Commentaires des utilisateurs

Having read the first few Harry Potter books before 2001 and hearing about the hype for the first movie, I was excited. I heard there was going to be an all-British cast (which makes sense, right?) and we'd get to see a live version of one of the defining novels of our generation. From what I remember I went with my family and a family friend to see the movie the day after Christmas and was pleasantly amazed. After the movie was over, I watched the credits and discovered some familiar names (the late Alan Rickman, Sister Act's Maggie Smith, James Bond 007's Robbie Coltrane, and Star Wars' Warwick Davis); others not so familiar (the kids, some of whom had their debut). But it was a good movie and was a party of colors and sights for all to see. This is easily my favorite of all the Harry Potter films. The catalyst of the movie series!

I enjoyed this movie immensely. But, like "The Phantom Menace," I've had a very hard time viewing it objectively. There was so much anticipation leading up to its release, I simply enjoyed the experience of being there. Having read all four books in the series a few times each, I am overly familiar with the events in the story. As I watched the movie, my continuing thought was "How well will the next part of the story be translated to the screen?" rather than "How entertaining is this film overall?" I have trouble answering the latter question because I was already entertained by watching a wonderful story dramatized, so I'll never know how I'd have reacted had I seen this movie without having read the books.

Critics talk about how incredibly faithful the movie is to the book, and perhaps I'd have had an easier time detaching the two in my mind had the movie set off on its own course. Indeed, many classic children's movies, like "The Wizard of Oz" and "Mary Poppins," are so successful partly because they're so different from the books that inspired them. But these are exceptions; in my experience, most children's movies reveal their weaknesses in how they diverge from the books upon which they're based. And much of what makes the Harry Potter phenomenon unique is that it is the first time in ages that a children's book, without a movie accompanying it, has generated this much popularity. According to an article I read a year ago, the universe of Harry Potter has become as real in the minds of youngsters and adults as that of a popular movie series like Star Wars. Therefore, it will be very hard for any film based upon it to compete with it. In the minds of die-hard fans, any changes made to the story will be seen as desecrating the fantasy world that Rowling created. That's why it's easy to understand why the filmmakers were so reluctant to change anything.

As a faithful rendering of the book squeezed into a two-and-a-half hour period, the movie is beautifully done. I don't have a single complaint about any of the actors, who successfully bring to life, with the aid of costume design and special effects, the many colorful characters from the book. My favorite character, the giant Hagrid, is played by Robbie Coltrane, and I say with no exaggeration that he is exactly how I imagined him while reading the book. It's as if they took the image in my mind and transferred it to the screen. While I had my own personal image of Snape (for some reason, I always imagined him as the head villain from another Chris Columbus film, "Adventures in Babysitting"), Alan Rickman is perfect in the role. I usually expect to have words of criticism for some performances, but I just don't. The remaining adult actors, including Maggie Smith as Professor McGonagall and Richard Harris as Albus Dumbledore, are as good as they possibly could be, and the kids do an excellent job of holding their own against these veterans. Some have criticized Daniel Radcliffe for appearing too subdued in the title role, but that's exactly how the character is portrayed in the book: modest, unassuming, and laid-back. The kids who play Harry's two best friends are flawless.

I had a lot of worries about the fact that it was being directed by Chris Columbus, whose entire directorial career so far has consisted of over-the-top slapstick films. I was pleasantly surprised that he did not direct the Harry Potter film in this way. Except for brief moments like the children's delayed reaction to a giant three-headed dog they encounter and Harry's swallowing the quaffle ball, there is nothing here to remind us that this film is directed by the same person who gave us films like "Home Alone" and "Mrs. Doubtfire." Indeed, I think Columbus may have gone just a tad bit too far in trying not to make the film seem cartoony. I would have liked to see a little more emotion on the actors' faces at certain times. Overall, however, his restraint works nicely in giving the film the kind of believability the book possesses.

But much is left out. Harry's caretaker Uncle Vernon, a prominent character in the book, is given less attention in the movie than some of the bit characters. The gently satirical aspects of Hogwarts School aren't in the movie at all. We never see the ghostly history teacher who died several years back but kept on teaching. Lines like the following--"Professor McGonagall watched [her students] turn a mouse into a snuffbox--points were given for how pretty the snuffbox was, but taken away if it had whiskers"--find no equivalent in the movie. The movie does include platform nine-and-three-quarters, though the way the kids disappear into the wall isn't as mysterious as I had visualized, and the sorting hat is there, minus the great poem explaining the differences between the four schools.

Not that I'm blaming the movie for omitting some details. Some things from the book would not have translated easily to the screen, and it would have been very difficult to stick everything in. Had Columbus done so and allowed the film to be as long as necessary (eight hours, maybe?), like a BBC miniseries, the film might have been a masterpiece, but few kids would ever have had the patience or attention span to sit through it.

The problem is that the amusing details are much of what make Harry Potter such a special story. A whole universe is created in Rowling's series, in which a magical society exists within our own ordinary "muggle" world and is kept secret by a bureaucracy with its own rules, history and politics. The way magic is treated in her books, not as something medieval but as very similar to the way our own contemporary world works, is a large part of their charm. Take away these details, and you're left with a fairly conventional tale of a young wizard fighting an evil sorcerer.

Although the audience I was with broke into applause as soon as the movie ended (something I've never seen happen before, though I don't go to the theater that often), some people have complained about the movie dragging at certain points. I didn't have that problem, but, as I said, I wasn't really trying to get involved in the movie's story. After thinking about it, it does seem like parts of the movie fail to convey a sense of urgency. Why should this be? I never felt that way when reading the books, and this is without a doubt the very same story.

