Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone Review
2001Chris ColumbusMovie
A careful, reverent unpacking of the book that plays it safe and mostly gets away with it.
| Category | Critic | Users |
|---|---|---|
| Plot | Good | |
| Cinematography | Good | |
| Acting | Average | |
| Dialogue | Good | |
| Overall | Good |
Columbus was hired to protect an asset rather than interpret one, and the film he made is a tour more than a story. That turns out to be the right instinct for a first chapter. Stuart Craig's Hogwarts is the achievement here, a castle built as architecture instead of set dressing, and John Seale lights it with candle flame and long autumn corridors that every later director kept borrowing.
The casting is close to perfect at the adult end. Richard Harris gives Dumbledore a frail mischief nobody replicated, Maggie Smith finds the humour under Scottish severity, and Alan Rickman turns three scenes of sneering into a promise the series spent a decade paying off. The children are another matter. Radcliffe, Grint and Watson are eleven and often visibly reciting, and Columbus shoots their reaction shots as though astonishment were a performance note.
The larger problem is fidelity itself. Every chapter gets its screen time, so the troll, the chess game and the flying keys all arrive with identical weight, and the story never gathers momentum toward a climax it has already spent. It is a warm, expensive, faintly airless welcome, and it worked because the welcome was the entire point.
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone at a glance
Official site- Director
- Chris Columbus
- Runtime
- 152 min
- Rating
- PG
- Release year
- 2001
What’s your grade?
Grade by category
No account needed. Sign in so your grades follow you and count once. · how vote integrity works
Comments
Plain text, 500 characters. Be sharp, not cruel.
No comments yet. Have the first take.