Harry Potter Movies Revisit: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone

It's never a bad time to revisit stuff you love. Or at least loved for notable portions of it. And while I may not have the free time to re-read the Harry Potter books, I do have the time to revisit the movies. So that's my new project: rewatch and review every Harry Potter related film to date, in release order. So let's jump back to 2001 and go back to where it all started: Harry Potter and the Philospher's Stone. Or the Sorcerer's Stone if you live in a country where publishers assume you're an idiot.
✔ SUPPORT ✔
Patreon: / councilofgeeks
Tip jar: PayPal.me/coun...
✔ SHOP ✔
Merch: www.teepublic....
Book that I Wrote: a.co/d/atfibBA
✔ SOCIAL MEDIA ✔
Twitter: / councilofgeeks
Facebook: / councilofgeeks
✔ OTHER PROJECTS ✔
Podcast with my Partner: fireandwaterpod...
✔ CONTACT ✔
E-mail: [e-mail]
Mail:
Council of Geeks
PO Box 4429
St. Johnsbury, VT 05819
#harrypotter

[@CouncilofGeeks]

My current feelings on this franchise and its creator can be found here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gnPMY4KCjp10ibc

[@themorganrileyshow5520]

Also to defend Maggie. When I read the book and that sentence came up, I read it in my head as she was so disgusted that Dumbledore would drop Harry off with them people that she was reluctant to say the word

[@modmaker7617]

Philosopher's Stone is an actual mythological item. Sorcerer's Stone is just a marketing choice by Scholastic that thinks the person is dumb to not know what a "philosopher" is. It should always had been Philosopher's Stone.

[@modmaker7617]

@ULGROTHA Also that is what Joanne Kathleen Rowling calls it Philosopher's Stone and regrets allowing Scholastic to change it to Sorcerer's Stone.

[@Rambl3On]

I always like the alliteration of Sorcerer’s Stone much for than Philosopher’s stone

[@janelle1701]

@@modmaker7617 What really bothers me is when it comes on tv as Philosopher's stone and then they say Sorcerer. They're trying to trick me into watching Sorcerer's Stone and it's just not going to happen. And yes I realize how dorky this makes me!

[@TheLatokuivaaja]

English isn't my first language and tbh the American title has too many s's and I just can't say it properly. And I'm saying this as someone who studies Russian and that language has 7 s's. Granted, my language's version of the Philosopher's stone translates into "the Stone of the Wise Ones," so maybe I have no room to complain. (And before someone complains, that translation has been used in alchemy stuff since at least 18th century so it at least makes sense in context).

[@nathanyou1899]

Always

[@Olivia-jw5sd]

I think it's interesting that you never rewatch this one because it's probably the one I watch the most frequently. It's probably pure nostalgia but I just find it so comforting and familiar.

[@rowanc88]

Ian Hart as Quirrell is really well played. One of the most underrated actors.

[@UltimateKyuubiFox]

I think, in terms of the effects, most of the budget went into the sets. Those sets needed to last seven movies (presumed at the time) if it succeeded. They needed Diagon Alley to look great, they needed Hogwarts to look fantastic, they needed Gringotts to look great. That's just a hell of a lot of man-hours to construct all of that. Fellowship of the Ring is mostly location shooting (aside from Hobbiton and Rivendell) and forced perspective shots. I'm fairly certain Harry Potter needed all the money it could get for practical detailed construction work. Nothing practical in LOTR is as expansively detailed as Diagon Alley. And that's a big statement. But it's true.

[@Mowingthefrontlawn]

Chris Columbus has said he didn’t get the footage to the effects artists in time for high quality shots. They had the money, but not the time. It was one of the production changes he made for Chamber of Secrets, and those effects are phenomenal.

[@Lil-Dragon]

I admit I love the films to death but the books are so much better because of their extra lore and information. Harry Potter is my childhood and the reason I started reading as much as I do and the box set always nearby. Although I wish that most were 2 part films because of the amount of stuff I loved reading into as a child.

[@hc7210]

I think I like the terrible effects in this because I remember watching Harry Potter when I was really young and I have a pretty bad case of the rose coloured nostalgia filters

[@alim.9801]

Tbh sometimes bad effects can even make a film you love more endearing. Reminds me of the Spy Kids movies, some bad CGI in those for sure but man I love to see it 😂🥰

[@themorganrileyshow5520]

Also an overall annoyance I have with the films, THEY GAVE ALL OF RONS POSITIVE STUFF TO HERMIONE TO MAKE HER PERFECT. THEY ABUSED MY WON WON AND GAVE ALL HIS BEST LINES TO HER. In one particular scene in POA (the shack) RON WAS PUSHED ASIDE SO MUCH.

