Geeks logo

Harry Potter & the Philosopher's Stone (2001) - Film Review

Chris Columbus directs the film adaptation of J.K. Rowling's debut novel

By Ted RyanPublished 4 months ago 3 min read
2

Harry Potter has lived under the stairs at his aunt and uncle’s house his whole life. But on his 11th birthday, he learns he’s a powerful wizard – with a place waiting for him at the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. As he learns to harness his newfound powers with the help of the school’s kindly headmaster, Harry uncovers the truth about his parents’ deaths – and about the villain who’s to blame.

Chris Columbus directs the film adaptation of J.K. Rowling’s debut novel, bringing together an ensemble cast of British acting royalty and skyrocketing the careers of Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint.

As an adaptation, the narrative structure stays faithful to the source material. Screenwriter Steve Kloves does a brilliant job condensing the story into a film narrative and hitting all the critical character beats.

As a child who watched this film on VHS in the early 2000s, I was utterly enthralled by the setting of Hogwarts. The true magic of this film is its set design and costume department, bringing the beauty of the story to life. The attention to detail was incredible, capturing the universe's magic from the pages.

The actual magic is limited, and we only see a handful of spells performed. Ironically, I only recently realised Harry never casts a spell on-screen aside from the scene with the vanishing glass. There are no big special effects for the magic, which adds to the film’s charm. This film has an enchanting, whimsical vibe, which gradually turns darker as Harry learns the mystery of the philosopher’s stone.

As I said earlier, the casting department did a superb job getting the ensemble cast together - Richard Harris, Dame Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, Ian Hart, John Cleese and Robbie Coltrane are just a few names who were attached. They all did brilliantly at bringing their book counterparts to life. Rickman, in particular, was genius casting as Professor Snape; he may as well have stepped out of the book itself.

Columbus decided to cast primarily unknown actors for the prominent leading roles. Aside from Tom Felton (who played Draco Malfoy), the child actors had little or no acting experience before this film. Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson were cast as the leading trio and, given their respective ages at the time, did well at playing leading roles in a big-budget production.

Radcliffe played the wonder and excitement of Harry’s first adventure, but there were moments of potential in the more emotional scenes. Grint captured Ron’s comedic elements well, but this sometimes came at the expense of Harry’s witty lines that were given to Ron. While Harry is an active protagonist, his film counterpart is the group's peacemaker – he doesn’t actively find himself getting into trouble and is much less sarcastic; the character is quite timid at times. Instead, we see a more plot-driven arc of him gaining that confidence. Watson’s portrayal of Hermione is very much reminiscent of her book counterpart, bookish and snappy. Again, she goes on a similar arc of learning to relax around Ron and Harry.

Columbus was dedicated to staying true to the book’s origins, so there were no drastic changes or notable deviations in the Kloves’ screenplay. One actor I believe does not get enough praise is Ian Hart, who effortlessly plays both Professor Quirrell and Lord Voldemort – yes, he played both characters. The revelations of Quirrell’s deceit and the sheer sinister menace of Voldemort sticking out the back of his head were eerie and excellently performed. As much as I later loved Ralph Finesses in the role in the later movies, Hart could have easily reprised the role.

This film has become a family favourite for Christmas or all year round and was a solid opening to kick off the franchise. Going into 2024, I will be reviewing the rest of the film series.

So, if you’re looking for a festive watch to enjoy with the family, I’d recommend this to any wizard or muggle needing magic this Boxing Day.

My rating of Harry Potter & the Philosopher's Stone (2001) - ★★★½.

pop culturereviewmovie
2

About the Creator

Ted Ryan

When I’m not reviewing or analysing pop culture, I’m writing stories of my own.

Reviewer/Screenwriter socials: Twitter.

Author socials: You can find me on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok and Goodreads as T.J. Ryan.

Reader insights

Outstanding

Excellent work. Looking forward to reading more!

Top insights

  1. Easy to read and follow

    Well-structured & engaging content

  2. Expert insights and opinions

    Arguments were carefully researched and presented

  3. Heartfelt and relatable

    The story invoked strong personal emotions

  1. On-point and relevant

    Writing reflected the title & theme

Add your insights

Comments (2)

Sign in to comment
  • Daphsam4 months ago

    Great review! The movies were very good. Whimsical fun.

  • Grz Colm4 months ago

    Nice review Ted. 😊👍 I personally have a soft spot for the first two films, the music, the set design etc like you mentioned and also (from memory) more screen time to the excellent supporting characters by top notch actors. I like the whimsy Columbus brings to it. Of course the films shifted after, but for the most part so did the books. Have you seen the extended versions of the first two? I prefer those..each have a few extra small scenes which I enjoy! Best wishes for 2024 and hope you had a good Christmas time too.

Find us on social media

Miscellaneous links

  • Explore
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Support

© 2024 Creatd, Inc. All Rights Reserved.