Does “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone” Stand the Test of Time?

The first Harry Potter movie cast a spell on an entire generation, but did the magic wear off twenty-four years after its release? Hundred Tomatoes hopes to swish and flick its way to an answer.

Disclaimer: For those who prefer the destination over the journey (there will be spoilers in this), you can scroll down to the very bottom to find the answer to this question, along with a “TL;DR” synopsis as to how we reached our verdict.

When it comes to unleashing the inner childlike wonder amongst individuals, few fictional series manage to tap into that better than the Harry Potter universe. Back in grade school, after the release of the first film, kids would pretend to cast spells at recess, act like Quidditch players as they fly around on fake broomsticks, incessantly say “Harry Potter” in phony British accents, and so much more.

They say that the movies mimic real life, but in many cases, I find that people in real life try to mimic the movies. Especially those below the age of thirteen, who mostly possess a blank slate in their minds, allowing for these expansive fictional lores to mold their passions in life.

Given the propensity of younger kids to idolize others, when a franchise came along where actual children played the roles of the main characters, it gave them role models to easily latch onto. Ones that many in my generation could grow up alongside, as Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) all aged with them as each movie subsequently released.

For the longest time, the actors for those three characters could not live functional lives in the real world due to their immense popularity. Emma Watson for example, temporarily withdrew from Brown University, in part because classmates would shout out things like “THREE POINTS FOR GRYFFINDOR” every time she answered a question right. Daniel Radcliffe experienced an identity crisis so dire that he battled alcoholism. Rupert Grint considered quitting acting altogether due to how little privacy he received during the time. It goes to show the toll it takes to be part of a “larger than life” type fictional land such as this one.

This fantasy for some young bloods continues its way into adulthood, albeit usually without pretending to cast spells on their peers. Given the success of “Harry Potter World” at Universal Studios (where everyone of all ages go, so I’m told), not to mention the fact that “muggle Quidditch” (now known as “quidball”) contains college aged plus players representing over twenty different countries, it is clear that the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry continues to leave a lasting legacy amongst a wide range of ages.

This obsession for sorcery obviously translated well at the box office. The Harry Potter series are some of the most successful films ever, with each movie averaging nearly a billion dollars in worldwide box office revenue. The first movie, “Harry Potter and the Philsopher's Stone”, made $974.7 million worldwide, making it one of the top five highest grossing of the entire 2000s. The inaugural film cashed in big time on the wildly famous book series from the now infamous author, J.K. Rowling.

In case you need a refresher, here is the plot for this first film:

Harry Potter, a boy who learns on his eleventh birthday that he is the orphaned son of two powerful wizards and possesses unique magical powers of his own, is summoned from his life as an unwanted child to become a student at Hogwarts, an English boarding school for wizards. There, he meets several friends who become his closest allies and help him discover the truth about his parents' mysterious deaths.

After twenty-four years, does “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone” successfully catch the elusive golden snitch, or get beaten down into oblivion by bludgers? Those cave-dwelling goblins over at Gringotts must be dying to know the answer from Hundred Tomatoes on this one.

Without further perspective, let’s get to this retrospective!

In your lifetime, how many movies can you think of where multiple kids below the age of thirteen played the most crucial roles in it? Off the top of my head, only a few come to mind: “Spy Kids”, “School of Rock” to some extent, and of course, the series in question. Others certainly exist, but given the rarity of this in film, they would need to find someone who could properly manage a horde of child actors.

Enter Chris Columbus, originally known for directing the now famous “Home Alone” series before signing onto this project. Not only did he understand the lore of “Harry Potter” to the point where he wrote a screenplay for it well in advance due to his daughter’s passion for the series, he also knew how to create a comfortable environment for young actors and family friendly work.

You can tell he, along with the rest of the crew, put a lot of thought into how they could make this wizarding world come to life. The production design of Hogwarts especially contains a lot of elaborate nooks and crannies. The historic castle, the dark forest, along with the final security stages Ron, Harry, and Hermione all need to pass through showcase a unique universe that truly sets it apart. Cinematography in certain moments also help bring it all home, containing iconic shots that bring out the best in the locations.

The score in this is absolutely iconic and easily stands the test of time. Legendary composer John Williams brings his “A” game to this one by creating music that beautifully builds tension in the most intense moments, leaving me surprisingly invested in scenes that otherwise I would not care about. Therein lies a mystique to the main riff that for whatever reason unleashes my inner curiosity, making me want to want to uncover the overarching mysteries of Hogwarts. It also nicely adds moments of whimsy and levity during the more lighthearted scenes. Several tracks in this will remain stuck in my head for weeks after watching this.

A nice aspect about this film is its family friendly nature. While certain moments can get a bit dark (the final showdown I remember slightly scarring me for life as a kid), the mostly upbeat tone to this movie is a touch refreshing, given how films these days seem to want to one up themselves on how dreary they can make everything. The child actors hold their own, giving unique personalities to their respective characters. I also enjoy seeing each of the main characters gradually come into their own. Harry especially intrigues as he begins to uncover the mystery behind his parent’s death, along with his sudden celebrity status.

Unfortunately, due to the rightful decision to cater this movie towards small children, it absolutely oozes cheesiness. It’s as if Velveeta, Kraft, Roquefort and Cheez Whiz all merge to make one gigafactory of fromage, then proceed to dump all their chemically induced dairy products into the local water supply.