[@ResurrectionDreams]

After the first two movies, movie Hermione has always rubbed me the wrong way. She not only steals from Ron, but she steals from Harry and others too. In Deathly Hallows when they escape from Gringotts, she comes up with the idea to jump on the dragon in the movie even though she hates flying. That was Harry's idea in the book. And in Chamber of Secrets she gets a Dumbledore quote.

[@SweenyTodd98]

This is a big problem I have too. As far as I'm concerned that started right here in this movie with the Devil Snare scene. Not only is that scene a disservice to Ron but it also made Professor Sprout look like idiot as the movie was saying that she guarded the stone with plant that you literally do absolutely nothing to get through (which is not how devil snare works in the books). This was clearly done to give Hermione a room to get past and look cool in, but that already existed in the book with the potion room, why cut it?

[@depreseo]

Don't forget that they also completely removed hermiony's SPEW storyline from the films. So they gave her other characters lines and took her own story away from her.

[@quinnsinclair7028]

depreseo They took away all her character flaws too. Like she was consistently terrified of flying in the books but it never bothers her in the movies. Also she’s almost pathologically incapable of breaking the rules. Like in the time travel bits she spends the entire time trying to prevent Harry from interfering while in the movie she’s given a bunch of interfering actions sequences to make her look cooler. I’m also kind of annoyed at how pretty she was. Not that book Hermione was ugly but Emma Watson looks like a model. When they showed the Yule ball transformation in the books Harry almost didn’t recognize her. In the film she was just wearing a nicer dress. There should have been efforts made to give her Hermione’s mane of bushy tangled hair after the first two. Adaptions attractiveness always bothers me. Like you don’t have to be model gorgeous to save the world.

[@SweenyTodd98]

@@depreseo cutting SPEW was infuriating! Cause by doing that they effectively made all of her story revolve around the boys. They went out of their way to give her other character's moments and lines but somehow forgot to give Hermione her own character and agency outside of the guys.

[@Katherine_The_Okay]

Random story time, just to appease the almighty algorithm: When I brought our oldest to see Harry Potter (she was 6 at the time), I was worried she'd be scared by the scene in the Forbidden Forest, so when it came on, I might have been holding her in my lap telling her it was going to be all right. To which she responded with an impatient huff: "It's okay, Mommy. It's not REAL! I know it's not because unicorns are extincted..."

[@hannahcollett9173]

Why did I cringe so much at 'Emily' Watson and Richard 'Curtis' 🙈😂

[@CouncilofGeeks]

Hannah Rosey not as hard as I did while editing and not having the time to reshoot.

[@BenS-dy9eq]

Hannah Rosey and “Hagrid is the VIP of the first film” umm... you mean MVP?

[@Katherine_The_Okay]

@@BenS-dy9eq I would have made the same mistake, lol. I only know that sports exist because my girlfriend is a fan of them, lol. Any time I try to use the terminology, she laughs and tells me to stop. Kind of like when Ten tells Rose to stop faking a Scottish accent...

[@Katherine_The_Okay]

@@elijahfordsidioticvarietys8770 I asked my girlfriend. When she stopped giggling, she told me it means "most valuable player".

[@cynzix]

@@BenS-dy9eq He's a Very Important Person though...

[@LucyHargrave]

I love the first movie, it's probably my favourite of them even though it isn't my favourite book. It just feels so magical and Hogwarts feels the most homely in this one. We almost always watch it at Christmas as a family.

[@agnetebutk]

I was just watching youtube and out of nowhere thought "i wanna watch some council of geek right now", i finish the video i was watching and go to your channel and see that this video was uploaded 4 minutes ago 😃 this is some kind of sorcery

[@Lahey3]

Be kind for the Chamber bcs its my fav ❤️

[@maldon3659]

Chamber of secrets is my Favourite as well because of faithful it is to the book.

[@ManicMTG]

Lahey3 at one time this was my favorite too, but now I usually skip it when watching series

[@deebeedaydreamer]

*Hermione voice* "It's GAMbon; not GamBONE." Sorry😁😁

[@Elnont]

Harry Potter’s casting is superb. Rickman as Snape, Thewlis as Lupin, Oldemen as Sirius are perfect casting.

[@flo9]

I really love that casting too. The only things that always and consistently bother me are their ages. They were all born late 1959/early 1960. Harry Potter is from 1980, so only 19 years younger than his parents(' generation). At the time of the third book, they would have been 33 or so. Gary Oldman was 46 then, and Alan Rickman was 50. David Thewlis was 41, which I didn't mind as Remus Lupin canonically looks a lot older than he actually is. As much as I love GO & AR, that much of an age difference takes away from the sadness of their stories, I think. James and Lily were only 20 fucking years old when they died.