The answer, I think, is that the books portray much of Harry's anxiety in trying to succeed in school (for if he's kicked out, he'll go straight back to his horrible uncle) and fit in with the kids there. The movie doesn't tap into these anxieties enough, so why should we care whether he wins the Quidditch match (other than that he survives in one piece) and gets through the school year? The only real suspense in the movie after he arrives at Hogwarts comes from the story of Lord Voldemort returning, which in the book is almost secondary. Harry's adventures getting along in the school are fun and interesting, but as they are presented to us in the film, there isn't enough tying them all together.

What we have here is a serviceable dramatization of a wonderful children's series, but it doesn't entirely succeed in standing on its own. Perhaps it should have diverged from the book just a little, to compensate for the difficulties in translating some of the book's delights to the screen. In its current form, it's almost like a preview of the book. Its lack of fullness, and its dependence on the book, might actually increase the popularity and endurance of Rowling's series by making those who see the film yearn for more, which they can get from the real thing.

Like a lot of others, I refused to watch this film when it was originally released, thinking it was going to be another movie for kids, loosely taken from the source. Was I ever wrong?

J.K. Rowling's novel was brilliantly taken from book to screen. The acting, directing and especially the special effects were tremendously awesome. Director Chris Columbus did a superb job with the direction, I was surprised he didn't get an Academy Award nomination. The acting was too, excellent, especially from the experienced actors like Alan Rickman playing Severus Snape. Truly one of his best performances.

A great adaptation of a very popular book, a fine example of cinema.

There's nothing like the first in a series, is there? The introduction to the characters, the immersion into the fictional world, the first time you laugh, cry, care, and fear for someone's safety can never be repeated. No matter how many Harry Potter movies they crank out, or if they ever remake them in the future, none will come close to the wonderful first film, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

I'm sure everyone has their own childhood memories of reading the Harry Potter books that they'll tell their grandkids about, but I'll never forget going to see the first movie in the theaters. The lights dimmed, John Williams's perfect theme played its first notes as Richard Harris walked down Privet Drive, and everyone in the theater was transported to another world. John Williams's numerous themes, all wonderful and a personification of the wizarding world, took the early movies to another level. As other composers tried their hands at the later films, that quality was missing. There's something truly special about going to see this movie on the big screen, and while the "magical" qualities might not all be credited to the music, it's certainly one of them.

Welcome to the world of Harry Potter, where if you're a ten-year-old kid who doesn't fit in, you might get a letter delivered by an owl telling you you have magical powers and should go to a special school to hone them. Believe it or not, there are people who watch this movie without reading the books, so a bit of description is necessary. Obviously the stars of the show are the children, who were selected out of millions of other kids to be able to memorize lines, not look in the camera, endear themselves to worldwide audiences, and hopefully act. Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, and Tom Felton are so cute and tiny in this first movie, you'll undoubtedly find yourself re-watching it as the years pass just to see them as kids again. I always marvel that child actors train themselves not to look in the camera, so even if their performances aren't perfect, I cut them slack, knowing firsthand how hard it is. And these kids had to dress in funny costumes, recite incantations without laughing, and pretend they're looking at things that were added in post production!

Usually, in kids' movies, there's a grown-up or two who add to the cast and make the adult audience members feel less silly that they're watching it. In the Harry Potter movies, everyone wanted to be in them! Throughout the series you'll see a host of familiar faces as "guest stars" but the regulars will make special places in your heart. Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, and Robbie Coltrane are household names for little kids, because they're so convincing as the kindhearted Dumbledore, the wizened but sentimental McGonagall, the endlessly mimicable Snape, and the jolly Hagrid, kids today can't imagine they've had any other career prior to these movies! Is there any kid who doesn't immediately attribute the word "earwax" to Richard Harris, point out striped cats as "Maggie Smith cats", mumble "Shouldn't have said that," when they make a mistake, or practice putting pauses in their sentences like Alan Rickman?

First movies are so special, since they introduce audiences to a world that will hopefully capture their attention for however many more movies will be made. In J.K. Rowling's fantasy world, there's so much to fall in love with; and in the film adaptation you can really believe it exists. Seeing the Hogwarts structure for the first time creates a special feeling in your heart that can only be recaptured by watching the movie again or going to see the next in the series. The Great Hall, Quidditch, the Sorting Hat, talking portraits, flying lessons, selecting the perfect wand-all these Harry Potter moments are perfectly recreated in the first of a series that saw an entire generation grow up buying toy wands and trying Bertie Bott's Every Flavor Beans.

Each installment has its special moments, and this first one has quite a few, even outside of the exposition. If a three-headed dog doesn't immediately conjure the name "Fluffy," chess pieces have never come to life in your imagination, you don't laugh at the idea of counting your birthday presents, and you don't know what Richard Harris wants most in the world, you're missing out on one of the great joys in life. If somehow 2001 passed you by without a trip to the movie theaters Thanksgiving weekend, go find yourself a copy of this iconic, lovely movie.

