Count_Orlok_22
"Year One at Hogwarts"
For fans of Harry Potter and beyond!
Join | Log In
The 2001 film based upon the J.K. Rowling children's fantasy novel also known as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
< read all 7 reviews
Rating:
+4
Note: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is the same film as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. The film just uses the original U.K. title rather than the U.S. title.
In 1997, unknown author J.K. Rowling had her first novel published. Not only was it an intelligent and highly imaginative fantasy story, but it also served as the first book in a seven-part series. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (later renamed Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone for American readers) renewed children's interest in reading and became an international bestseller, receiving high acclaim and multiple awards. The book became a cultural phenomenon and after the publication of its sequel, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, a film adaptation was inevitable. Harry Potter was one of the most sought after properties in cinematic history, and attracted the attention of Hollywood's biggest names. Ultimately, Chris Columbus directed the film, from a screenplay by Steve Kloves.
In 1997, unknown author J.K. Rowling had her first novel published. Not only was it an intelligent and highly imaginative fantasy story, but it also served as the first book in a seven-part series. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (later renamed Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone for American readers) renewed children's interest in reading and became an international bestseller, receiving high acclaim and multiple awards. The book became a cultural phenomenon and after the publication of its sequel, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, a film adaptation was inevitable. Harry Potter was one of the most sought after properties in cinematic history, and attracted the attention of Hollywood's biggest names. Ultimately, Chris Columbus directed the film, from a screenplay by Steve Kloves.
When Harry Potter was only a year old, his parents were mysteriously killed and he was sent to live with his mother's sister's family, the extremely unpleasant Dursleys. From an early age, young Harry Potter proved to be an unusual child. Once while on a visit to the zoo, Harry accidentally made a pane of glass disappear letting loose a python, which scared his obnoxious cousin Dudley half to death.
On Harry's eleventh birthday, a half-giant named Hagrid explains that Harry's mother was a witch and his father was a wizard and that Harry's been invited to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Harry also learns that his parents did not die in a mysterious car crash as he had been told, but rather they had been killed by the notorious Dark Lord, Voldemort, often referred to as He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. Hagrid accompanies Harry to London and from there to Diagon Alley, where magical supplies can be bought. Harry buys his first wand, his spellbooks, and Hagrid even gives him a snowy white owl named Hedwig. From there he's off to Hogwarts by way of the Hogwarts Express, a bright red train, which leaves from Platform 9¾ at King's Cross Station. While waiting for the train Harry meets a large wizarding family, the Weasleys, and befriends their youngest son Ron while on the train. Harry and Ron also meet Hermione, a clever but often snobby young girl.
After arriving at Hogwarts Castle, Harry and the other first year students are sorted into one of four houses. Harry, Ron, and Hermione are placed into Gryffindor, a house that is renowned for having courageous and loyal students. Harry meets the different teachers: the kind yet stern Professor MacGonagall, the malicious Professor Snape, twitchy and nervous Professor Quirrell, and the wizened and eccentric headmaster Dumbledore. Harry soon learns that each teacher treats him differently. MacGonagall, despite her chilly demeanor is very clearly fond of Harry, but Snape on the other hand seems to have a vendetta against Harry. Harry also learns of a rivalry between the school houses of Gryffindor and Slytherin, and this rivalry is exemplified by an arrogant bully named Draco Malfoy.
One day Harry, Ron, and Hermione get lost in the castle and come across a room that's being guarded by a three-headed dog. Harry, Ron, and Hermione soon learn that the dog is guarding a series of hidden passageways and rooms, where something called the Philosopher's Stone is being stored. The Philosopher's Stone has the power to make whoever possesses it immortal. After a bit of late night investigating, Harry comes to believe that someone, probably Snape, is trying to steal the stone for Lord Voldemort. With the stone, Voldemort would be restored to his full power and he would again terrorize the world of magic. Can Harry, Ron, and Hermione prevent Voldemort's return and who can Harry trust in this world full of magic and intrigue?
Adapting such an inventive and detailed story would prove difficult, and yet the film is successful as it manages to include almost all of the important characters and events from Rowling's novel.
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone became a worldwide blockbuster and set Box Office records. There are a number of reasons for the film's colossal success. One of those reasons is the group of highly talented special effects artists that were gathered in order to create the style and look of the film. Also making a huge contribution were the experts who designed the costumes, the props, the sets, and the general atmosphere of the film. But the person who deserves the most credit is Rowling herself, who created an immaculate fantasy world that holds a universal appeal for both children and adults.
The extraordinary cast includes veteran British actors, as well as some talented young unknowns (who aren't unknown anymore). The cast features Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter, Rupert Grint as Ronald Weasley, Emma Watson as Hermione Granger, Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid, Maggie Smith as Professor MacGonagall, Alan Rickman as Professor Snape, and Richard Harris as Headmaster Dumbledore.