[@Elnont]

Flore Sundahl I agree with you there but then again, I can’t picture anyone else for those characters.

[@flo9]

@@Elnont Hmm, true that. I mean, Ironically enough I have had Ezra Miller as my headcanon young serious for ages, but he would not in any stretch of imagination have been the right age back then :P

[@Warriorcats64]

I have to heartfully disagree. While I'm not gonna lie to myself about the effects or some of the natural awkward bits, there's still the iconic John William's score, the script follows the book in a natural flowing way without the constraints of compression that would plague later movies, the general look of the movie is more pleasant than the overly muted drab aesthetic that would take over later on [somewhat justifiable by not entirely], and there's a nice innocence to it. But most importantly, the direction is absolutely superb. Honestly, even now, years later, this movie is probably among my first choices to watch just because it's simply trying to tell a story, and a good one. No edgy fly at the camera shots, no melodramatic bits of acting, no serious plot holes, it's just a lot of fun. Oh and also the writers still believed in Ron Weasley and hadn't quite completely fallen in love with Hermione.

[@sarahchristine4298]

Richard Harris is the only Dumbledore for me 🥰

[@HereComesPopoBawa]

We'll never have the recipe again!

[@Scroteydada]

5 and 6 Gambon were alright

[@theunamiable]

If I went back, I'd probably go straight to #3. Some interesting perspectives here, in particular the budget difference between this and Fellowship of the Ring. Then again, the crazy dedication to detail of Peter Jackson (and the people who wore off their fingerprints making chainmail) is a high bar to set. I remember Philosopher's Stone as solid, and possibly a necessary step before Cuaron brought the series to life.

[@landlighterfirestar5550]

Literally just finished rewatching the main eight movies!

[@TheBookRefuge]

When me and my friends watch the first film. We play a little game called, Real Boy, Fake Boy. For whenever they are on brooms and we can tell the CGI boys. Haha! It always gives us a giggle. Chamber still has issues with it, but that goes away by Prisoner. Love these revisit reviews. :) We do it every winter. Winter is HP time for us.

[@conoroneill8067]

Yeah, the first film was really clunky - but that being said, those first 2/3 Harry Potter films were actually much more of a gamble than we tend to think of them being now - while the books were big, it was in a genre that (at least from the perspective of studio execs) was considered a fast way to lose money, and something that most mainstream audiences would be turned off by. In many ways, this is franchise that blew that myth out of the water, which meant it kind of had to define the formula which we now see everywhere and take for granted. And for a first time try, it actually did a pretty good job - maybe we shouldn't be surprised by how clunky it was.

[@lwaves]

Whilst anyone with an ounce of common sense could see the differences and separate them, the media liked to pitch Fellowship against Philosopher's Stone - because wizards. Potter had that against it too, as whilst it was very popular it was largely among the younger ages, whereas LOTR has a much wider and long standing range. The reality being that both were incredibly successful.

[@fuzzymurdermittens]

I admit that despite the cringy acting and bad CG, I still pop this one when I crave HP a lot of the time. The reason is what draws me to HP - I fell in love with the world, not so much the characters. The first 3 stories best capture the feeling of "magic", before things turn dark and the overarching plot really kicks off. Especially the first one, since it is Harry's first intro to it all. I just love the idea of the Wizarding World existing alongside our own, with magical books, creatures, spells, etc. When I'm craving HP, it's usually a craving for that innocent wonder I feel in those early stories.

[@KawaiiKoalaBear]

When I'm going back to watch one it's always this one, & tbh I feel like watching it through a critical lens without nostalgia would hurt the movie like how learning Santa isn't real hurts Christmas.

[@PogieJoe]

Really looking forward to this lookback! Sure the first film is clunky, but just like Richard Harris's performance, there is a twinkle in it that I rather like. It's almost defiantly old-fashioned.

[@bemedeboer]

I really expected you to say something about the music the score is legendary. Still a nice revisit of a nostalgically fueled movie.

[@justkerowen3191]

Okay, so I'm the one with a soft spot for the first movie. There's just something sweet about the newness of it all. I agree the casting's wonderful. I adore Robbie Coltrane and Maggie Smith, so that helps, and I'm glad most of the juvenile cast has gone on to continued success. However, I'll always be a little miffed that Peeves got cut after they cast Rik Mayall in the part. While I'm on casting, we've got some bonus Who linkage in that regard - Dudley Dursley was played by Harry Melling, Patrick Troughton's grandson and David Troughton's nephew, which fact I really enjoy for some reason. You've got a point where the effects are concerned, it probably was a victim of the kidvid curse. Fortunately, they came to their senses after this movie's success and stepped up their efforts. Side note: You saw Equus on the West End with Daniel Radcliffe and Richard Griffiths? Jealous!