Once upon a time (and not that long ago), in the vivid, fertile imagination of author J.K. Rowling, a character was born: A boy. A young boy named Harry, who was destined to become one of the most beloved characters to emerge from a work of fiction in a long, long time, and was quickly embraced by young and old alike in all corners of the world. And now, thanks to the magic of the cinema, Harry and his companions fairly leap from the pages of the novel to the silver screen in the phenomenal motion picture, `Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone,' directed by Chris Columbus and written for the screen by Steve Kloves. Indeed, Harry Potter is a boy, but not just any boy; because Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) just happens to be a wizard. But, orphaned as a baby, Harry has been raised by his Aunt Petunia (Fiona Shaw) and Uncle Vernon Dursley (Richard Griffiths), who never let him in on the fact that he was, well-- what he was. It seems that Petunia didn't approve of her own sister-- Harry's mother-- because she was a witch; nor of Harry's father because he, too, was a wizard. When Harry turns eleven, however, the secret is out of the bag when-- after some strange goings-on-- a giant of a man named Rubeus Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) shows up at the Dursley's door to collect Harry and take him off to `Hogwarts,' a school for wizards and witches and all who would perfect the gift with which they were born: The gift of magic! And from the moment Harry boards the train (from station platform nine-and-three-quarters) that will take him to his destiny, the magic is alive-- for Harry, and for the audience, as well; and it's a journey you will never forget.

What a monumental undertaking to even think of attempting-- translating and transferring this passionately beloved work from novel to the screen. Because to millions of people, Harry and his companions are so much more than merely characters in a book; these are characters for whom people have made a special place in their hearts, which puts a great burden of trust upon the man who would attempt to bring them to life. And Chris Columbus, it turns out, was the right man for the job. More than rising to the occasion and with some magic of his own-- and a lot of help from an extraordinarily talented cast and crew-- Columbus has delivered a film that is not only true to the story, but true to the very spirit that makes Harry Potter so special. The special effects are absolutely beyond astounding, and Columbus, with a keen eye for detail and without missing a beat, keeps it all on track and moving right along at a pace and with a sense of timing that makes this an absorbing, thoroughly entertaining and enjoyable experience from beginning to end. From the opening frame you get the feeling that you're about to have a singular experience; and you're right. Because you've just entered the world of Harry Potter. And it's magic.

Even having the best special effects do not a great movie make, however, and this film is no exception; what catapults this one to the top are the performances, beginning with Radcliffe, whom you quickly forget is an actor playing a part. And that about sums up what kind of a job this young man does here. Without question, he IS Harry Potter, physically and emotionally, and when he waves his wand and does what he does, you believe it. A wonderful performance by a gifted actor who has a great career ahead of him; without question the perfect choice for the role of Harry.

Also turning in excellent performances are Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley, and Emma Watson as Hermione. As with Radcliffe, the casting here could not have been more perfect. Grint is `Everyboy,' with that special glint in his eye and a manner that makes him especially endearing. And the spunky Watson adds some real sparkle to the film as Hermione, the one with the sense of urgency and the wherewithal to get things done; a real role model for young girls everywhere.

It's obvious that a lot of care went into the casting of this film, and it's a big part of why it is so successful. Richard Harris, as Headmaster Albus Dumbledore; Maggie Smith as Professor McGonagall; John Hurt as Mr. Ollivander; Ian Hart as Professor Quirrell. Exceptional performances from one and all, with two that stand out as especially memorable: Robbie Coltrane, who readily conveys the fact that Hagrid's heart is of a size that matches that of the man; and Alan Rickman, as Professor Severus Snape, deliciously droll while demonstrating menace through the fine art of articulation.

The additional supporting cast includes John Cleese (Nearly Headless Nick), Warwick Davis (Professor Flitwick), Julie Walters (Mrs. Weasley), Zoe Wanamaker (Madame Hooch), Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy), Harry Melling (Dudley) and David Bradley (Filch). From Rowling's imagination to the written page to real life (albeit via the movie screen), `Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone' is a triumph many times over; a unique film of truly universal appeal, the likes of which is as rare as, well-- a sorcerer's stone. A film in which adults and children alike will rejoice, because it speaks to the heart in a universal language of life, love, experience and imagination; a film that states unequivocally that magic exists-- as long as there's a single child with a single dream somewhere in the world, and real wizards like J.K. Rowling, Chris Columbus, Steve Kloves and every member of this wonderful cast and crew around to bring it to life as they have here. An instant classic in every sense of the word, this is truly a film for the ages. A remarkable achievement, this IS the magic of the movies. I rate this one 10/10.

To be faced with the challenge of adapting Harry Potter for the Silver screen must have been any director's nightmare- the chance of directing possibly the biggest film of this decade, but also the hardest audience-the millions of fans of the book who know every line and will pick up on every mistake. Being one of the above, I can only say that Christopher Columbus and all of the team working on HP did marvelously. The cast was brilliant (particularly notable are Alan Rickman as Snape, Maggie Smith as McGonagall, and the eerily creepy David Bradley as Argus Filch), the directing wonderful, and the scenery perfect. The only qualm is that it does not track perfectly with the book, but squeezed into 2.5 hours, this can only be expected. Well done all involved!

The right way to start a saga like this one, introducing the characters in a very positive and unique way, telling and showcasing all the riches that the wizard's world is a home of. In only one movie, we've seen amazing creatures, friendly and foes, teachers that are heroes and villains, we've witnessed the wisdom of the legendary professor Dumbldor, the movie made us guess who will be who and on who's side in the chapters to come and above all, we had fun. I will never forget the part where Harry buys all the things he needs to start his wizard journey, the authentic look of the streets, the shops and the bank will be part of the Harry Potter legacy forever.

