After losing his parents as a baby and growing up with his abusive relatives, on his 11th birthday, Harry Potter receives his acceptance letter to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. He discovers an entire new world full of wizards like him, both good and bad. And there is this mysterious, supernatural stone, called the sorcerer’s or philosopher’s (to anyone outside the US) stone. It can turn anyone immortal if used correctly.

I’ve seen this film many times. But August 2024 was the first time I saw it as an adult.

Below are my thoughts of what I liked and disliked about the first Harry Potter movie.

Strengths

The character development 

Every character in this movie stands out to me, and more so since it’s the first installment and the tone is lighthearted. A big example is Dudley, who freaks out like crazy because he had one less birthday present than the previous year. The Dursleys, Harry’s relatives, are also depicted more like real people and not cartoon characters.

Although the books did show a lot more about them, they did tend to make them too scary at times. Even though cutting content from book-to-film adaptations usually displeases others, for me, it was an exception in this case.

Another example is Ginny, who is a minor character since she isn’t old enough for Hogwarts. She is portrayed as quiet and well-behaved while in the book she gets overly excited when she sees Harry – but in a way that makes her feel no older than, like, 6 or 7. This is the only good change to Ginny’s character from the book to the movie.

Draco is depicted as a bully, and Hagrid is portrayed as kind, gentle, but also bad at keeping secrets.

Harry’s character is among the strongest. What I love is that he is brave and a leader. He tells others what they need to do at the right time. He is also very selfless, like when Draco takes Neville’s Remembrall and Harry chases him on his broom during their flying lesson, despite Madam Hooch’s demand to stay on the ground.

I also found him to be much more mature than in the later movies, although he wasn’t dealing with that level of stress, either such as Voldemort or PTSD. 

Dumbledore acted a lot more like how he was in the book: calm and mostly soft-spoken. Richard Harris did a better job than Michael Gambon, who played Dumbledore from Prisoner of Azkaban and on.  

Hogwarts being really welcoming

From the bright lights in the great hall to the warmth of the dormitories, it made me wish I was there. I easily envisioned myself at Hogwarts and how cool that would be (except that there would be no technology). Even watching the characters go to their classes excited me.

The food at the feast looking delicious 

No kidding! It does. My mouth watered when I saw the food appear on the tables, whether it was chicken, corn, or anything else, it made me want to taste them.

Regardless of that, the food actually spoiled quickly on the set due to the hot lights, according to the cast. But it still looked appetizing on the screen.

Weaknesses

Harry opening his Hogwarts acceptance letter in front of the Dursleys 

I found that part odd, especially due to how the Dursleys treat him. It would have made more sense if he opened his letter right when he received it, which happened when he was alone. This likely occurred for plot convenience, though.

A year error on a newspaper

The Harry Potter series is set between the years 1991 and 1998. And Harry’s first year at Hogwarts starts in 1991.

But when he was reading the newspaper in one scene, the year at the top said, “2001,” which is when the movie came out. And the filmmakers wouldn’t have updated the time setting to the 2000s since in The Deathly Hallows: Part 1, Harry sees his parents’ graves, which reveal that they died in 1981, like in the book.

It’s particularly strange that no other fan has noticed this error. Hmmm…

Madam Hooch leaving the students unsupervised when taking Neville to the hospital wing 

I did not realize how unbelievable that was until a YouTube channel, Cinemasins, pointed out how no teacher would leave a bunch of 11-year-olds unsupervised, whether they were wizards or not. This moment also occurred in the book, and probably just for plot convenience. Otherwise, Madam Hooch would have had another staff member watch the other students as she took Neville to the hospital wing after he hurt his wrist.

Neutral 

How this movie is very lighthearted 

After seeing the later films and how much darker they were, it felt a bit strange to see a Harry Potter movie be lighthearted with happy moments and a little bit of comedy. But the books were originally written to appeal to the middle grade audience, ages 8 – 12, until they attracted people of all ages.

Overall impression

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone is fun, adventurous, and fast-paced. I think it makes a good family movie, especially with younger kids.

I give it 4.5 out of 5 stars.