[@werlost]

I had no idea they had cast rik mayall as peeves. He would have been perfect.

[@AmandaBear26]

Sorcerer's Stone is one of my favorite HP movies and that's partly due to nostalgia and remembering all the excitement surrounding it when it first came out. Especially since I was 11 years old, the same age as Harry, at the time it came out. But I also think these first two Potter movies are the most magical and I just love that whimsy and innocence before we get to Azkaban and it takes a more mature tone. My favorite overall is Goblet of Fire, but these first two Chris Columbus films are high up on my list.

[@alastairnicholson7886]

Fun Fact: The actor who plays Dudley is related to Patrick Troughton

[@TIDELINERUNNERS]

This is one of those films I can only watch if I have a crushing hangover. It's like being petted on the head and told that everything will be alright by firm-handed nurse.

[@MCMIVC]

When it come to the sub-par effects in this film, David Heyman, producer, said in an interview on the dvd-extras for chamber of secrets, that it was due to a rushed post-production, meaning they didn't have enough time to polish it.

[@Scsigs]

Thank you for not just shitting on the actors. When The Dom just shat all over the kid actors in his reviews of the first few films for his Lost in Adaptation series, I immediately was like, "Dude, you REALLY have a bad view of child actors. I get that they're not perfect, but they're not god awful." Also, the special effects were admitted to be awful by Chris Columbus. It's not that he didn't try, he just shot the scenes with them way late into the shooting schedule of the movie that they didn't have enough time to properly implement them. He learned from that & shot the scenes that needed more extensive visual effects first for Chamber of Secrets.

[@alim.9801]

Imagine being a set designer for these films. Or doing set dressing or props. A dream 🥲

[@fool.of.hearts]

you literally are my favorite Slytherin, and IM a Slytherin. keep up the good work pal

[@rachelloretto4833]

It's Booknerd0486 from Twitter glad to see you making Harry Potter stuff again 💜

[@coombeslauren]

I love Philosopher's Stone so much but I also rarely actually watch it, I feel like it gets neglected because it's so far back in the timeline. But when I do watch it it's a nostalgia trip of familiarity and warmth, I love the relatively care-free tone of it. Book/film 1 and 2 were the cosy "look at this cool magic school don't you just wanna be there?" stories that made us fall in love with the series, which is a great contrast between the later darker stories. I feel like I can cut the first two films a lot of slack because the whole series, cast and team were in the early days of Harry Potter, whereas I sure am hard on poor Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince xD

[@sbi168]

Wasn't a fan initially as I only watched with my kids, however I started to get into them on the 3rd and now as a fan when I rewatch I go from beginning to end over a week and enjoy it. It's quite vanilla and unadventurous but still fun.

[@JayLiszte]

Wow these videos were timed perfectly

[@Victor1139]

I don't know about the UK but in the US filming with kids is extremely expensive due to some of the laws, that's probably the reason why the budget for this film is so much bigger than Lord of the Rings despite the effects not being as good in comparison

[@ytuser_3122]

I watch it rarely, I’ve been a fan since I was born as the movie came out around the same time I was born. Though, I think Chamber Of Secrets was the film I remember seeing before Philosopher’s Stone. The film takes a while to set up the characters and this world, but the story is very interesting and well executed. I love the casting, especially Alan Rickman as Severus Snape, I wouldn’t think to have Hans Gruber play this mysterious character. Makes me glad he and people like Maggie Smith didn’t get burnout and exit the series to get recast with different actors.

[@fangsabre]

In defense of Harry Potter against LoTR, LotR used practical effects for almost everything in the first movie, and the things that were CG were usually hidden in shadows or not in harsh light (the entire Mines of Moria section). A lot of the special effects in Harry Potter were in brighter lighting except for the centaur

[@quinnsinclair7028]

Fangsabre They could have engaged more practical effects in this movie. CG was used because it was less effort but they had the resources to do it.

[@menachemsalomon]

I think there was a bit of a lack of vision, of understanding the complete story at the time. It helps that the complete story hadn't yet been written at the time. That's a good complaint in retrospect, but while writing it and putting it together, it might have been much harder to get a clear picture. So most of the issues can be rationalized as growing pains. My pet peeve, only partially corrected later on, was the spell casting effect. In _Fellowship,_ during Gandalf and Saruman's fight, you can almost follow the force generated by the -wands- staffs from thrust to hit. In _Harry Potter,_ there's a perceptible delay.

[@fabrisseterbrugghe8567]

Daniel Radcliffe's voice changed during the filming. Most of those dubbed lines weren't by Radcliffe, but by a younger voice actor.

