Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (2001)

Posted by Megan On November - 21 - 2009

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.

I saw the Harry Potter exhibition at Boston’s Museum of Science this weekend, and afterward all my mom, grandma, and I wanted to do was hang out and watch the movies. We sat down for Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, which I hadn’t seen for years, and I found myself able to be both more critical as well as more impressed at how good-looking everyone grew up to be. The story follows the first book of JK Rowling’s fantasy series, in which Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), an orphan living with his abusive aunt and uncle, discovers he’s a wizard on his eleventh birthday. He attends Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry and learns that he’s “The Boy Who Lived” through (and mysteriously ended) the vicious dark wizard Voldemort’s killing spree ten years ago.

At school he meets the affable Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint), who suffers from an inferiority complex following the wake of his five older brothers, and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), a nosy but good-hearted know-it-all. Amidst taking classes and learning more about the magical world, together they must stop a half-alive, weakened Voldemort from claiming a stone that grants eternal life, hidden in Hogwarts’ impressively complex chambers. Also, he becomes the star of the Quidditch team, and buddies up to Headmaster Dumbledore (Richard Harris). Etc.

If you haven’t read the books, that’s cool, but I guess this wouldn’t mean much to you. If you’re only getting the story from the movies, I’d recommend giving the books a try, since things are explained a lot better and the story is given more time to unfold. Chris Columbus has been panned for this movie and its sequel, but looking now at the really considerable feat he had to accomplish, I’d go easier on him. Sure, this movie isn’t spectacular, and a lot of the book is left out, but that happens. The subsequent directors had something to work with- a jumping off point. Columbus created a believable world whose visuals correspond very well to the text, and hits most of the major plot points. I think in his effort to please fans he and screenwriter Steve Kloves included too much, but I guess that’s more forgivable than leaving too much out. There’s a constant influx of characters and references that are manageable if you’ve read the books, but don’t make it a good movie.

The major downside that stuck out to me was actually the acting, which hadn’t seemed such a big thing before. It’s lucky that Rupert Grint is pretty talented, because he is the only one of the main three who is at all believable, and even he gets over the top sometimes. Emma Watson, who is great in the later movies, over-enunciates every line, making her sound like a 6-year-old, which is too bad because usually I find Hermione’s no-nonsense, intelligent approach refreshing (Harry and Ron are just so dumb). Daniel Radcliffe is generally boring. A lot of the kids’ lines and conversations feel forced, which takes away from the overall effect. Some of the plot’s pacing is off, too.

Because I like the story so much and appreciate the level of detail, I find Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone pretty enjoyable. It’s definitely not the best, and it’s not as imaginative and bold as some of its successors (Azkaban, mainly), but it does a decent job setting up the characters and story for later. And it begins the tradition of casting awesome British actors in small roles, like John Hurt as Ollivander and John Cleese as Nearly Headless Nick… and, obviously, the perfectly slow-paced delivery of Alan Rickman as Severus Snape.

3.5/5

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Popularity: unranked [?]

Share and Enjoy: