Harry Potter And the Philosopher's Stone

The initial instalment of JK Rowling’s phenomenally successful, curiously old-fashioned literary franchise may have one or two fans to please (110 million copies have shifted to date in 48 different languages) but Chris Columbus’ film is a slavishly faithful adaptation which should win the bespectacled young trainee wizard even more fans, if indeed such a thing is possible. In fact, one might almost be inclined to forgive the director’s recent output (Stepmom? Bicentennial Man??)

As with most of the great characters in children’s fiction, Harry – remarkable for being the only living person to have survived an encounter with the evil Lord Valdemort – is an orphan who lives with his unspeakably nasty aunt and uncle. Escape suddenly becomes possible however, when on his eleventh birthday, Harry is accepted into the Hogwart’s School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Here, they find a world right out of any number of old-world gothic epics such as The Castle Of Otranto – shifting portraits, moving staircases and a quest for the eponymous stone (Amazingly, this has been renamed The Sorcerer’s Stone for the American market – that extra syllable clearly proved too much for them.)

Meanwhile, the outside world resembles Dickens by way of Hollywood, as hero Harry encounters a veritable Who’s Who of British thesps: Alan Rickman as Profeessor Snape, the master of potions, Robbie Coletrane as an obese bearded friendly dwarf named Hagrid, Ian Hart as a stuttering simpleton, not to mention the endless parade of fleeting cameos from such giants as John Cleese and Julie Walters. Despite the inevitable mild traces of sentimentality and a nagging Englishness, The Philosopher’s Stone zooms by in highly engaging fashion for its (in the family context) marathon 150-minute lifespan, with commendably assured and confident performances from the young cast, and a tangible sense of both wonder and danger throughout that’s comparable to all the best children’s fiction can offer – not quite Roald Dahl, but not far off.

The only casting flaw is the selection of a pale-faced Alan Rickman as the film’s intimidating villain-in-chief: most viewers over ten will find his visage more laughable than terrifying. Still, there’s no arguing with either the validity of the Potter phenomnon or the competence of its first filmic offspring, and though it’s highly likely to be shoved fom the forefront of public consciousness by the imminent release of the first Lord Of The Rings instalment, it’s pretty essential pre-festive/family viewing between now and then.