Ah, the first film adaptation of the beloved Harry Potter series. Harry Potter is an 11-year-old boy who comes to find out that he is a wizard. He lives with his uncaring Muggle (non magic) aunt, uncle, and cousin since his parents died when he was a baby. They were murdered by a dark and powerful evil wizard named Lord Voldemort. Harry would be dead too, but was miraculously saved, making him something of a legend. Upon learning of his guarded magic roots, Harry gets enrolled in Hogwarts- a British school for witches and wizards. While there he learns to come into his own, meet people that are actually good to him, and learn more of his dark past. Looking back, I don't know if it was a good idea to have Chris Columbus direct this, as he does have a reputation for being something of a hack, albeit a decent one. I think his direction is okay here. Yeah, retrospectively it could have been better, but it could also have been much worse. At least with him at the helm we get a good amount of whimsy to go along with a bit of menace, and that's a good thing, as the book was likewise not too heavy on the darker stuff (though that sure changed as time went on). Many liberties are taken, which is weird since the book is quite short, and the film is two and a half hours. It does get the point across decently enough though, and also works as a piece for those unfamiliar with the source material. John Williams provides great music, there's wonderful art direction and set design, and there's some nifty set pieces too. Featuring an all-British cast, this film is impeccably cast, and the performances are good too. Finding decent child actors is hard, but they really scored here. My enjoyment of this movie has waned over time, but it's still not a terrible piece of work by any means, so check it out.

During my childhood, the earlier Harry Potter books got me into the franchise and especially Fantasy Literature in general. They had thought provoking writing, likeable characters, and compelling world building. Then I saw this movie adaptation of The Sorcerer's Stone (The Philosopher's Stone in the UK) back in theaters and loved it. It's not a perfect film I'll admit, but it's a very good start to a successful fantasy movie franchise.

Sure, it's a bit overlong and the child performances from Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson, while not terrible by any means, could have used some fixing though they did get better as the later movies progressed.

Everything else still holds up. The visual effects/cinematography are beautiful to look at, the directing from Chris Columbus is great, the make up designs are well built, and the music score from John Williams is enchanting and haunting especially Hedwig's Theme. Not to mention the supporting actors are great with Robbie Coltrane as Harris and the late actors Alan Rickman and Richard Harris as Severus Snape and Professor Dumbledore.

Overall, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone isn't perfect but it's a very good start to the successful fantasy movie franchise after 20 years. Recommended! :)

We live in a world where economics is hard. This forces practical limitations when making a movie. Time and money are sadly finite, cinema owners need to be pleased as well as fans and computer animation ain't perfect. Given these limitations, this film is about as close to human perfection as it is possible to achieve. However, it's extremely clear what an immense challenge it is to turn Philosopher's Stone from book to film.

Two and a half hours is not long to explore a wonderful, magical world. Furthermore, the directors have bowed to the inevitable temptation to show us things that cannot be communicated so effectively in a book. The consequence is the feeling of a slightly breathless sprint in places.

It also means that the movie has to stay true to the spirit of the book rather than to the letter of it. There are omissions and there are changes. The changes that were made capture and maintain the spirit of the story really well; indeed, there are places where the story is more clearly and straightforwardly told in the movie than in the book. Some aspects of the story are fleshed out on screen and the additions are delightful, completely in keeping with the flavour of the world.

The humour of the movie is inevitably more visual than that of the book; no belly laughs, but a lot of smiles. Some punchlines have changed, but the reasons why the jokes are funny remain the same. Not knowing exactly what's coming next is a good thing! It's all kept tasteful, classy and above the belt; there's nothing to cringe about.

The voice acting is almost uniformly brilliant. However, there are occasions where some of the actors are required to convey high emotions and are only given a second or two of face shot, or head-and-shoulders shot, to do so. This isn't as much freedom as they need and they fall a little short. The blame here must fall on the decision to give the actors too much to do too quickly, not on the actors themselves.

Other than these rare jarring instances, the physical acting is frequently excellent and seldom less than completely adequate, judged against the highest of targets set by the book's clear emotion descriptions.

Dan Radcliffe has the look, the mannerisms and the charm of Harry down pat. His strongest expressions are the bemusement that must be inherent at entering a world where science does not rule alone and the bravery that Harry shows in his achievements. Emma Watson possibly slightly overplays Hermione, but does so in a fully endearing fashion. There's one scene which gives her too little chance to truly express panic; otherwise her performance needs no changes.

Rupert Grint has comic timing way beyond his years, hitting Ron's lines perfectly. Tom Felton makes a stylish Draco; Matt Lewis' Neville character suffers from the acceleration, so the finale does come as a slight characterisation shock.

The Phelps brothers' Fred and George are distinctively cheeky rather than proactive pranksters; Chris Rankin imbues Percy with genuine authority. Sean Biggerstaff shines; his Oliver Wood is likeable and an ideal Quidditch team captain.

Robbie Coltrane's Hagrid is the single dominant adult character, with maximum laughs extracted at every step. The movie changes strongly exaggerate one side of Hagrid's nature, though; probably inevitable considering how much plot exposition his character has.

David Bradley has a vicious Argus Filch; John Hurt's Ollivander is an eccentric treat, giving a wonderful introduction to the Wizarding World. The professors are uniformly excellent, though Richard Harris' Dumbledore comes off as disappointingly flat until the end.

