Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

Firstly, I've read all of the Harry Potter books, so my reviews of the films are going to reflect that and I will talk about certain things in relation to the books. I'm not the sort of person who believes that a film adaptation of a book has to feature every single element of the book. Tom Bombodil can take a hike, especially if it makes for a better film. A good book doesn't automatically equal a good film, so if a director needs to make changes than more power to them. What does matter though is that the film should make sense... the worst book-to-film adaptations tend to feel like condensed versions of a book that would make zero sense to anyone who hadn't already read said book. A film needs to appeal to people who haven't (and don't want to) read the book. So I guess that's my main criteria here in relation to that.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone was a pretty big deal when it first came out... I personally think that this film had a big hand in boosting the popularity of the Harry Potter novels. The success of this movie also meant that a lot of rival studios started looking for their own children's fantasy books to adapt into a multi-gazillion dollar franchise. Very few of these attempts came even close to the success that Warner Brothers enjoyed with Harry Potter (see related texts at the bottom of this review).

• The primary cast are all so small and little! You don't get a true appreciation of this until you go back after the franchise has run its course - they did well to keep all these kids onboard for all eight films.
• Most of the child actors are fairly well cast, with the exception of Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter. He's easily the worst of the child actors, his fake mouse-like grin and inability to imbue his lines with any real feeling would have seriously hamstrung the whole film if the script, sets and surrounding cast hadn't been more than up to scratch. Thankfully Radcliffe would improve drastically by the time of the second film.
• The real stars of course are Emma Watson as Hermione and Rupert Grint as Ron. They both play up to their characters' quirks perfectly.
• The other standouts in the cast are Alan Rickman (so much so that I find it particularly impossible to divorce him from the character when I read the books), Richard Harris (the right mix of aloof and childish as Dumbledore), Robbie Coltrane (you just want to give him a big hug) and Richard Griffiths (one of the most undervalued character actors alive).
• There are so many unanswered questions in this film, and considering that the books still hadn't all been written when this film was made, they did an outstanding job of foreshadowing the overall arc of the story.
• Most of the CGI still holds up - the snake near the beginning is great, as are some of the other smaller touches. The more ambitious stuff like Harry sitting on the shoulders of the troll, and the all-CG centaur, are decidedly less successful in achieving a suitable level of realism but they kind of get away with it anyway.
  
• The general feel and design of this film can be summed up as 'bright and Dickensian'. Philosopher's Stone is all about the awe and wonder of this magical world that comes to Harry and takes over his hardluck life.
  
• The plot is somewhat episodic. As I just mentioned, this story is primarily about Harry and his introduction into the world of wizarding, so the main plot takes a bit of a backseat to characterisation and setting. This is fine, there'll be plenty of time for plot in the later films, so I think the viewer should just enjoy accompanying Harry on his first year at Hogwarts, and there's enough spectacle and incident to keep it interesting.
• Having said that, the climactic quest at the end is a bit silly. Harry, Ron and Hermione are going gangbusters through a series of heroic tasks and then it all stops so they can have a game of chess. It's hardly the sort of thing that lends itself to the neccessarily fast pace of a film, and it's perhaps one of the things from the book that really could've been changed for the benefit of the film.
• The only real difference between this film and the book it's based on (as far as I can tell) is the absence of the poltergeist Peeves (who was played by Rik Mayall and cut from the film).
  
• It doesn't help that Chris Columbus' direction is occasionally amateurish either. There's a scene where Harry is inside an invisibility cloak and looking at Snape, and the camera angle is all wrong. It's a POV shot and they seem to be at the same height, yet Harry is a little kid and Snape is a fully grown man.
• Jesus! How big is Hagrid in this film? The guy is half-giant, so it makes sense, but he doesn't seem that big in the later films at all. Likewise, John Cleese has a recurring cameo role as the ghost Nearly-Headless Nick, but I'm not sure if he continues to appear throughout the later films.

Overall, this is a really fun film. The tragic element of Harry's backstory is hinted at a few times but when it's coupled with Columbus' bright and cheery direction it feels very much in the tradition of Roald Dahl (as opposed to the near-Shakespearean heights of tragedy it reaches in later, darker installments).

TRIVIA: One piece of trivia for you... the kid who plays Lee Jordan (the quidditch commentator) in both this and the second Harry Potter film is also Magnitude from the TV series Community. Pop pop!

DIRECTOR: Chris Columbus
WRITER/SOURCE: Steve Kloves, based on the book by J. K. Rowling.
KEY ACTORS: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Richard Harris, Robbie Coltrane, Maggie Smith, Warwick Davis, Alan Rickman, Richard Griffiths, Fiona Shaw, John Cleese, John Hurt, Harry Melling, Tom Felton, Ian Hart, Julie Walters, Verne Troyer, Matthew Lewis, Zoe Wanamaker, Leslie Phillips.

RELATED TEXTS:
- The novel Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone by J. K. Rowling.
- This film was followed by seven sequels; Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2.
- Of the three main juvenile leads, only Daniel Radcliffe had previously appeared in a film. This was The Tailor of Panama, an John Le Carre espionage film starring Geoffrey Rush and Pierce Brosnan.
- I mentioned earlier that the Harry Potter films 'influenced' a lot of studios to start developing their own children's fantasy franchises. Here are some of these attempts, for better or worse... A Series of Unfortunate Events, Eragon, Inkheart, The Spiderwick Chronicles, The Dark is Rising, The Golden Compass, The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe, Bridge to Terabithia and Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief (which was also directed by Chris Columbus, funnily enough).
- The other major fantasy franchise-starter of 2001 was The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring.

AWARDS
Academy Awards - nominated for Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design and Best Original Score.
BAFTAs - nominated for Best British Film, Children's Award for Best Film, Best Special Visual Effects, Best Costume Design, Best Make-Up, Best Supporting Actor (Robbie Coltrane), Best Production Design and Best Sound.