Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, Nearly 25 Years Later: How the First Film Holds Up

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was released nearly 25 years ago, and it began the franchise of a generation. With the HBO adaptation right around the corner, I wanted to look back at all eight Harry Potter movies: how they've aged, what went on behind the scenes to get them made, and what legacy each one holds.

This series starts with the first film, the Philosopher's Stone, or, if you're in America, the Sorcerer's Stone. My verdict, which I'll get to below, is that it's a good movie and an excellent start to the franchise, even if its plot is the weakest part. Later in this piece I'll also get into a few things I find comical, including Quidditch, the House Cup and just how unsafe Hogwarts is.

David Heyman found Harry Potter on his assistant's suggestion

The story begins in 1997, when producer David Heyman was looking for a children's book he could adapt into a film people would respond to. He initially looked at producing a 1974 fantasy novel, but his assistant suggested he look at a newly published children's novel, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.

The book was J.K. Rowling's debut novel, and it had been a massive hit, selling 300,000 copies in its first two years. Heyman read it and, like most readers, fell in love with it. In 1998, after reading the newly published sequel, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, he pitched the series to Warner Bros.

By 1999 a deal had been made to adapt Harry Potter into a film. Rowling sold the film rights to the first four books for roughly £1 million. She also demanded that Warner Bros. cast solely British or Irish actors, and the studio agreed. With that, production was underway.

Steven Spielberg wanted an animated film before Chris Columbus got the job

Screenwriter Steven Kloves was brought on to write the screenplay, and initially Steven Spielberg negotiated to direct. His vision was an animated film produced by DreamWorks. He was really passionate about the idea, but it ultimately fell through, and Spielberg went on to direct A.I. Artificial Intelligence in 2001 instead.

With Spielberg out of the running, the search began, and a lot of directors were considered: Jonathan Demme, Baz Luhrmann, David Fincher, Terry Gilliam, Mike Newell, Alan Parker, Wolfgang Petersen, Rob Reiner, Ivan Reitman, Tim Robbins, Ron Howard, M. Night Shyamalan and Peter Weir. Rowling openly stated that her first choice was Terry Gilliam.

The job ultimately went to Chris Columbus, who had been best known for Home Alone and Mrs. Doubtfire. Columbus had written a 130 page screenplay that he used in his meeting with Warner Bros., which impressed the studio enough to give him the job. It has been reported that Columbus turned down the chance to direct 2002's Spider-Man in order to make this movie instead.

Warner Bros. announced the adult cast before Harry, Ron and Hermione

Funnily enough, Warner Bros. announced most of the supporting cast before the main cast. In the first week of August 2000, Alan Rickman and Richard Harris were chosen to play Severus Snape and Albus Dumbledore. Allegedly, Tim Roth had been offered Snape but turned it down to be in Planet of the Apes. Sean Connery and Christopher Lee were both offered Dumbledore, and both turned it down as well.

On August 14, 2000, Maggie Smith and Robbie Coltrane were cast as Minerva McGonagall and Rubeus Hagrid. Apparently, Robin Williams wanted to play Hagrid but was turned down because he was American, not British.

The main trio were said by Columbus to be the hardest roles to cast. Liam Aiken, Jamie Campbell Bower, Nicholas Hoult, William Moseley, Jack Whitehall and even Tom Felton were all considered for Harry, and Columbus was rumored to have considered American actor Jake Lloyd from Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. The role went to Daniel Radcliffe, with Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley and Emma Watson as Hermione Granger. Felton eventually landed Draco Malfoy. Rowling herself was even considered to play Lily, Harry's mother, but she turned that idea down.

Two titles meant two takes, and John Williams wrote Hedwig's Theme

Principal photography began on September 29, 2000, with filming all over England. One of the most interesting bits of behind the scenes lore is how the movie handled its two titles. When Rowling wrote The Philosopher's Stone, she was advised by her publisher to change the American title to The Sorcerer's Stone, apparently because sorcerer sounded more magical to American audiences. Because she was not a proven author and didn't have much negotiating power, she agreed, though she would later say she regretted it.

The movie took the same approach, using a specific title depending on where it was shown. To accommodate that, every time the stone was mentioned during filming, the cast had to do takes saying both Sorcerer's and Philosopher's.

For the score, Warner Bros. sought out James Horner, who declined. Instead, the legend himself, John Williams, was chosen. One of his tracks, Hedwig's Theme, was so iconic that it became the main Harry Potter theme for the entire franchise. Principal photography concluded without issue on March 23, 2001.

Rowling was consulted on changes, and the marketing push was pretty massive

I'm not going to discuss every change from book to screen in this series; I'll mention it if I think it's relevant. With these earlier films, though, Rowling was often consulted about changes. It's been reported that she actually made Columbus cut some dialogue taken straight from the books because it contradicted things in future books she hadn't written yet.