The most ambitious point of the movie is the computer generated imagery. The stills are wonderful, but the fastest animation is restricted by the limitations of real-world technology. The book makes extremely stringent demands of the CGI; sometimes their overall effect in the movie is merely good rather than insanely great. Some of the magic spells and effects look awesome; others don't capture the imagination nearly so much.

The world cannot yet completely convincingly animate human beings doing inhuman things, which serves as a clear reminder that you need fictional magic to make the impossible possible. The Quidditch scene is the most demanding of them all; while the sequence is action-packed and good-looking, disappointingly, it's not a total success. Perhaps some of the scenes would have been better with more conventional special effects? (For instance, the lower-tech-looking Sorting Hat scene is one of the most delightful of them all.)

The set looks gorgeous. However, it may not stand up to detailed analysis. It's fairly obvious that things are shot in many disparate locations, rather than one big Hogwarts School near Hogsmeade.

The score is absolutely wonderful. The soundtrack may rely too heavily on The Famous Bit, but it's clear that the balance and mixture of things in the finished movie are exactly right.

The feel of the whole movie is everything fans could have hoped for. The dialogue is intensely measured, the colouring is suitably epic, the selection of what to leave in is really tightly considered. You get chills in your spine at the right places; you feel the triumphs as all-encompassing endorphin highs. It's clear that the production have thought long, hard and lovingly. They are true fans of the story, they are the right people for the job, it all bodes very well for the second film.

So it could never have been the film that the hyper-literalists were hoping for, then, but it is as good as the practicalities of the real world could possibly permit. Don't expect miracles and you'll love it. I look forward to watching it again and again.

8/10 at the very least. A really satisfactory film!

I'm not sure why, but I never really enjoyed reading or watching Harry Potter and the philosopher's stone. It feels very childish and aimed at a younger audience. Not to mention that the actors look a lot younger than 11. I felt a bit bored watching it and didn't really enjoy it. Nonetheless, it is Harry Potter, so I will give it a 5.

To millions of children of all ages, November 16 has been more eagerly anticipated than Christmas, as the long-awaited film version of J. K. Rowling's beloved novel "Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone" hits the screen.

Each of Rowling's four Harry Potter books have been critically acclaimed worldwide best-sellers, turning a generation of video-game playing children into avid readers.

In translating Rowling's world of wizards and magic to the screen, the film makers claimed to be intensely aware of the fans' high expectations and had sworn to be faithful to the book.

"Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone" is indeed the most loyal film adaptation of a book that this fan has ever seen.

It's the story of an orphaned boy who discovers on his eleventh birthday that his parents were wizards and that he is in fact a famous and powerful wizard himself.

Released from the clutches of his desperately ordinary (and non-magical) Uncle Vernon and Aunt Petunia - and their deliciously obnoxious son Dudley - Harry takes his place in the wizarding world as a first year student at the venerated Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.

A great deal of "Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone" is an introduction to this fantastic and dangerous world and its richly drawn characters. There's not only a lot of plot to cover in this film, but an entire world to create.

At two and a half hours long (hit the restroom before it starts), the film includes the book's most memorable scenes, bringing many of them to life with pure cinematic wizardry.

The Quidditch match (a soccer/hockey/rugby thing played on broomsticks) is much more exciting on the screen than on the page, as is the bathroom battle with an enormous mountain troll and the larger-than-life game of wizard's chess.

The frightening aspects of the book are in full force in the film, and its PG rating (for some scary moments) should be taken seriously.

Screenwriter Steven Kloves ("Wonder Boys") has done a fine job of streamlining Rowling's tale while maintaining its spirit. Director Chris Columbus ("Home Alone") makes good on his promise to be faithful to the book. But at times the film is a bit too reverent; you want the actors to cut loose and have a bit more fun.

Columbus clearly understands that fantasy works best when it's played most real. Across the board, his fine ensemble of actors are so perfectly cast that they appear to have literally stepped out of Rowling's book.

In the title role, Daniel Radcliffe pulls off the very difficult task of playing an introverted hero who spends most of the movie reacting to the amazing sights and events around him. He beautifully captures the deep soul and untapped potential of Harry Potter. And when this kid smiles the screen lights up.

Rupert Grint is delightful as Harry's sardonic buddy Ron Weasley and Emma Watson nearly steals the film as their overachieving friend Hermione Granger. Three cheers to the film makers for giving three unknown child actors the top billing they deserve.

The strong cast of veteran actors includes Richard Harris as the wise Headmaster Dumbledore and Robbie Coltrane as the lovable giant Hagrid. Alan Rickman is wonderfully villainous as Professor Snape and Zoe Wanamaker has just the right touch of girls gym teacher as flying instructor Madame Hooch.

As the strict but just Professor McGonagall, Oscar winner Maggie Smith seems born to play the role - and is ready for another Oscar.

John Cleese (as Nearly Headless Nick) and Julie Walters (as Mrs. Weasley) have all-too-brief cameo roles, but if the next film "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" remains true to the book, we'll be seeing more of them.

In addition to being highly engaging, the film is a marvelous thing to look at. From the bustling wizard street Diagon Alley to the magnificently gothic Hogwarts School to the dark and misty Forbidden Forest, the film breaks new ground in imaginative production design.

To paraphrase the film's tagline, let the magic (and box office records) begin.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is a film directed by Chris Columbus. For many years, I hadn't given a damn about the Harry Potter series. But seeing the fanfare surrounded by the series, I decided to give it a try. After watching this one, I can definitely say that I am on the verge of being a fan.

Plot: Harry Potter, an orphan living with his uncle and his family is invited to Hogwarts School of Magic to become a wizard.

