Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) User Reviews

There's nothing like the first

[HotToastyRag · 10/10 · 17 June 2019]

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.

The major start of all the magic!

[Keyan-the-Eagle144 · 8/10 · 23 March 2018]

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!

Better Than Anticipated

[Hollywood_Yoda · 8/10 · 14 August 2016]

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.

The Magic Comes To Life!

[jhclues · 10/10 · 21 November 2001]

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.

Epic film

[stormhawk2021 · 8/10 · 25 May 2017]

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.

Alohomora - of the magical world...

[AvinashPatalay · 17 December 2004]

I watched this movie first time when I was left with no choice. My expectations were extremely low as I always wondered if Harry Potter books were over-hyped. How-ever after watching the movie it did make me a Harry Potter movie fan. And needless to say - this continues to remain my favourite of HP series. That brings to a point here.... the effect of expectations over a movie. True, expectations reduce joy.

Without going into the story I would certainly say Chris Columbus churns out a perfect pot-pourri of emotions, suspense and magic, delivering something appealing to all ages.

Every character brought to life on screen has done justice and leave an impression on you. Particularly notable performances by Emma Watson and Alan Rickman.

CGI are in plenty and made good of. The Quedditch game is picturised amazingly. The wizard's chess is treat to eyes.

Let's hope that the forthcoming HP series carries the similar magical touch.

Great fun!

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 21 April 2009]

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

the beginning of one of the beloved saga the world.

[miguelneto-74936 · 8/10 · 17 September 2016]

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

Wonderful adaptation, but missing the satire of the book

[kylopod · 7/10 · 20 November 2001]

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.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone Review

[AnishMisra · 8/10 · 4 July 2018]

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.

~*-The Magical Journey Begins-*~

[aura772 · 10/10 · 2 January 2007]

When I first saw this movie I was ten years old, the same age the characters where supposed to be. My older cousin and her boyfriend took me to the Mall to watch a movie. Back then I wasn't going very often to the cinema, due to the fact that my parents didn't have time and I wasn't old enough to go alone to any theater. The movie captivated my attention like nothing before and I became so interested in anything that had to do with this movie, and I heard that it was made after a book. I didn't had Internet back then, but I found the first book at a library and convinced my mother to buy it. That's how I became obsessed with reading and writing.

I may say, "Harry Potter" affected me in a positive way, because after I finished reading all the published books back then, I wanted to read more books and I must thank J.K.Rowling for her genius, if it wasn't for her books, I might have been right now an average seventeen year old, at some party, drinking my brains out. This movie got me to the right path in life.

I know, you probably don't care about my story, you readers only want to hear about what I thought of the movie, but I believe my story can influence you if you are a parent and thinking whether or not you should let your children watch this film. My advice is yes and I have presented my reason above.

The story is simply magical and "Hogwarts" is a genius invention. The movie is done well, almost perfect. It's the closest to the book they can get and it's an amazing experience for any kid.

With spectacular visuals, likeable characters, and a sense of magic and wonder, The Sorcerer's Stone is still a good first entry after 20 years

[gavin-thelordofthefu-48-460297 · 8/10 · 18 November 2021]

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! :)

Gem of a children's film and a fine adaptation of the Rowling novel

[Leofwine_draca · 7/10 · 3 August 2016]

Over-hyped but still enjoyable "event" movie, one of the biggest of 2001 until LORD OF THE RINGS comes out, and a film in which every million of the budget is put up on screen in the special effects. What I found most refreshing about this blockbuster is that the entire cast is made up of British actors and actresses! It makes a change for an expensive blockbuster movie to be thus but there you go, HARRY POTTER is indeed a unique movie. Now I'm not one of those people with lots of time on their hands to read the never-ending Harry Potter books (too busy watching cult movies I'm afraid), but the film has turned out pretty much as I would have expected from the adverts. Although it's overly sentimental (blame it on director Chris Columbus) and aimed at children, adults can still enjoy it for the excellent pacing (rarely does the two-and-a-half hour running time drag) and the plethora of special - and some not so special - effects on view throughout.

Highlights include an attack in the school's toilets by a huge, lumbering troll, a life size game of chess in which the pieces come to life to destroy each other, a cloak of invisibility, a man with two faces on opposite sides of his head, and the finale which includes a scene of a man disintegrating into dust as a homage to Hammer's Dracula and is just as impressive. The CGI effects are elaborate and generally flawless, and the only ones I didn't care for were the "broomstick flying" shots in the quidditch game which still ended up looking a little too fake for my liking, which is a shame as they're used excessively. Otherwise the effects work is phenomenal and something to be seen.