The film had a pretty massive marketing push. Mattel bought the rights to produce toys, EA released a video game, a marketing deal with Coca-Cola was signed for about $150 million, and LEGO signed a deal with Warner Bros. to produce sets based on the film. The first teaser poster arrived on December 1, 2000, just under a year before release, and the first full teaser followed on March 2, 2001. It instantly captured audiences, making it seem like the book had been adapted perfectly.

I also want to track where the books stood as each film came out. When the first movie was released, only the first four books were out, and Rowling still had a ways to go before writing Order of the Phoenix.

Why I think Harry Potter works: the world, the mysteries and the heart

Before judging this film, I should give my overall view of the franchise. Harry Potter is obviously one of the most popular franchises ever created, both the books and the movies. I'm not a die hard fan, and I wouldn't put it in my top 10 franchises. But even I think I understand what makes it so successful.

There are a lot of reasons, but I'd argue the biggest is how it made the reader feel. The world is so comforting and so magical. Anyone who has read the books or seen the movies wishes they had gone to Hogwarts, and even I would have loved to grow up going there. The world is the franchise's biggest strength.

I also feel the books are at their best when they're exploring mysteries. Each book is essentially a mystery in which Harry uses some part of Hogwarts or the wizarding world to navigate a new threat, and because the world is so rich with lore, solving them is so much fun. And lastly, these stories have heart. They may not be the most complex, but that's okay. Both Harry Potter and Star Wars, at their best, capture their audience's hearts through their characters.

Chris Columbus made Hogwarts feel real by shooting in real castles

Going into this film, Columbus needed to capture those qualities, and I'd say he did. The biggest compliment I can give this movie is that it really feels like they ripped Hogwarts and the wizarding world right out of the book. Hogwarts feels like a real place because they filmed in real locations and real castles. If Columbus had gone the George Lucas route, with every set in CGI like the Star Wars prequels, this franchise would have fallen apart right then and there. Imagine if Hogwarts looked like the Jedi Temple. That would have been a disaster.

There was a lot of weight on his shoulders, because if he got the tone wrong, sequels wouldn't get made. Hot take: the narrative of the Philosopher's Stone isn't good enough to carry a movie, so the world building needs to, and that's where Columbus succeeded. There's a feeling he loves the source material, and my research only confirms it. He was so desperate to direct this movie and saw winning the job as a blessing.

He also chose the cast. The three leads were going to be around for a minimum of seven movies, so he had to nail that, and he did. I'd argue setting the tone was more important here than making a good movie, which is sometimes the case when you're establishing a franchise.

The slow reveal of the wizarding world does the basics perfectly

The film doesn't do anything revolutionary in presenting its world, but it does the basics perfectly. Harry begins in a miserable situation, living with an awful family and sleeping in an awful room. Slowly we get hints of magic: a window disappearing, Harry talking to a snake, maybe hundreds of owls bringing hundreds of letters. Then Hagrid arrives to rescue him and takes him to Diagon Alley, which isn't magical as a physical place but has a magical feel. Gringotts and Ollivanders mix realism with magic, and even getting to the train means walking through a magic wall.

On the train, Ron shows him more magical stuff like chocolate toads, and Hermione fixes his glasses with a spell. Then they reach Hogwarts by boat across the lake with lanterns at night, the halls feel even more magical, and nothing compares to the Great Hall, arguably the most iconic location in Hogwarts, which absolutely delivers. The book does this perfectly and the movie adapted it perfectly.

I usually like stories where the main character has agency, and someone might think I'd prefer a version where Harry reaches Hogwarts through his own actions. This is the rare case where that wouldn't work, because it's a kids story. At some point, every one of us at 10 wished we could be dragged off to some magical place. It's childish, but that's the point. The first hour exists to show us this world; the plot doesn't begin until about an hour in, and the stone isn't mentioned until something like an hour and 40 minutes in. It's so captivating that we don't care. That's the biggest reason this movie succeeded.

Alan Rickman's Snape stands out, and the film is surprisingly funny

The film also gives us likable characters to root for. The main trio are all characters we want to support, and every adult role got a great performance from a great actor. People like to say Alan Rickman as Snape is a standout, and I totally agree. He's just so extra: the way he storms into his classroom for the first time, the way he folds his arms when talking to Harry. It gives the character an extra layer, and I love it.

I don't want to talk about the HBO show too much, but revisiting this movie for the first time in a while, I couldn't help thinking Harry's going to look racist there. He'll walk into Hogwarts and instantly be suspicious of the one Black professor, then later plead with McGonagall to stop Snape because he thinks Snape is going to steal the stone. It's not going to be a good look for Harry. For the movie itself, I love what they did with Snape.

An underrated part of this film is that it's really funny. I don't know whether it's the actors' comedic timing or the script, but a lot of scenes gave me a really good laugh.