Story and direction: I had watched this part around the time it released but never just kept in touch since I didn't understand a word. Seeing it now as an adult and a movie lover, I just fell in love with this fictional world created. The characters, settings, story, etc.. all just feel seamless. Thanks to J K Rowling, Steve Kloves and Chris Columbus who have done justice to the source material provided to them. I feel the themes are so very relevant in this film. The intricacies of those themes are valid in the current world we do live in. This is what I just exactly want from any story presented to me. Although the film is very long, I never felt bored for a single moment. And to adapt quite a huge novel comes with responsibility and precaution, which the makers completely justified. The sets are huge and awesome. You just feel you are in Hogwarts actually. Also each characters costume is just to marvel at. John Williams once again just proves why he is the composer of the century. But I did feel some flaws to the film. Being a first film, the main plot of the film comes at around the 90th minute of the film. Also the VFX of the film felt very amateur considering some great VFX was done in the years preceding this film.

Performances: I would say that the casting of the film is just perfect. Applause for the casting team is deserved. Never do you feel that another actor should play the role. The kids, Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Tom Felon just to name a few are fantastic. These 10-11 year old just steal your heart. Also the other cast like Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, Robbie Coltrane make themselves likable.

Favorite Scene: There were many favourite scenes in this film for me. But one scene in particular was the troll scene where Harry and Ron decide to save Hermione and after the saving Hermione vouches for the boys. This is the scene where you actually happen to see the bond solidified between the 3 as friends.

Verdict: For anyone who just loves fantasy film and worlds with great visuals, this film is just for you. I assure you won't be disappointed. I plan on seeing the entire series now because I am fascinated by this world and want to see what else has it got to offer.

I am going with an 8/10.

This movie is a delight for those of all ages.

I have seen it several times and each time I am enchanted by the characters and magic.

The cast is outstanding, the special effects delightful, everything most believable.

You have young Harry, a mistreated youth who is "Just Harry" to himself. And then, he embarks on a most beautiful adventure to the Hogwarts school.

He meets Ron and Hermione, one an adorable mischief maker, the other a very tense and studious young lady.

Together, the trio try to set things right in the school.

It's the ultimate fantasy for young and old.

HARRY POTTER / (2001) *** (out of four)

Here's a method of evaluating a movie based on previously published material: ask yourself if the film makes you want to read the material from which it is based?

Before the release of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," I was one of the few remaining souls who had not read J.K. Rowling's fantasy book series. After screening the first film installment, I did want to read the book. Borrowing the novel from a family member, I briefly skimmed over the chapters. The book's intelligence and similarities with the film really surprised me.

With over 100 million copies sold in over 46 different languages, J.K. Rowling's best-selling series of books has become a worldwide phenomenon. Naturally, with soaring expectations abound, the filmmakers felt great pressure to create a faithful adaptation. They have. This film is essentially a visualization of the words in the novel, with very few differences.

That said, the film does run into a few conflicts with the book's story. The middle of the movie has nowhere to go. It's like a false second act; almost nothing of major significance occurs in this period of the film. The young characters wander from scene to scene with nothing much to do and nothing much to say. We're left with a grand display of eye-popping special effects.

"Harry Potter" certainly dazzles us with a solid beginning and an engaging final act, however. We first meet a young wizard boy named Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe). Soon after the film opens, the boy discovers he has magical powers. He's then thrust into an enchanting world of sorcery, magic, and witchcraft. He's sent to a school for young wizard children, where he meets new friends, learns about magic, and participates in fun competitions. But someone at the school doesn't like Harry, as mysterious events begin to occur. Harry soon finds himself in the middle of a diabolical scheme of revenge. Who is the culprit and what do they want with Harry?

The film asks some involving questions. Too bad it doesn't give enough depth to the side characters or subplots. We don't really care about the mystery because we don't know enough about the suspects. The movie does conclude with a twist, but it doesn't encourage another examination of the movie. It lacks a foundation altogether. The story spends so much time foreshadowing the villain's identity, it is pointless for the story to abandon its proceeding plot points and develop a new villain at the end. The book gets away with this; the movie does not.

After his gentle "Home Alone" and sweet-natured "Stepmom," many questioned the ability of director Chris Columbus to bring a sense of darkness to the story-and for good reason. "Harry Potter" contains charming, likable characters and a rich pallet of lush, inventive images. Unfortunately, the film lacks an edge. It's missing the dark atmosphere Rowling's novel so vividly brought to life. Columbus does construct some memorable sequences, but the individual scenes themselves are much better than the movie as a whole.

Despite it's childish story and pre-teen characters, many define "Harry Potter" as a film for all ages. While that's debatable, during my screening, adults were plowing through the isles every five minutes. Going to the bathroom? Getting drink refills? Buying concessions? Who knows? But not a single child budged from their seat. Their eyes were glued to the big screen.

Conclusion: It's a sure-fire experience for children, especially if they've read the books. But adults may not encounter the same enticement as kids. Then again, if I had nothing better to do than to count the people leaving the theater, why am I recommending the film?