Daniel Radcliffe takes on the rather subdued role of Potter, and is overshadowed by two excellent performances from Rupert Grint as the lovably cheeky Ron and Emma Watson as the bossy Hermione. The supporting cast are generally excellent, with fine turns from Richard Harris as Headmaster Dumbledore, Robbie Coltrane as the giant Hagrid (whose weight bizarrely fluctuates throughout the movie), John Cleese - briefly - as an unsuccessful ghost, Nearly Headless Nick, John Hurt as a wand dealer, Richard Griffiths as Harry's unpleasant uncle, and most of all Alan Rickman with a sinisterly villainous performance of Gothic dread - nobody can be a bad guy like Rickman can. Cameos from the likes of Julie Walters, Fiona Shaw, Zoe Wanamaker, and even Warwick Davis (which surely had to be a step up from LEPRECHAUN 5 or whatever his last film was) as a goblin are endless and a delight.

HARRY POTTER AND THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE may be a kid's film, but there's enough going on here to make it an enjoyable viewing experience for adults who plan to watch the film with their kids as well. Lots of plot, interesting and original characters, refreshingly old-fashioned moral codes, some fine sets which skilfully mix old and new-style worlds, an effective score, special effects which seamlessly blend in with the story and above average acting help to make this a gem of a movie and a cut above the rest.

Pure cinematic magic

[scmovieguy · 12 November 2001]

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.

It's a true adaptation, but lacks an edge like the novel. *** (out of four)

[Movie-12 · 7/10 · 18 December 2001]

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?

A decent start of the series but also clearly one of the lesser Harry Potter movies.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 7/10 · 6 June 2008]

No, I'm not a big Harry Potter fan and probably never will be but I can appreciate the qualities of the movies. Definitely for a children movie this movie is of course of very high class, with fabulous looking sets, a whole load of well known British actors and an highly experienced crew involved.

The movie forms a nice first set up for the future series of Harry Potter movies. Still I'm glad the movies and its characters have matured a lot since this movie. Probably also has to do with the fact that this movie and the second were directed by Chris Columbus who is an experienced children movie director, while the other Harry Potter movies were directed by more 'serious' directors. Yes, it makes this movie a good children's movie to watch but also sort of makes this movie look and feel more outdated than any of the other Harry Potter movies, which also goes at the expense of its re-watchable value.

Nevertheless, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" remains good quality- and fun film. It knows to create an entire new world of its own with lots of often strange characters in it.

The movie is of course a set up and the first establishment of a long running series of movies. This means that the movie consists for a big part out of character introductions. Yes, this results in the fact that there are a bit too many characters in the movie, also since some of them don't even seem to serve a purpose at all for the story but this got resolved in the later movies, by simply leaving out some characters but by introducing many new ones as well. So its sort of problem solving with another problem.

Also a bit of a shame that the movie is lacking a real central villain. Professor Snape is treated as a villain, even though we learn by the end of the movie that he's not such a bad guy after all. The real main villain if the movie is of course Voldemort but he gets mostly only mentioned by name and basically doesn't do an awful lot in the movie and only sort of shows up in the very end of the movie. Not the way to treat a villain in my opinion, even though its of course clear from this movie on that he is going to play a much bigger and more important role in the future Harry Potter movies. I however in a case like this feel that they should had putted in a new and different villain besides Voldemort, since this movie is definitely lacking a sense of danger, excitement and action, even though the movie never bores, despite its quite long running time (for a children's movie anyway.).

The movie its quality is also surely being uplifted by its presence of well known and respected actors, such as Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane and Alan Rickman among many others. Each of them are giving fine performances but it are mostly Harris and Rickman that catch the eye with their performances. The child actors are also managing fine, although its definitely and luckily true that their acting improved throughout during the later movies.

The movie is great looking and knows to create a magic new world, with its set, costumes and make-up. It's not hard to see that this was a costly movie to make. The special effects are also mostly fine, though not really during the game of quidditch, or any other 'flying' sequence for that matter. The movie gets also greatly supported by the musical score from John Williams. Sort of a waste for the series that Williams only scored the music for the first 3 movies.