Harry's longing for his parents gives Sorcerer's Stone its heart

The last big strength is shared with the book: heart. Harry doesn't necessarily have a standard arc, but his story is so full of heart that it makes you feel great by the end. He starts out miserable with the Dursleys, feeling like no one loves him, then goes to Hogwarts and makes some of his best friends.

Toward the end of the second act, he finds the mirror and sees his parents. Seeing a young boy who just misses his parents is so sad; it makes you want to give this poor kid a hug. By the end he learns that Quirrell couldn't kill him because his mother's love protected him, so a boy who felt unloved ends the film knowing his parents' love still protects him. In the last scene he accepts that Hogwarts is his new home and he has a new family. It's simple, but it's really sweet, and fortunately this first movie nailed that emotional core.

The plot is the weakest part of the first film

This is clearly not a perfect movie, and the plot is without question the weakest part. The book is shorter and more geared toward children, so it can get away with a fairly shallow mystery, but the movie is inherently a bit more adult, even though it's still a kids movie. The world building and production design are strong enough to overshadow the lackluster plot.

The whole thing is built on Harry hearing things and feeling the need to act. He hears a vault was broken into, sees Snape has a bloody leg, and concludes Snape wants to steal the stone. It's such a leap in logic. If Snape suspected Quirrell, why not tell Dumbledore? How did Quirrell get through obstacles that seem built for Harry, Ron and Hermione? Why does Voldemort interfere at the Quidditch match, and why try to kill Harry here if he needs him alive to regain his form in the fourth movie? That can be explained by the series not being finished yet, but the questions still come up on a rewatch.

Quirrell also had a full nine months to get the stone, so what took him so long? And if Dumbledore enchanted it so only someone who didn't intend to use it could get it, why not just get rid of it, as he does at the end anyway? I've heard people say it was a trap to lure Voldemort out of hiding, I guess. Either way, it seems a bit too convoluted, and I don't like it. You could argue I'm overthinking a kids movie, but this is not a movie for 2 year olds. I think the plot could have been a bit more interesting.

Quidditch's scoring makes the game absurd to me

Now for the fun part: things I find comical, not good or bad. These all come straight from the book, so maybe I'm a little unfair to the movie, but I want to discuss them anyway, and some might be hot takes. First and foremost, Quidditch is bad. Catching the snitch awards 150 points and ends the game instantly, and it appears very rare for a team to build a 150 point lead, so none of the other scoring really matters.

Imagine basketball with a 10 point line instead of a three point line; you'd be foolish to shoot anything else. Or American football with a touchdown worth 20 points; nobody would kick field goals. That's what the Quidditch scoring system is like. I'm sure some Potterhead will have a good explanation, but I'm a casual, and that's how I see it.

The House Cup looks rigged in Gryffindor's favor

There has never been a competition easier to rig than the House Cup. The final scene is supposed to be wholesome, but I was laughing the whole time. Before the last bonus, Gryffindor was dead last. Earlier in the film, Harry, Ron and Hermione lost 150 points combined for sneaking out at night, which means the whole house lost roughly a third of its points. That's so harsh.

Then, after breaking the rules by sneaking around secret dungeons, and with Harry confronting Voldemort alone at 11, four kids get 170 points, just enough to beat Slytherin. If I were in Slytherin, I'd be unable to control my anger. That's generational robbery from Dumbledore, and since he was in Gryffindor, it looks impossibly rigged.

Hogwarts is unsafe for its first years

I think I'd feel more comfortable sending my children to school in a rough neighborhood than to Hogwarts, and I plan to keep a list through this series because I think it only gets worse. First, kids wander into dangerous parts of the castle with little resistance. These are 11 year olds unlocking locked doors with simple spells and getting onto the forbidden floor. My parents made it harder for me to open the cookie jar.

Second, monsters can easily get loose. Quirrell let the troll out, but as a parent, all I'd hear is that a troll nearly killed three kids, and the three headed dog could easily have killed any of them. Third, Quidditch is seriously unsafe: in the first flying lesson, Neville almost kills himself like five times, and that hook could have impaled him. Parents in America hesitate over American football; Quidditch is infinitely worse. Fourth, and most comical, teachers have no regard for safety. McGonagall sends four 11 year olds into the Forbidden Forest at night with Hagrid, who suggests they split up, leaving Harry and Malfoy alone with Voldemort drinking a unicorn's blood. Hagrid should have been fired on the spot. He actually should have been arrested.

The first film starts my rankings in first place

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone scored 80 percent on Rotten Tomatoes with an 82 percent audience score, and 7.7 out of 10 on IMDb. It grossed $974 million in its original release, making it the highest grossing movie of 2001.

I'm ranking each film as I go, and as the first entry, this one starts in first place by default. Next up in the series is Chamber of Secrets.

What did you think about the first Harry Potter movie?