Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone: A Retrospective

To celebrate the upcoming release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 I'll be re-watching the seven films released so far and giving a look back on a decade of cinematic Potter. For updates on when the reviews go up be sure to follow me on Twitter @laj105

* * *

What's it all about?

It's the first one, where Harry finds out he's a wizard, looks confused a lot, goes to Hogwarts, meets Ron and Hermione and eventually stops Voldemort from coming back to power and living forever.

How long is it?

An occasionally fidgety 152 minutes.

Didn't Spielberg direct this one?

Nope. Although Spielberg circled the project for a period, he was eventually vetoed by JK Rowling, who was less than impressed by his plans to move the setting from a British boarding school to an American high school. Chris Columbus of Home Alone and writing Gremlins fame eventually got the gig.

So how did he do?

General consensus is that this is the weakest of the Potter films, but in spite of a slavishness to the book that drags the pace to a crawl in places, it still remains a solid, enjoyable children's film. Plus credit has to be given for launching a cinematic world that is still in place seven films later.

Don’t I remember the kids grating a little?

Well yes, despite most of the actors looking the part the quality of acting left a little to be desired at this point. Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson may have been lifted from the page for their similarities to Harry, Ron and Hermione, but they struggle in scenes that require more from them than reacting in wide eyed wonder to the world around them. Similarly Tom Felton fails to inject any sort of threat playing Malfoy, but as this is the first film there's little for him to do other than act like an arse anyway. Sean Biggerstaff makes a good Oliver Wood, and Chris Rankin is a perfect Percy Weasley, but Lee Jordan is completely ruined by a script and performance that turns his Quidditch commentary into an over-earnest irritation. As later films moved on from the trivialities of the house cup, it still rankles that they never got some of the funniest material in the book right.

Thank heaven for the grown-ups?

Definitely. The list gets bigger in later films, but Potter 1 still had a roll-call sheet that included Richard Griffiths, Maggie Smith, Ian Hart and, of course, Alan Rickman. As Snape, Rickman provides many of the first film's most iconic moments, chewing the scenery like a pantomime villain. Robbie Coltrane is similarly perfect as Hagrid, and much of the heart of this film comes from him.

In the Muggle world, the Dursleys are played too broadly (in keeping with this film's more kiddie friendly vibe) but are on screen little enough. It's quite sad re-watching the film knowing that Richard Griffiths was giving one of his final performances before his death in 2002, but his Dumbledore still seems too frail and elderly, especially after Michael Gambon's later success as his replacement. He may have the twinkle and smile that bely Dumbledore's sense of mischief, but he never really convinced as the most powerful wizard in the world. Shout out also to Zoe Wanamaker, popping up for her only appearance as Madam Hooch owing to contract negotiations that saw her dropped from Chamber of Secrets.

Enough about the acting, how does it all look?

Remarkably for a series that has seen four very different directors at the helm the Harry Potter series has never deviated that far from the design of this first one, which shows just how right they got a lot of the design of this film. From the boring suburbia of Privet Drive, to the Dickensian vibe of Diagonal Alley, through to Hogwarts in all it's majesty, the design still stands as the strongest achievement of Philosopher's Stone, although there seems to be a strong Victorian vibe to some of the costume design (particularly in the Three Broomsticks) that was weeded out in later films. The wizard hats for Hogwarts pupils also looked a bit naff, and were thankfully dropped in later films.

So all fine and dandy then?

Not quite. Despite the huge amounts of money spent, most of the CGI work is abysmal, like Scorpion King in The Mummy Returns bad. The troll in the dungeon scene stands out, both for the troll itself (which would have looked bad even without a better realised rival in The Fellowship of the Ring, released shortly after) and the awful digital double of Dan Radcliffe. Double trouble rears it's head again in the later Quidditch game, where a bunch of Stretch Armstrongs play against... another set of Stretch Armstrongs.

Also for some reason it seems to have been filmed in such a way to put a slightly fuzzy feel throughout, probably to give it an old-fashioned feel, but actually just making it seem a little out of focus instead. Going back after the near monochrome colour pallet of Deathly Hallows - Part 1 only heightens the effect, and it's the only instalment that seems to have this problem.

So the child acting, the computer effects, and the editing were all poor. I thought you said this was enjoyable?

Despite the problems there is lots to enjoy. John Williams' score is suitably magical, the Quidditch scene is a great action sequence, and Harry's encounter with Quirrel-mort is nicely creepy. Everything looks great, but there's a feeling that the series is struggling to break free of the books and justify itself as a piece of entertainment on it's own merits. Plus they cut out Peeves, and Rik Mayall was born for the role.

Anything else?

Worth a mention is the very first teaser trailer, which can be found here. It was the first reveal of Hedwig's Theme, which would go on to become synonymous with both the series and junior school orchestra performances.

Final verdict?

A great visual companion for the first book makes for a slightly dull watch.