I remember the first time I watched it, it was hurricane season in new orleans floodwaters 3ft deep but the power didn't go off so we rented it and I liked it so much I stole the 4-book set from my school. I didn't read the first book because I figured I watched the movie so what's the difference? (I was young).

The thing that stands out in this movie (and the second) to me is Dumbledore. That's how I pictured Dumbledore in the books.

 

To be fair, you can get away with this for the first two movies, which painstakingly included everything. To be honest I'm rather surprised that they didn't ditch the Norbert plot in PS and the Aragog plot in CoS - both of them lead nowhere, narratively. The only purpose of the Norbert plot (beyond characterisation and world building) is to get Harry into the Forbidden Forest detention, but that can be easily achieved in a more direct manner (e.g. Snape being Snape). Similarly, the spiders plot in CoS is only there for the "spiders flee before it" clue for the basilisk... but since the reader doesn't know that basilisks exist yet, nor their relationship with spiders, it's a bit of a pointless clue that only makes sense after you know the answer.

Still, I won't criticise the first two movies for including everything. Personally I am happy with them doing so. I'm just surprised that they didn't cut something so easily removed, especially given how long the movies were.

As for PS more generally: they keep to the original plot, the visuals are great, the world is charming. It was a perfect adaptation from the perspective of an enthusiastic fan, let down only by the painful child acting.

 

PS is a perfect introduction to the HP world. The fact that it includes everything from the books is a plus as by the end of the movie, the audience knows nearly as much as someone who'd read the first book. Sure, that means it's a little heavy on the exposition but it's done well because there's a reason for the exposition. Hagrid exposits because he can't control his tongue but also because he's introducing Harry to the magical world. Hermione exposits because she's a know-it-all. Ron exposits about Quidditch because he loves the game.

There's just something so charming and quaint about the first movie. It feels "Cozy".

 

The thing that really makes the movie for me is the soundtrack. Hedwig's Theme is the GOAT of movie tracks.

 

Having rewatched the whole series recently, I think PS might be my favorite of them. Partially because everything is just... magical. There's this awe and a bit of childish glee throughout the whole thing, plus unlike most of the rest of them it at least tries to remain true to things. With some of the different things being better and some worse unlike latter where they're almost all just changed for the worst.

 

@Zombie, the spoon wizard is from PoA. Unless there was another one in PS first. Or you meant PoA in the first place.

 

For a movie made in 2001, I honestly expected the effects to be worse. The worst is probably McGonagall's transformation in the first ten minutes, the rest is honestly fine. Have to say though that for a movie that's 2h30 long some parts are a bit rather rushed. I also want to echo that Richard Harris is great. Top Dumbledore for sure. Also great, but so far underappreciated: both Dursleys.

This movie did make me realize something, though: why the fuck did Hagrid bust down the door to the cottage at midnight? Not only did he scare the shit out of everyone there, but he also took Harry into a rowboat in the middle of the night while it was storming (and arrives at daylight in London, come to think of it). That's just odd, even for Hagrid. Did they not sleep? Did they find a nearby hotel? I'm honestly baffled.

Also fuck me now I've got a real hunger for good, new HP fanfic and I know there most likely isn't any.

 

Alright, I just finished re-watching this movie. As everyone's said, the score is goddamn phenomenal, but what really stood out to me was the casting. As @Jon said:

The thing is, though, pretty much every character is on point in both appearance and characterization. The movie series as a whole ruined a lot of things, in my opinion, but as far as the choice of actors and their quality, they hit the nail on the head for this movie and the next.

 

I, wasn't the biggest fan of Richard Harris.

*Dodges curses.*

Don't get me wrong, he did a great job in the first two movies. It sucked that he died when he did. Hell, I wanted his son Richard Harris to be cast as the young Dumbledore in the Fantastic Beasts movies.

But, am I the only one who thought he might look a bit too, well, frail? While he is supposed to be a calm, wise old wizard, he's also an extremely powerful wizard who fought against Voldemort. Harris never quite captured that deep sense of power and badassery. Say what you want about Gambon and his "DID YOU PUT YOUR NAME IN THE GOBLET OF FIRE" bit, he did capture that stern and powerful side of Dumbledore.

Personally, I really think Ian McKellen would have been ideal. His Gandalf portrayal had the perfect balance of "kindly old man" and "don't fuck with me" vibe I kind of expect from Dumbledore.

 

Fellowship was released a month after PS, I think he likely wasn't available for the first movie. The others likely didn't want him just because of that association.

 

I'll be honest, PS only gets an acceptable from me. Is it a fun movie? Sure, but its nothing ground breaking. In the context of HP movies and being honest to the books, I'd give it a higher rating (one of the top HP movies honestly), but as a movie standing on its own?

Not really. Within the genre of children's fantasy, I'd point to movies (limiting to similar time period or before) that blow this out of the water both in story telling, acting and Special Effects

The Never-Ending Story.
Hook.
Jumanji
Nightmare Before Christmas
Indian in the Cupboard
Etc.

Philospher's stone is a fun adventure/mystery movie, but its no where near the creme of the crop.

In a perfect world, Sean Connery accepted the role Gandalf and Ian McKellen becomes Dumbledore.

 

Wait, Sean Connery was offered to play Gandalf?

*One Google later*

Holy shit, he was! And has offered a fortune if he accepted. Now I'm wondering how he would have done in the role, especially since Ian McKellen was so iconic in his portrayal.

 

No. What movie was that in? The 5th. Harris might of looked a bit frail but that's how I always pictured him but when he needs to he can go all-out magic wise. Special effects could of handled that in the movies.

Gambon just came off wrong to me, not that bad honestly but can you picture Richard coming off as the one slightly manipulating in the later movies? For the greater Good? That would of been bad ass.

 

I really can't see it going well. It's probably just my bias with having already seen McKellen's masterful performance, but they present two very different breeds of gravitas in their acting. I just don't see Connery's brand of alternately charming and aging war vet as working well.