Review of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001) by Inaneswine — 14 Nov 2017

So it's the one that started it all - also known as "the one you can't really criticise because it started it all". In other words, it makes me feel awful to have to say something negative about what is a good start to possibly the greatest film franchise of all time. But I want to be objective. So, I'll try to just get the negatives out the way firstly and quickly: the film definitely has not aged well. Its PS2-worthy graphics are sometimes laughable, particularly in the troll and Quidditch sequences. In addition, the film sometimes struggles to cram everything into the short space it has - for example, that the first act with the Dursleys is so short is both a curse and a blessing: we don't get to experience the nitty-gritty early years of abuse suffered by Harry that is so well documented in the books - but on the other hand, it just means we get to the magic of Hogwarts so much faster. And finally, on a negative point, its decidedly light and almost twee tone makes it very much child-friendly, but may cause the adults to lose interest now and then. I'm sorry, but these things had to be said.

But let's face it - who cares? To anyone who's never seen or read Harry Potter before, this is the compulsory stepping stone in what turns out to be a most magnificent journey. So brilliantly crafted by Columbus and of course Rowling, Philosopher's Stone features some of the best acting talent Britain has to offer - special mentions going to Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, the late Richard Harris and, in particular, Alan Rickman as Snape - the role he was born to play. The sets depict almost exactly what any reader has ever imagined, and the kids - well - they're pretty bloody cute.

Philosopher's Stone is not the best - it's just a taste test. What happens next is delicious.