[@Fanatic_Foremem]

There was a period in my life where fir days All I did was marathon the harry potter movies, Star Wars movies and lord of the rings movies, in an endless loop. So I watched this movie quite often. I wonder if the issue with some of the other films is how they didn’t really write it with the thought of a sequel. The unfortunate events move crammed the first three books into one, spider-wick crammed together the full five books and some of the side material. And inkheart changed so much of the ending that I expect the team didn’t plan for a sequel just because of how under the radar it was. Meanwhile harry potter adapts only the first book, actually paces itself close to the chapters of the book, and even throws in its own elements to make the plot pick up when it needs to. One could argue that Harry Potter had longer books compared to the other two I mentioned, But I still think they should have followed the example the movie set.

[@germanerd6148]

Actually I like the first movie the best. I see that it has problems but the bad effects and child acting don´t bother me that much. It has the best music in any film, the magic is more than gun fire with a stun gun (see most battles later on), you can actually see what is going on (see all movies from 6 on), they have time to put most things of the book in the movie (a little unfair, it is a short book) and they put a lot of effort in to make everything SEEM magical. I feel much more wonder than in later movies because they behave like nothing special is going on. Buuuuuut I still love all the movies and the books, so just my opinion here ;D

[@shannonhensley2942]

They put less effort later on with the actual day to day magic. The moving stair cases disaprear after a while. And the appearing food. The magic became less fun and more to move the plot along.

[@alfje5492]

Used to point out a fake wall in the Durham Cathedral Cloister on a daily basis to tourists: it was there until 2016, so yeah, the set people didn't skimp on quality!

[@anitaposa9164]

The first Dumbledore reminded me of the book version of Dumbledore, compared to the "DID YOU PUT YOUR NAME IN THE GOBLET OF FIRE" He said calmly....

[@bandotaku]

I have a special place in my heart for this movie, and it actually is one of my favorites of the franchise. It's what got me into Harry Potter. I was in the middle of reading the first book when it came out, and decided to go watch the movie instead of finishing it because naive me thought it was going to be the same as reading it. Read all the current books after that, which was up to 4 at the time, and wasn't until I read the series over again when the fifth book came out that I saw all that was different. Still love it though.

[@themorganrileyshow5520]

I was also 7 when the first book landed in my lap and I was 10 when the films came out. So I legit grew up with Harry and Co.

[@donsample1002]

I remember rewatching this after watching the 8th movie, and thinking "gee those kids were young!" and that some of the cgi looked like the placeholder cgi in some of the deleted scenes from the 8th movie dvd.

[@RedBeard-qi4yh]

I have just started reading the books and so far they are better. Iam on book 5 now.

[@beachgirl4583]

Jordan Ward, Start back at one when you’re done. There is so much detail, I like to read them again. I reread 7 after finishing it the first time.

[@nebula1oftheseven488]

Now going to go watch the movie again.

[@fardareismai4495]

Yess! Awesome! Greatly looking forward to all of these.

[@wreckitremy]

I am so glad you brought up the special effects. I always think of Lord of the rings special effects when I get to those scenes in this movie.

[@nobleskywalker4639]

Budget matters when it comes to these types of movies the LOTR movies saved budget money by only having 3 movies and all of them being shot back to back to back

[@c17sam90]

There are interviews on the DVD of film 2 and o the big 8 part blu Ray documentary on the box set. When Columbus basically says yeah our effects were rushed and up to nobody’s standards

[@jonathan.palfrey]

It's interesting to hear your take on this, although I don't completely agree, mainly I suppose because I watch far fewer films, so I don't have your critical eye. The Harry Potter books and films that I liked were the first and third; and in the past I've reread those books and rewatched those films. I never even noticed that there was anything wrong with the special effects; but I'm rather startled to hear that Philosopher's Stone had a bigger budget than Fellowship of the Ring! I agree that the casting was good; and Rowling insisted on an all-British cast, which (unfortunately) Tolkien was in no position to do. Whenever a film is made of a book, the book is almost always better. The Harry Potter films do relatively well because they stick relatively closely to the books, but still the Book is the Thing; the film is an enjoyable visual supplement. (The Amazon version of Good Omens is unusually good, partly because of the extended length: it has time to tell most of the story.)

[@CouncilofGeeks]

I would actually argue that generally speaking movies faithfully adapting the books are usually not as good as the book. Because the book will always just have more by its nature. But when you get films that make significant changes to the source material you can sometimes get movies that are indeed better. Jaws, The Godfather, Jurassic Park, Blade Runner, and a few more arguable examples all managed to rework and elevate the original material by not being overly slavish to it.

