»

Nine years later, 'Sorcerer's Stone' still magical

Harry Potter’s first film is just as entertaining as it's always been.

By Kate Everson

Published Nov. 19, 2010

In light of the release of the first part of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” many fans of the series return to what started the cinematic journey of J.K. Rowling’s mega-popular universe.

I was in fifth grade when “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” was released. My Mom read the first book aloud to the family and our household immediately became Harry-crazed. When the announcement was made that Chris Columbus would be directing the film, my parents began to speculate over the cast list.

My dad took me to see it the Sunday after it was released. I remember leaving church to make the 12:30 p.m. showing. It was the first time we had ever left church early.

Daniel Radcliffe and his peers had high voices and round faces at the beginning. Watching the movie almost nine years to the day after its original release, it's amusing to see how the juvenile cast looked before Radcliffe was on Broadway, Emma Watson cut her hair and Rupert Grint got hot.

The awe has dwindled at least a little bit. In 2001, the effects weren’t all they were today. In the scene with the troll, it was undoubtedly an animated Harry being tossed around. Radcliffe’s neck would have snapped and the search for a new lead would begin.

Watching with more experienced eyes, it’s apparent the young actors hadn't quite developed the acting chops they show now. Improvements have been made, of course, as the kids grew from 8 and 9 years old to full adult actors. There are still a few lines that make me cringe, such as Harry’s “But what was that thing you saved me from?” after being rescued by a centaur in the Forbidden Forest.

However, other performances outdo every other film in the franchise. The late Richard Harris is the Dumbledore I always pictured in the book and will never be topped. Alan Rickman remains as wonderfully slimy and dark as he was in that first shot of the head table of the Great Hall. Maggie Smith, though looking a bit older, is still the shrewd deputy headmistress.

I think the best part of “The Sorcerer’s Stone” is its strict adherence to the original book. There are complete lines from the novel in the screenplay and hardly anything is left out. Unlike the more recent films that had to be adapted from 800-plus pages, the first film has entire scenes written directly from the book, like Ollivander’s speech and Snape’s class-opening monologue.

Above all, “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” reminds me that, even though the series is about to come to an end, its spirit is not. I fully expect my children to see the first installment (after reading the book, of course) no matter which lines are poorly delivered or which effects are raw and unrefined.

The series of films might soon be coming to an end, but the epic of Harry Potter will forever live in my heart, and that’s what makes it so magical.