Not being a reader of the Harry Potter books, I came to the first Harry Potter movie with a totally open mind. There seems to be those who love the book but hate the film; those that love both; and even a few who hate both! Having watched Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone, I must confess that I'm not entirely sure what all the fuss is about. This strikes me as solid but unremarkable, totally overlong but fairly diverting fare.
Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is left as a baby at the house of his relatives, the Dursleys. Later we learn that his parents were magicians killed by a dark sorcerer, and he has been hidden away for his own protection until he is older. Eventually the time comes for Harry to discover his destiny. He is tracked down by the friendly giant Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) and sent to Hogwarts, a special school of Witchcraft and Wizardry for youngsters with magical prowess. Everyone at Hogwarts, the fellow pupils and the teachers – seems to know about Harry's past, even though he himself knows barely any of it. Harry befriends two other first year students – Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) – and begins to learn the art of wizardry from various eccentric teachers. Things take a darker turn when the three young magicians begin to suspect that Voldemort, an evil figure from Harry's past, is trying to regain his once-great power and strength by obtaining the Philosopher's Stone, a powerful object hidden somewhere at the school.
The film is not particularly well-acted, with the child stars coming across as if they are carrying out a reading rehearsal, and too many star names (Julie Walters, John Hurt, John Cleese, Zoe Wanamaker) hamming it up like mad in cameo roles. At least the main adult roles – taken by the likes of Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman and Richard Harris – are played with a degree of experience and finesse. There are some splendid visuals in parts, though the effects are not so impressive during the much-hyped Quidditch sequence. The most disappointing thing for me is the long and laborious build-up, which leads to a somewhat flat final confrontation (I am reliably informed by those in the know that this film's climax is intentionally brief and aborted, and links to developments in the later films). Overall, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is a reasonable watch, but I'm hoping for something more as the series progresses.
Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is left as a baby at the house of his relatives, the Dursleys. Later we learn that his parents were magicians killed by a dark sorcerer, and he has been hidden away for his own protection until he is older. Eventually the time comes for Harry to discover his destiny. He is tracked down by the friendly giant Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) and sent to Hogwarts, a special school of Witchcraft and Wizardry for youngsters with magical prowess. Everyone at Hogwarts, the fellow pupils and the teachers – seems to know about Harry's past, even though he himself knows barely any of it. Harry befriends two other first year students – Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) – and begins to learn the art of wizardry from various eccentric teachers. Things take a darker turn when the three young magicians begin to suspect that Voldemort, an evil figure from Harry's past, is trying to regain his once-great power and strength by obtaining the Philosopher's Stone, a powerful object hidden somewhere at the school.
The film is not particularly well-acted, with the child stars coming across as if they are carrying out a reading rehearsal, and too many star names (Julie Walters, John Hurt, John Cleese, Zoe Wanamaker) hamming it up like mad in cameo roles. At least the main adult roles – taken by the likes of Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman and Richard Harris – are played with a degree of experience and finesse. There are some splendid visuals in parts, though the effects are not so impressive during the much-hyped Quidditch sequence. The most disappointing thing for me is the long and laborious build-up, which leads to a somewhat flat final confrontation (I am reliably informed by those in the know that this film's climax is intentionally brief and aborted, and links to developments in the later films). Overall, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is a reasonable watch, but I'm hoping for something more as the series progresses.