[@jonathan.palfrey]

@@CouncilofGeeks: I should have said "in my limited experience"; I can't argue with your examples because I haven't read those books nor seen those films. 🙂 Although I liked the Jackson LOTR films overall, as a visual supplement to the books, I noticed quite a few arbitrary changes to Tolkien's story, and in all cases I think the story in the book was better. In particular, without the scouring of the Shire, the Return of the King tails off into dreary anticlimax.

[@MANB91UK]

Not a bad Snape... Good Job! :D

[@beachgirl4583]

11:26 “Richard Curtis”? I know you meant Harris, but...

[@katsala918]

I recently rewatched all of the mainline movies with my best friend and it was wonderful. I got to dump so much trivia on her.

[@hellogoditsmesara3569]

Book loyalty is a big factor too, you know. When you stray from the book, specifically causing plot holes that weren't in the book, that kind of turns book fans off- who you were kind of relying on being your base support. (cough cough City of Bones and Percy Jackson)

[@CouncilofGeeks]

Depends on the book. Also that's more of recent phenomenon. You go further back and some of the best film adaptations diverge heavily from the source material (Jurassic Park, Jaws, Blade Runner, The Shining, etc.).

[@hellogoditsmesara3569]

@@CouncilofGeeks Very true. But in the recent phenomenon of adapting books/series with an active reader fanbase, it seems counter-intuitive to stray from the books drastically (especially in ways that would possibly insult the fans). The first two Harry Potter movies weren't... bad, they were competent and book accurate enough that fans wouldn't riot and boycott any future movies. Like you said, it's very hard to get the right footing when attempting to do a series adaptation.

[@sanguinemcorda4310]

I am enjoying these

[@weirdandproudofit1]

I love hearing you talk about HP, even when we disagree - although I must say, I agree with everything you said in this one. Really appreciate all your work

[@hannahleigh8919]

I love going back and watching all of them. If I skip any, I skip 6

[@frankrappa4765]

I'm not a huge Harry Potter fan but the first film of the series is my favorite. My sister is the bigger HP fan in the family. I'm more a sci-fi geek. I can talk about Marvel and DC comics and movies, Doctor Who, Star Wars and Star Trek all day every day lol.

[@rosabowen731]

To be fair, my family actually does often rewatch this movie, probably about as much as 2 and 3.

[@andreamiller3578]

Troll in the dungeon! Thought you ought to know. Splat. LOL. That's what I always think of first in this movie.

[@CaroEmm]

So I do Harry Potter marathons every few years and I love rewatching the first one and pointing out all the bad CGI and cringy scenes. I can recognize that this movie is far from perfect but still enjoy it all the same

[@ghlmk5931]

Wow, I didn't know the budget for LOTR was lower than HP. In terms of FX, this movie has definitely not aged well. But it did get the job done. There were definitely some weird choices made, like why would you shoot the last scene first, knowing the kids would look so much younger than the rest of the film. I know movie scenes are shot out of order, but still. The best is yet to come!

[@Draugel]

Well there is anyone who is doing a Harry Potter Marathon...

[@skarmory994]

Hagrid breaking down the door to the Hut-on-the-Rock is my first cinematic memory. I don't think any other series will come close to what Harry Potter was and did.

[@shannonhensley2942]

Sorcerers stone movie was my first introduction to the franchise. My neighbor took us to the premier. And with no explination, no pre-discussion we watch the movie. It was amazing for my 5 year old heart. And i watched it with those rose color glasses the exact same way for 12 years. But now that im much older and not able to watch it as much, its so hard to watch. The cgi hurts it more than helps.

[@shannonhensley2942]

@ULGROTHA i selt a lot wrong so if you are just going to stick with that 👏congrats on your English degree.

[@lostschedule51]

I think the Harry Potter movies are the ones that every single time you watch them, you see something new like a joke you missed or a reference and this makes me very nostalgic. For the first movie I think we should also appreciate the memorable MUSIC. Just hearing a few seconds of the soundtrack you think only about Harry Potter.

[@nico2605]

I wouldn't have put Sorcerer's Stone in the title just out of protest, if you will. Dumb title change for a dumb reason. But idk..when I feel like watching Harry Potter I usually watch the whole series at one point or another so I'd see no reason for not watching this one. It's closer to the book than most of the others, it's fun and you got Richard Harris as Dumbledore. It's far from my favourite but I still really love it

[@jedisalsohere]

Harry Potter and the Philosophorcerer's Stone takes the number 3 spot in my list of books, same with the movie.

