a young orphaned wizard entering a magical world, it’s as close a book-to-movie translation as you can get—for better or worse—capturing the imagination, visual wonder and mystery that would become its trademark.

Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) has had a sad, lonely life; he lives with his abusive Uncle Vernon (Richard Griffiths), Aunt Petunia (Fiona Shaw) and cousin Dudley (Harry Melling) ever since his parents died when he was a baby. But on his 11th birthday, he meets the large, friendly Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), who tells him that he’s actually a wizard, and has been accepted at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Before long, Harry’s off on a magical adventure, where he befriends classmates Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson), learns spells, and flies on broomsticks. However, it’s not all fun and games; they start to uncover a conspiracy about a powerful object hidden inside the school, which apparently involves the bullying Potions professor Severus Snape (Alan Rickman). To save the object—which they come to realize is the Sorcerer’s Stone—from being stolen, they must dodge obstacles like an enormously fierce three-headed dog, a dark, dangerous forest, and a giant sentient chessboard, only to find the ghosts of Harry’s tragic past coming back to haunt him.

Back before the dark storylines and muted atmosphere, it’s stunning and beautiful to see just how vibrant and colorful the production design of the first movie is. In some ways, it’s a perfect method of sucking in casual audiences; as a child, it was like nothing I had ever seen: the hustle and bustle of Diagon Alley, the curiosity of a magical train hidden inside a wall at King’s Cross, the excitement of a Quidditch match, and the absolute awe of the exteriors and interiors of Hogwarts itself. This was a time when live-action fantasy films weren’t really in style; once in a while there were hits like “The Mummy” or ones that mashed genres, but this, along with “The Lord of the Rings,” was a story that made going to new places and facing crazy monsters cool again, the same way that “Star Wars” did back in 1977. The visual effects don’t hold up especially well, especially on the troll or the dog—called Fluffy, naturally—but the overall look of the movie, combined with John Williams’s iconic musical score, is still pretty spectacular. Every film in the franchise, to this day, has been designed by three-time Oscar winner Stuart Craig, who frequently collaborated with set decorator Stephenie McMillan.

There’s not much I can say about the young cast; at this point, Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson all fit the mold of their characters reasonably well, and bring the energy required, which is a testament to director Chris Columbus’s ability with young actors. What we get through Radcliffe as Harry is a way to visually show us as viewers a way to witness something new and incredible. This kid has known nothing but misery, so watching him get so enraptured by the sheer scale and fascination tells us what we need to know about what this world is, as we see it through him. Meanwhile, the adult cast lend the perfect amount of class and gravitas; it’s a virtual who’s-who of some of the best British performers of the time. You’ve got Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid, Alan Rickman as Snape, Maggie Smith as Hogwarts Deputy Headmistress Minerva McGonagall, Richard Harris as Headmaster Albus Dumbledore, and that doesn’t even include cameos by John Hurt and John Cleese. They all provide the exact attitude and pathos required for their characters: Hagrid’s warm aura, McGonagall’s stern presence, Dumbledore’s calming influence, etc. The only character I wanted to see more of is Professor Quirrell (Ian Hart), the turban-adorned Defense Against the Dark Arts professor; considering what happens to him, I feel he should’ve had more of a presence throughout the film.

Now what do I mean when I say “for better or worse” as far as being an adaptation? Well, the first two books are by far the shortest, which makes for less story material to omit when bringing it to the screen. So a lot of the scenes play out with almost word-for-word dialogue; that’s good in theory, but film is a totally different medium, and what works on a page isn’t necessarily going to work the same way on camera. Most of the conversations are devoted to exposition, not really giving the characters a chance to become three-dimensional, and various situations don’t really pay off. One development from the book that honestly makes me cry is when Harry encounters the Mirror of Erised, which allows him to see his parents looking back at him; it’s a sensation that’s described as “half joy, half terrible sadness.” The feeling technically translates here, but it doesn’t hit home the same way. However, the overall weight and depth of the story are still palpable, and through innocent eyes, powerful yet oddly whimsical. When it actually focuses on the mystery of the stone, it’s reasonably paced and interesting.

Quick confession; roughly two years before this film came out, I tried to read the book, but eventually lost interest. Maybe I was too young to properly visualize a story like this playing out; but after seeing it on the big screen, I was obsessed. I started reading the books, collecting games and posters, eventually finding out which Hogwarts house I’d belong to (where my Hufflepuffs at?), and…here we are 21 years later. So for its faults on a character-driven level, “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” still earns credit for its vast creativity and general liveliness; it was an absolute monster hit when it first came out, becoming the highest-grossing worldwide release except “Titanic,” and is still the highest-grossing domestic film in the franchise adjusted for inflation. And yes, I am aware that the original title of this was “Philosopher’s Stone,” with the word sorcerer used in American releases, since it was considered a less archaic and more recognizable term. With the release of the new “Fantastic Beasts” film coming this weekend amid various behind-the-scenes controversies, the Wizarding World franchise has remained a generational phenomenon along the likes of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, James Bond, Batman, etc. It’s still something I keep close to my heart; it’s a testament to the power of love and unity.

My rating: 9/10