A good and fun enough start of the series, though luckily the movies improved more over the years.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Entertaining

[gbill-74877 · 8/10 · 27 January 2022]

Not a perfect story, but a lovely introduction into these characters and J. K. Rowling's magical world of wizards. Lots of great bits here, like the sorting hat, invisibility cloak, troll encounter, and quidditch match (even if the rules for this game are absurd). The casting is excellent, including the principal three (Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint) and the teachers at Hogwarts (Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, and Richard Harris). The film was a little too long and had scenes that seemed a little disconnected, leading to a rather brief, anticlimactic ending, but overall there's a reason the franchise was so popular, and this got it off the ground in good form.

What a Brilliantly Fun Way to Begin a Monumental Franchise

[ThomasDrufke · 8/10 · 26 October 2016]

If for nothing else, the Harry Potter films always find a way to give me a great sense of nostalgia. I, like many others, grew up with this franchise. In many ways, this was our generation's Star Wars. It was the 2000's pop culture phenomena. I'm happy to say that the first film, The Sorcerer's Stone, still undoubtedly holds up.

I feel like I should first mention just how impressive it is that Warner Bros and their casting directors found the perfect Harry, Ron, and Hermione. Yes, the rest of the film is also impeccably casted with Maggie Smith, Richard Harris, Robbie Coltrane, and Tom Felton just to mention a few, but it's the core three characters that carry this franchise. Watching the three of them play off each other so effectively at such a young age is truly awe-inspiring.

Granted, heroes are only as good as their villains, and luckily they have a great one in Lord Voldemort. Even though in Sorcerer's Stone it's hard to really call him in the big-bad, considering he's not resurrected yet, but his presence is definitely felt. With that said, I wish they would have involved Professor Quirrell more in the main plot. He's a sketchy guy, but you never get a real sense that he's working to resurrect Voldemort. In fact, he's barely in the movie, so his presence towards the end is unexpected, but I didn't feel like it was earned.

But the mishandling of the villain doesn't diminish the tremendous amount of fun The Sorcerer's Stone brings to the young franchise. Chris Columbus does a nice job of setting up all the relationships and characters we will come to love later like Hagrid, Dumbledore, and even Snape. This is clearly focused on the trio, but they each get a chance to chew up some scenery with the young wizards. Everything from a clumsy giant, the dark forest, a game of quidditch, to an important game of chess make The Sorcerer's Stone one of the most memorable entries into the Potter franchise.

+The trio are effortlessly cute and entertaining

+Pacing

+All the beloved characters sprinkled in

+Balances a bunch of genres in one

-Villain reveal is iffy

8.4/10

The reason i love movies!

[jonflottorp · 8/10 · 23 June 2022]

Harry Potter is a magical and fun movie.

Great movie for the whole family, kids will love it and adults will probably also like it.

The Harry Potter franchise is the reason i love movies and i love all of them because of that.

The characters are great and memorable, i can name every character in the whole franchise and most of the people who is playing them.

The story is great and i think JK Rowling did a great job writing it.

The acting is good and i think Daniel Radcliffe did a great job as Harry. The rest of the cast was great too.

It's long so the middle part of the movie was a bit slow, but it's okay.

Overall Harry Potter and the sorcerer's Stine is a great movie for all ages.

This movie set in stone, what would be the foundation of the Harry Potter film franchise. It kinda work.

[ironhorse_iv · 7/10 · 16 July 2014]