I get why they do this, they want kids to properly follow along, but as a grown adult watching this, so many moments make me cringe. Especially some of the slapstick moments from the actors in attempts to add some comedy. Along with all the over-acting from various adults in important moments that take me completely out of it.

The visual effects in this show their age badly. Obviously, a film over twenty years in existence will not possess the most up to date animations, but the ultimate problem here stems from the fact that they rely upon it for nearly every important action sequence. One flashback, which aims to invoke fear of the villain Voldemort, shows him killing Harry’s Mom, but the way the spell comes out, coupled with the slow motion fall back, takes me completely out of the movie due to its goofiness. Same with the final encounter, amongst other scenes meant to build tension. I just could not get fully invested, despite the score’s best efforts.

The Quidditch scenes make me wince due to the over-the-top animations, along with the backgrounds feeling phony. With that said, my bigger complaint about these scenes comes from a plot perspective.

You’re telling me this eleven-year-old kid, who never even knew the sport existed, gets recruited to play the most important position for the team at eleven years old (whilst playing against people well older than him) because a professor saw him show one flash of brilliance on a broomstick?

Could you imagine an eleven-year-old becoming the starting QB for a high school football team despite only picking up a football once? I get its because of the magic and the money to buy the best broomstick out there, but is this really the message we really want to be sending to children? That you can just show up and become an instant superstar?

Speaking of games, I hate to go all tin foil hat on everyone, but that House Cup is clearly more rigged than a batch of explosives. As a refresher, they announce Slytherin as the winners with a 160-point lead over Gryffindor. That should be it, right? WRONG. Dumbledore comes in with a steel chair OUT OF NOWHERE and gives Gryffindor 170 extra points because of the actions of Harry, Ron, Hermione and Neville Longbottom that nobody witnesses except maybe him. Tell me you hate Slytherin, without telling me you hate Slytherin Dumbledore.

All I know is if I was on Slytherin, my disappointment would be immeasurable and my day would be ruined (for the record, I’m a Hufflepuff according to the Pottermore sorting quiz so I feel like I’m not biased). On the bright side, if social media existed back then, the “Slytherin blew a 160-point lead” memes would be everywhere.

Furthermore, too much of the plot advances due to stupidity on someone’s end. To illustrate this point, Hagrid, while a comedic character at the outset, blurts out not only the secrets they need to find the meaning behind the classified Philosopher’s Stone by name dropping Nicholas Flamel, he also tells some random individual in a black hood how to sneak through those guarding said classified object.

Oops, I guess… Luckily for Hagrid, nobody in the wizarding world drove around in a van offering “candy” to kids, otherwise he never would have made it up until this point in his life.

Speaking of Nicholas Flamel, the owner of the philosopher’s stone portrayed as someone on par with the stature of Headmaster Albus Dumbledore, we never get a proper introduction to him. I cannot recall the last time I saw a movie where they talk someone up as an important figure, never to make an appearance in it.

One last element that irks me before I go back to thinking happy thoughts: Harry, Ron, Hermione, and Draco Malfoy at one point all get detentions because they break curfew. The punishment? To go out well past curfew so they can investigate mysterious unicorn deaths in a dark haunted forest with Hagrid. Of course, they run into Voldemort there and almost die, only to get bailed out by a centaur.

It begs the question: How has this school not been sued into oblivion for causing emotional distress on the students? In the same way muggles do not believe in magic, do wizards not believe in taking legal action? Maybe people in the UK aren’t willing to take people to court at the drop of a hat in the same way Americans do?

On a more positive note, they allow for Headmaster Dumbledore to drop some seriously sage wisdom during certain moments. Two quotes that stand out to me include, “it takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends” along with his statement, “it does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live”. Actor Richard Harris (may he rest in peace) plays the mentor role nicely, rising above a lot of the over-acting I see in this.

I know I just went Simon Cowell on steroids on this film, but to be clear, I am glad I went back and re-visited “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone”. I had a fun trip down memory lane. I also need to remember that I am criticizing the realism behind something clearly not made for grown adults, that is about magical people who can cast spells, which obviously does not happen in real life, much to the relief of those in Salem post witch trials.

However, the question isn’t “did Hundred Tomatoes have fun re-watching a prominent film from their childhood?” It’s supposed to be an objective analysis whether this holds up for current and future generations. With all of this in mind, this might be my final retrospective ever. Hopefully, Harry Potter fanatics don’t go all “avada kedavra” on me once I answer the spellbinding question below:

Does “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone” stand the test of time?

Verdict: Unfortunately… Not really.

TL;DR Synopsis: While certain positive aspects exist like the production design and score, the over-acting, the dated, yet heavily relied upon special effects, plot contrivances and overall cheesiness outweigh the nuggets of high quality.

Hundred Tomatoes Score: 51/100

In case you were wondering, here are the Top 10 Highest Grossing Films of the 2000s, and where Hundred Tomatoes stands of them. “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone” is the third entry in this series.

10. Shrek 2 – Yes, it stands the test of time for the most part - 76/100

9. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers – Unequivocally yes it stands the test of time – 92/100

8. Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

7. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

6. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End

5. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone – Does not really stand the test of time – 51/100

4. The Dark Knight

3. Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man’s Chest

2. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

1. Avatar