Though the film is a marvelous attempt at turning Rowling's novel into a physical reality, it does have its flaws. Much of the time the special effects are unconvincing, which wouldn't be so bad if they weren't used as the centerpiece of almost every scene. Another problem, and this is a very minor problem, is that some of the younger cast members under emote, or give stiff and forced performances. However, the acting will improve with each successive Harry Potter film.
Ultimately, Harry Potter's first year at Hogwarts will be remembered and treasured by fans of all ages for many years to come.
What did you think of this review?
Helpful
6
Thought-Provoking
3
Fun to Read
6
Well-Organized
6
Post a Comment
woopak_the_thrill
January 20, 2011
How did I miss this review? Oh well, rectified!
Count_Orlok_22
January 20, 2011
I think you read it on Amazon... LOL!
show text editor
Scotman
June 27, 2009
my interest in fantasy stories had been next to nil until Tolkein came around; I've read the trilogy and the Hobbit twice. And now I'm reading the Half Blood Prince a second time to prep for the movie in July. Good review, quite detailed and the background history of Rowling's attempt is well done. Wish Stephanie Meyer could take a few pointers from J.K.!
show text editor
Count_Orlok_22
March 23, 2009
Are we talking about how the films hold up against each other or the books? If we're talking about the books, it'll be hard for me to be brief about this and I could easily dedicate an entire review/essay to the subject. For me, what Tolkien does with the "LotR" books is to create an alternate history, which has its foundations in classical European mythology. And in that regard J.K. Rowling has done something very similar with her "Harry Potter" series. The main difference between Rowling's books and Tolkien's is that Rowling's aproach is more modern in literary terms as she allows readers access into her characters minds and behaviors in a way that Tolkien of course does not. The reason for Tolkien having a more "old-fashioned" approach is simple, unlike the Potter books, Tolkien is attempting evoke the vast imagery and emotional spectacle of the old world myths and those myths, having been written thousands of years before the foundations of modern psychology were laid, conform to certain archetypal characters. What Rowling does in contrast is to expand upon those characters by placing them in a modern context. Well, so much for brevity. Anyhow, in my own opinion Tolkien is a better writer with a greater command of language and a talent for detailing and creating expositional subject matter. Rowling, however, tells her stories with a little less restraint and this shows in her work, but to her credit. In allowing herself to create such vivid characters she lets readers particpate in the story on an emotional level that Tolkien moves away from. If you haven't read the Potter books, give them a try. They really have more in common with C.S. Lewis' "The Chronicles of Narnia" and much of the darkly humorous spirit found in Roald Dahl's books. I hope that helps.
show text editor
Bohemianliving
March 22, 2009
I have never gotten into the Harry Potter books although I love a good fantasty story- and from your review it looks like one:) How would you say it holds up to the Lord of the Rings Trilogy?
show text editor
1
More Harry Potter and the Philosoph... reviews
The first of a series of adventure and magic. This one packs in quite a bit and introduces the children and highlights on their friendship. Great moments during the chess game. These kids act well!
Comments (2)
Compliments (6)
Watching this film years later I can't believe how small the kids were. The movie is pretty true to the book and entertaining.
Comment
Compliment
The film that started it all.. I will miss them when its over :(
Comment
Compliment
In some ways, this is the best Harry Potter movie. It's light enough for kids, but the story is engaging enough for adults. The beginning of the film really captures the magical world of wizardry, from the goblins to the first quidditch game. It stands well enough alone as a movie - you don't really need to know much about Harry Potter before watching it. The kids are excellent actors. Rewatching it again after many, many years, I was impressed with the range of young Ron's … more
Comments (1)
Compliments (12)
About the reviewer
Count_Orlok_22
Ranked #3
Ranked #3
Member Since:
Dec 16, 2008
Last Login: Jun 7, 2012 07:25 PM UTC
Last Login: Jun 7, 2012 07:25 PM UTC
Consider the Source
Use Trust Points to see how much you can rely on this review.
You
Count_Orlok_22
Your ratings:
Recent reviews by Count_Orlok_22
About this movie
Cast:
Maggie Smith,
Richard Harris,
Alan Rickman,
Robbie Coltrane,
Daniel Radcliffe,
Emma Watson,
Rupert Grint,
Warwick Davis
Director:
Chris Columbus
Genre:
Adventure,
Family,
Fantasy,
Mystery
Release Date:
Nov. 2001
MPAA Rating:
PG
Screen Writer:
Steve Kloves
Runtime:
152 minutes
Studio:
Warner Bros. Pictures
First to Review
- About Lunch
- Press
- FAQs
- Contact Us
- Terms of Service
- Privacy Policy
- Sitemap
- Report Abuse
© 2013 Lunch.com, LLC All Rights Reserved
Lunch.com - Relevant reviews by real people.