I really liked this film, but I much prefer the book, which has a lot more magic and wonder. Daniel Radcliffe is very likable as Harry, and he is given solid support by a funny Rupert Grint and a good Emma Watson, though she was annoying at times. The scene stealer was definitely Robbie Coltrane; I actually can't imagine anyone else playing Hagrid, Coltrane was just hilarious. Alan Rickman and Maggie Smith were also great, but for me the standout was the late Richard Harris. Now I much prefer Harris's interpretation of Dumbledore. He was soft-spoken, and actually fitted the part better. Both of these qualities were lost in the interpretation that Michael Gambon gave. I am not saying that Michael Gambon was bad, he just wasn't my ideal choice for Harris's replacement. The film is fairly faithful to its source material, and looks very beautiful. However, it is a bit long, and very young children may find Voldemort too frightening. I know because I have triplet brother and sisters who saw it, and couldn't sleep for about a month after viewing. In conclusion, a very good film, well performed and quite dark. 8/10 Bethany Cox

That's it! I give up! I surrender! White flag! My friends want to see the new Harry Potter that is about to be released this summer, The Order of Phoenix, but they looked at my like I just lost my head when I told them I never saw the Harry Potter films. They just said I've seen every movie yet I never saw Harry Potter? Well, I never saw the point since I don't read the books or wasn't interested in the films, it looked like typical kid's stuff to me. But my friends said they would not take me to see the movie until I've seen the films, it's now that I realize I got myself into trouble since these movies are all 2+ hours each. I just finished the first one a couple days ago.

Harry Potter lives with an extremely cruel family, but there is something different about him, he can talk to snakes and make things appear and disappear. Well, he receives a letter, he's a wizard! Not just any wizard, he is the only wizard ever to survive the wrath of Voldemort, the most wicked wizard. Harry goes to a magical school, Hogwarts, where he learns the truth of his heroic parents and meets two other wizards, Ron and Hermione who soon become his best friends and they discover the power of the sorcerer's stone and what might happen if it's put into the wrong hands.

Harry Potter I have to admit is off to a good start with me, it had wonderful and magical effects that anyone could enjoy. The actors were just so perfectly cast, Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, John Cleese, we have some of England's most brilliant actors. It's a well made film, now I still haven't read the books, so I can't base this film on a comparison. Even if I did, this is the movie and the movie itself is a magical and enchanting experience. Well, I'm onto The Chamber of Secrets, wish me luck.

7/10

in 2001, in the film Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, began one of the best sagas of all time, based on the book of the same name by JK Rowling, the film hit full in the cast, all actors are great in their characters, Daniel Radcliffe this impeccable as Harry Potter, the resemblance is too large, Rupert Grint this great as Ron Weasley, Emma excellent Watson as Hermione Granger, Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid, Richard Harris as Dumbledore (which unfortunately from the third movie substituted series, having deceased), Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman great as Snape, Ian Hart, Tom Felton, and etc, all goods, the special effects are great, the picture is great, especially the castles, the soundtrack is very good, and full of great moments, as the final, obvious that the movie has errors, the script has some problems, and the film is very long, I think it was longer than it should, and the film is faithful to the book, even with some missing characters, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is a very good film, and marks the beginning of the saga of the Wizard in the movies. Note 8.2

Harry Potter is a beloved franchise, and the films capture the magic and the brilliance very well, some do and some don't. I won't mention about the books when I review and rate the Harry Potter films, not because I don't want to or can't be bothered to but purely on the fact I've only read the Trilogy of Books 1-3. So when reviewing these sort of things you have to be consistent with your complaints and why something is bad or poorly adapted. And I can only do that for the first three films so it wouldn't really make much sense. Regardless of this I hope you take this as a good thing and for the unfortunate ones that get to read this review enjoy. And it's only come across my mind to revisit this franchise now as there up on Netflix. With all that boring stuff out of the way let's get into this.

First off, when we're talking about original stories and how they became who they are now, Ie meaning the first film is vital. And I think it does a pretty good job of that. The Characters are well established. We get to understand Harry and sympathise with him. Which is a great start for an origin story to do these kind of things. We Know streight away that Harry's Mum and Dad have passed. I like this as an entry as we get to see abit of past history, and that's what makes Number 2 and 3 so good at establishing time. So It sets the standards of what is to come. And also the fact that he lives with his aunt and uncle, along side his cousin too. And we find out just from the first 10 minutes alone that they are abusive and make him do things that he probably doesn't want to do, let's face it. This is great because it makes his character more relatable in the sense that he is stuck in a small room and a house with horrible guadians. And as I've said previously it means we can roote for this character. As he's not paper-thin, he's already had great growth in only 10 minutes which is fantastic. As his character is layered. Dudley is precived as an arrogant person who wants anything and everything. This is great contrast from how Harry is portrayed to be. And although it may seem to be a bit of a stereotype Dudleys great character development takes it away from that. Moving on from the great character development, is now time for Hagrid to shine, or stand tall if y'k what I mean.

Hagrid,

Who is the person that invites Harry to Hogwarts in the first place. Robbie Coltrane who is a show stealer, having some fantastic scenes he carries and elevates the parts that he's in. So first of all I like the fact that we get to see Dursleys reaction to this news that he gets accepted at Hogwarts and wizardry, as he is a wizard. Although maybe he can't be! I feel like my only nitpick of this scene is how Daniel Radcliffe says it. As he isn't like surprised or anything. But then he is 11 so I don't want to sound to harsh but it is a bit of ashame. Anyhow, when he agrees to go with Hagrid. We get to see the scenes at the Wond shop, the bar too. Which are all really great scenes. And it is partly because these scenes make us question why Harry is so well Known by all these strangers. And another reason as to why it's good is the musical score which is tremendous. It really feels like your in a magical world. When they sit down for Lunch, Harry is showing signs of confusion understandably, about why he's so well known. Hagrid stutters and lies to him, this is a great scene as it makes the audience wait for what is to come next, creating Shock value. But Hagrid eventually tells us the story, the story about a dark Wizard. This is some more great storytelling. As it goes back to the past elements showcasing there just as important as them being here and now, kind of scenarios. Harry then after Lunch is left with a ticket to send him to Hogwarts, which leads me to my next point.