[@tomdemongod]

Looking back I think after watching AVPM I actually like this film more as I grew to like charaters like quirell a lot more just by association

[@amphitrite3660]

I think the special effects in the first film were sketchy because the film itself was rushed. When WB first started making these films, they didn't know Harry Potter would have the staying power of an older series like LotR. They thought it could be a trend that died out in a few years, so the first two films were pushed out as quickly as possible. Chris Columbus himself has said he was not entirely happy with the CGI. For the quidditch match, they had to create the stadium and gameplay using CGI models before filming any of the actors, then insert the actors into the finished product. It was not the best way to do it but they couldn't film the actors first because of time constraints. Columbus has said if he could redo anything in the film, it would be that. Peeves also got cut because of lack of time. A rough cut of the film was three hours long, and they hardly had time to finish the CGI as was, so the only thing that made sense was to cut Peeves.

[@SweenyTodd98]

I've always found this to be one of the weaker Harry Potter movies. It just feels rushed and there's changes that don't make sense like the first encounter with Fluffy (in the movie they hid from Mrs. Norris for no reason, they were doing nothing wrong) or the devil snare room (which was the beginning of the let's make Ron look bad in order to make Hermione look good even though she was already awesome pattern the movies unfortunately got into). I'll never understand why they cut the potion room near the end, would have really made the movie that much longer? Also (and this is admittedly nit picky) why did Madame Hooch do absolutely nothing while the Slytherin players attempted to straight up murder the Gryffindor players during the quidditch match?

[@thelordstarfish]

This is just something I read on TVTropes and I don't know where they had it from so it could be wrong... But I heard that the poor effects in this movie came down to bad scheduling; They filmed the scenes that needed the most extensive effects work last, so they had very little time to polish them. For Chamber of Secrets and on they'd learned their lessons and scheduled those shots a lot earlier in filming.

[@CouncilofGeeks]

If true that would have an impact, certainly.

[@chanceneck8072]

Seeing Maggie Smith so young really shocked me, when I first saw these Harry Potter movies!..... CAUSE SHE LOKED SOOOO FUCKING OLD IN HOOK!!

[@quinnsinclair7028]

They should have used practical effects to make someone up to look like a troll and used CG to insert the actor into the scene as larger than he actually was.

[@davidmtgregorio]

It's the best lighting wise. The other ones are so unsaturated.

[@SuperOdod]

The first one has to be my favorite and I'm 22

[@jonsnor4313]

I will never forget metatrons actor.

[@ichbinben.]

I just recently rewatched all the Harry Potter movies (not counting Fantastic Beasts) in English (I'm German and had only seen the German versions before). By the way, to anyone who understands German and loves Harry Potter, there is a German KZbinr called coldmirror who does a series where she analyzes the first Harry Potter movie, one video for every five minutes of the movie. It's great.

[@Rambl3On]

I always like the alliteration of Sorcerer’s Stone much for than the original Philosopher’s Stone title.

[@theshadowdirector]

Or just Harry Potter and ‘the stone’ as they refer to it so they didn’t have to film so many scenes twice to accommodate the name. Gosh, I saw this at an advanced screening. First one I ever want to I think.

[@spectre9340]

Whenever I rewatch a Harry Potter movie, I find more things to complain about 😅

[@dubbingsync]

Don’t have the time to re-read the books... then it sounds like Audible is your friend here.

[@notjamin]

"I have to wonder how many people, unless they are, you know, my age and trying to introduce their own kids into the thing, how many people actually go back and watch the very first one" me, an 18 year-old, looking at my annual Harry Potter marathon: haha.. yeah...

[@wariolandgoldpiramid]

I personally have rewatched this film more than any other in the series.

[@badwolf2108]

In order to review the harry potter books you could listen to them on audible.

[@alexwright4930]

I remember the films better now I think, need to re-read the books but no idea what happened to my original copies since my childhood.

[@jessicaable5095]

One word...Audible. if you're in the UK you get Stephan Fry reading to you. It's brilliant.

[@lwaves]

When/if I decide to watch a Potter movie, I would always start with the first and then follow with the others. Potter only, not Fantastic Beasts. I don't like to just jump into a franchise mid-way in, even if I know it well, I'll always go to the start. I might cut the franchise short if the later movies are bad though.

[@jessicaable5095]

I think everyone would agree that you should start with the first movie if you've never seen them, don't worry. I think he's just refuring to rewatches

[@lwaves]

@@jessicaable5095 I'm referring to rewatches too. :-) I saw them all in the cinema, then several times on Blu-ray and I always start with the first one and watch all of them in order. I can't just dip in and pick one or two to watch from all of them.

