Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone: Retrospective Part 1

I know that it's a cliche, but it really does seem like yesterday when I first watched this film in theaters. Back then, in 2001, I was 13 and was awestruck at seeing some of my favorite literature characters come to life on screen in utmost fidelity to the text. Harry, Hedwig, Dumbledore, Hogwarts, Wizard's Chess, wands, magic, you name it. It was all there and looked so beautiful. It was (pun intended) Magical!

As I looked back on this film, it is clear to me that this slave-like fidelity on the part of then director Chris Columbus was both the saving grace and the major setback that this film and its immediate successor had. The film made sure to include every ounce of detail from the 300 something page book, including lectures and subplots that had no real relevance to the story unfolding. The result was an unevenly paced film. The Quiditch did serve an important plot point and looked amazing, but part of me feels that it was dragged out to much. Likely because of this overabundance of exposition and detail, as well as the relative inexperience of the three main thespians, the film feels directionless and almost lacking in energy. Harry and company almost seem to be moving from scene to scene without any real control over their own trajectory. They get from point A to B because the story demands it, not because the characters do.

Not to mention the visual effects, which while a minimal detail in the context of what makes films great, are still of tremendous value to this franchise. Word has it that the rushed production meant rushed visual effects, and they certainly show. The ghosts in Hogwarts are awfully integrated into images, CGI images of Voldemort in the climactic scene are laughable at best, etc. In comparison to a lot of CGI extravaganzas, this is no big deal as the majority of the environments that were rendered in CGI looked incredible. However, when compared to the rest of the series and what it has to offer in this department, it is clear that this film is far and away inferior to the rest.

Now that isn't to say that this film is terrible. I have never felt that anyone of the Harry Potter films has been anything less than good. For me this is the weakest of the lot, mainly because of the lack of true direction/color and meandering subplots. Radcliffe, Watson, and Grint weren't particularly good in this film, but that is likely due to the overwhelming and impossible expectations that they all carried with them. There were many moments that made you feel however, that they could truly develop into top actors, and in my opinion, they haven't disappointed.

 As I stated above, the fidelity to the book was also a saving grace. The first Harry Potter book was an overall great story that was equally (maybe even more) compelling on screen. The build to the climax filled with a three-headed dog, a wizard's chess match, and an initial confrontation with Voldemort are all thrilling  and endlessly fascinating.  Finally being able to see all the main wizards congregate to deliver baby Harry to his aunt at the start of the film is one of the most memorable moments I had as a child in a movie theater and it will always be cherished.

Not to mention the first scene to introduce us to Alan Rickman's incredible Snape, one of the most memorable performances of the entire series.