The Sets/Costume designs

To put it bluntly these set designs are truly amazing and are well integrated with in the story. As the story lingers on certain scenes, which is great to see as we know from the Restaurant to the shops for Wizards to the train that these are all important parts of the story for Harry and other characters growth. For example they do many things and learn many wizarding lessons at Hogwarts. Which has a really great design. The Woods where Harry who's made some Friends. One named Hermione and the other named Ron. Who all have detention with there arc Nemesis Malfoy. Harry and Malfoy go into these woods together. With the others splitting up and going into 2 groups. I like the colour and lighting the woods have. The dark colouring is truly great because it creates these impactful moments and not just that but also suspense. As unfortunately for Harry and Malfoy they see a dark figure. Who's you know who. Luckily some guy with a horse and head, some kind of mythical creature I don't remember the name, but yeah anyway he saves them. Harry to be more precise. As Malfoy runs off screaming like a little girl.

Story/Acting

Some scenes are elevated if the Acting is good. And the cast members do a fantastic job of this on the whole. There's a mystery to this story like who's guading the dogs and why are the dogs there. These raise good questions. But Ron, Harry and Hermione all being victims of there own doing by being wreckless troublemakers decide to stoop around in business that's not there's. And tell Hagrid how they think Snape is guarding something. And rightfully so as he's quite mysterious. Hagrid defends Snape brilliantly perfomed by Allen Rickman by the way, and tells the kids to stop meddling! Just like Scooby-Doo gang. However as the reckless teenagers they are they try and find out who it is. And in order of this they have to play there way out of the things that stand in there way, like the long Chess game. That's in some other Harry potter films too. This scene gets to see the kids play and fight for there lives. Harry the one that goes and finds out who is behind all this malarkey and mayhem, is not Professor Snape but Professor Squirel. This shocks the audience members, and to find out that he's Voldemort is even more of a shock.

The Music throughout the film was also great too. Way ahead of its time.

My Nitpicks,

This is a minor nitpick but it's the acting from Daniel Radcliffe who in some scenes shows no real emotion to becoming a wizard. And in other scenes he's not bad but not great. The 11yr old still showed promise though however.

The other nitpick I have is the fact that they bought in a Troll who somehow came in Unnoticed? Yeah that was strange. And how it added nothing to the plot. However despite these nitpicks it's still a great film.

Does need more magic in it though in my opinion.

Ending the review on a high though I love the Mirror scene where Harry is sitting in a room and seeing his Mum and dad. This scene brought tears to my eyes. Now time for the Verdict.

Verdict,

7/10 A wonderful start that if wasn't good there wouldn't be 7 other movies of it, truly grate.

When I knew the film was being made, I thought how could they make a film that would be up to the standard of such a perfect book. But they did! Sure they missed bits out but they captured the essence of the book brilliantly. One member of the cast was mis-cast for me but my children disagreed.I even found myself believing they were flying and not wondering "how are they doing that?" So 10 out 10 Warner Brothers. Bring on the next one!

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is the first of eight films based on the seven best selling novels by J.K. Rowling. While I certainly don't think it is one of the better films, it is the one that starts them off and crucially it does so in the right way.

The tone of the Philosopher's Stone is considerably lighter than the rest of the series. It is quite childish at times and you never really feel there is any danger. That is a problem because in some scenes you probably should feel a threat. The effects in the series overall are fantastic but in this one they are patchy. The troll, fluffy, the quidditch and Voldemort when he appears all look quite cartoonish.

The biggest success of the first HP film is the world building. So many fantasy films throw you straight into a complicated, elaborate plot and spend ages trying to explain what is going on. The result is that you never feel like you have been transported into another world. That is what Chris Columbus got right about this one. The plot here feels, for large parts, less important than introducing the world itself. The focus of the film is primarily on the wonder and magic of the world.

The sets and locations are fantastic. Hogwarts, Diagon Alley and Gringotts all look great. The costumes are also stunning and give the film a real vibrancy. The soundtrack from John Williams is iconic. The cast features some of the best British and Irish talent from the last half-century and they all give memorable performances. The kids definitely grow into their roles but I had no problem with any of them here.

Some of the later films have far more depth, character development and danger about them but they are allowed to because of the foundations laid in this one. When you see Hogwarts, the owls, etc. in the later films you automatically know it is the Harry Potter world and crucially feel a connection to it. That is the Philosopher's Stone's greatest triumph.

I know I'm probably the only one that didn't care for this film, but I thought it was plain boring. The adaptation of the book is just OK and the acting is average. Frankly it's a pity to see all the great English actors in this film totally wasted and relegated to play second fiddle. The effects are very well done, but it's such a conventional treatment of the books that I kept checking my watch a few times to see when was it going to be over. It's very curious that hardly any of the young people in the audience didn't laugh at all. This Harry Potter is very heavy handed and it should have emphasized the fun and could have used a few lighter moments.

I was greatly disappointed given the hype in the media, which I'm sure has Ms. Rowling, Mr. Columbus and the rest of the people responsible for this mess laughing all the way to the bank!