[@AlexFyrehartDGAFCave]

When it comes to franchises like Harry Potter I honestly can't skip any of them when re-watching. Must have a sort of completionist mindset or something I guess. lol. God knows I'm not gonna wrongly call it an OCD thing. In any case, I'm usually a bit soft on Philosopher's Stone. Although knowing now that they had the budget to do better CG/green screen stuff and just chose not to is kind of annoying. Ah well. That said I'm still harsher on Prisoner Of Azkaban having a worse werewolf than Doctor Who was able to do on a lower budget around the same time. It is kind of interesting reading the books back (which I only originally read in 2010 before Deathly Hallows Part 1 came out) more recently then watching the movies again, but as much as some people are purists, there are a few things here and there that I think the movies do better. I think my only major gripe with Philosopher's Stone is them leaving out Snape's protection for the stone. They make it a point to say he's a teacher protecting it but we never seem to see any actual evidence of that when they're going after it. Anything else I wish they'd been able to put in is only minor stuff most likely, and would only ever be put in if they do a Harry Potter Netflix show or something like that. Which tbh I'd be totally up for. Hell, I'd have it be animated so they don't have to worry about aging actors. lol.

[@whoami1824]

Movie 1 and 2 are my favorite. Maybe it was just me I felt like it was more accurate to the book because they were shorter books to begin with get fit almost all the stuff into it. Where is the later books they took a whole lot of shortcuts when they made them into movies. Plus I didn't like the colors on the last three movies it looks like that same film gradient when they do DC movies

[@whoami1824]

@ULGROTHA if your going to correct someone elses typo be sure not to create your own. Where as Right back at cha😜lol

[@beachgirl4583]

victoria graham, “Whereas” is grammatically correct. Look it up. Edit: *you’re* (since you’re being so nitpicky).

[@jedisalsohere]

Drinking game: Take a shot every time the word 'exposition' is said in this video.

[@laurellee1435]

Heh so I was in love with Lord of the rings and all the box sets and not so much a fan of Harry Potter. I was 11 when these movies came out and LOTR was my first love but a note on cgi: In 2001 I felt very strongly that cgi was not doing well enough for the amount it was being used. A lot of cartoons moved to cheap cgi as a replacement for hand drawn at the time and I watched a lot and really disliked it. I was a little anti CG. Compared to a lot of it Harry Potter actually was pretty decent for the time. When you compare it to lord of the rings you have to remember that the Peter Jackson and the wets workshop team made a lot of unusual and risky choices particularly in an age of cheap CGI. They had a strong sense of what it could do and what it couldn't. They made their own software for a start. But more than that they made sure to rely on physical models, maquettes, paintings, sculptures, prosthetics, puppets etc rather than just the CGI. The cave troll was made of clay and then scanned in and built on top of. They put Andy Serkis in a suit to do the acting for the largely CGI character of Gollum. It's for the same reason Jurassic Park doesn't feel aged. Not more expensive technology but more tailored technology balanced with as much organic stuff as possible. They asked themselves what they wanted and got the programs to fill the gaps to do that rather than seeing what the programs can do and going from there. Even pure visual effects lord of the rings used over greens reen and camera effects where possible. If you have been to any exhibitions you'll know that rather than use a simple computer effect to keep the character sizes correct they used not only stunt doubles but mirrors, camera angles for perspective and even built sets in multiple sizes, sometimes the same set in 2 stretching sizes. A lot of movies since then have used that logic when creating films with limited CGI, and even since CGI got better certain studios like Laika have chosen to use puppets for a more real effect and you can tell the films that skipped out when they shouldn't have. But I'm not sure at the time whether Lord of the Rings was one of the first to really utilise 00s modern technology and more classic methods at the same time but it certainly popularised it during this media period where cheaper animation and reliance on cgi was starting to be pushed harder.

[@AGraf-hy9tt]

I find the first movie charming and I really wish they kept some of the visual style

[@AmandaBear26]

OH, and before I forget, I highly recommend you watch Wizard People, Dear Reader. It's a hilarious audio track you play over this movie where the narrator (Brad Neely) treats the movie like an audiobook and gives amazing descriptions of the characters like McGonagall's voice being "chilling, like a piano made of frozen Windex", while her "eyes float like smears of fish-scales on her candle-wax stump of a head". Ron is called "Ronny the Bear," Malfoy is called "Mouth-oil," Voldemort is "Val-mart" and in some cases the characters' personalities are completely changed all through description alone. It had me dying of laughter. Please watch it. You can actually watch it through this playlist here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/q2qbYn2eoLBnbNE The Wizard People, Dear Reader version of the movie makes it so much more fun and I've probably seen it more than I have the actual movie.

[@wreckitremy]

Also, they underestimated kids and scrutiny. I took the book to this movie in theatres to literally follow along. I was 8

[@ace.squirrel]

Weirdly, I love the first three movies and the rest is kind of meh for me because they just get so actiony and dark (in the literal sense, lightning and filterwise), whereas one and two just make me feel warm and cozy. And prisoner has it's own special feel to it