It's seem like just yesterday, when the movie about the boy whom lived, was about to come out. People were wondering if the Harry Potter's books by J.K Rowling could easily be translated into the big screen. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone AKA Sorcerer's Stone directed by Chris Columbus, indeed show that it was somewhat possible. The story follows Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe)'s first year at Hogwarts School of Wizardry as he discovers his gift and destiny against the dark forces of magic. The movie like the other films are cut into two plots directions. One is about student life at Hogwarts during the school-year, while the other half is about the mystery that Harry Potter must uncovered that year. It works well as a long read novel, but in movie form: its means a long sit through. The movie pacing is so long. It takes forever to get to the main plot of Harry Potter finding the Philosopher Stone. There are is a lot of filler scenes that could be cut away. I dislike how the Philosopher Stone is one-time movie McGuffin. For the best of my knowledge, the Philosopher stone plays no factor after this movie, and never mention again after this film. The third act, mostly comes out of nowhere. The twist toward the end, was pretty predictable, if you readt the books, but pretty interesting. Another thing about the movie is how non-logical the movie is. It really baffled me, how much exposition, it needed. Even an hour in the film, there were a lot of random odd things happening without much explaining. It gets more confusing as long bits of the book, like the Centaur showing in the woods, were shorten in the film. It gets worst for the centaur, as he wouldn't play a factor, in any of the later films, despite, saving Harry Potter from Voldermort. Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) was also cut short. Her riddle solving in the book was cut from the film. Several minor characters have been removed from the film version, as well. Despite those, the movie is really close to the novel. In my opinion, don't bother, trying to understand the logic of all the wizard terms, because it will take you out of the fantasy movie, and give you a headache. Still, there were some really dumb things to nitpick here like why would Professor Dumbledore (Richard Harris), even allow Harry Potter to stay with the Dursley's family when he knows that they're horrible people. Honestly, the Dursleys could had killed Harry Potter with the childhood neglect! What was he thinking? Harry Potter could had commit suicide, or gone crazy like Lord Voldermort! What an idiot! The whole movie is about children being danger all the time. I don't care if they're wizards in training, I'm surprise that the death tolls of students dying isn't as high as it should be. The school staff is questionable at times. A good example of this stupidity, is punishing students whom went out at nights, by sending them out at nights in the dark forest, where they can get attacked by creatures. The most insulting thing in logic is the black/white one-dimensional view of good Vs evil. Honestly, how on earth is the members of Slytherin never got expulsion for all the bullies that it has? You would think, that at less, there would be one good person in Slytherin. Another thing that bugs me is the whole the power of love conquer all. I think, children are a lot smarter than the childish message, the film is trying to pull. The acting in the movie is pretty bland, for the most part. After all, most of the child actors had this film as their first roles. I wouldn't say that Harry Potter's film series, have the most entertaining of dialogues, anyways. The wooden delivery, felt like a read-through. Most of what they're saying are stating the obvious or repeating what happening on screen. It's so annoying. The other actors were master British thespians, who seem to over-act at times. A good example of this is John Hurt & Alan Rickman. It was too hammy for already over the top world. The action scenes were pretty well-done. My favorite had to be the Quidditch match and the whole chess game. I can do, without the whole troll scene. The CGI troll hasn't aged well. Visually, the movie is beautiful to look at. I love the special effects, locations & set, and costume, they did. It really made the Harry Potter world, stand out. The music by John Williams is amazing to listen to. I think director Chris Columbus was indeed the best choice for this first movie, as he got the magically part, right and how to make a family picture. You even see, how much things, he establish that other directors would reused time after time. Still, I really hope for Terry Gilliam like J.K Rowling's first choice to be the direction. The movie has great social commentary themes like the metaphor of racism, ethnic cleansing and why Nazism is bad. You can also see possible influences from other words, that made Harry Potter work. There was a few controversial moments leading up to the film, like religious debates. A few religious groups claim that Harry Potter contain occult or Satanic subtexts that isn't good for children. Another one is the use of the word, sorcerer over the word philosopher in the title. US & British have different meanings to the words, plus marketing though, it would better to call it sorcerer as that word get more appeal. Due to this different, all scenes that mention the philosopher's stone by name had to be reshot, once with the actors saying "philosopher's" and once with "sorcerer's". Overall: The movie might has its flaws, but majority, a great first watch for any fantasy fan.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

[JoBloTheMovieCritic · 10/10 · 31 August 2019]

10/10 - an unforgettable start to a fantastic film series and the career of the impeccable Emma Watson (and the other kids)

As good an adaption as could ever be expected

[nicholas_clarke · 10 November 2001]

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!

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 7/10 · 1 July 2007]

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

A GREAT START OF A FRANCHISE

[jeromesgabilo · 6/10 · 27 September 2022]

It was amazing to watch how a huge movie franchise started with this one. It showed a basis for the entire Harry Potter timeline. The visual effects were very great for this film. It was on-point and did not feel amateurish. Unfortunately for me, everything else was a bit stale and unexciting. I was in doubt of whether it really maximized its runtime. There were, in some parts, too many scenes which the characters were doing a lot of dialogues. The production design and costumes were excellent aspects of the film, too. But for me a lot of dark cinematography was utilized, instead of a more lively kind of production.

Good Start to the Series

[Michael_Elliott · 5 March 2016]

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

*** (out of 4)

Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is taken away from his obnoxious and abusive aunt and uncle and taken to the Hogwarts Academy where he's going to learn to become a wizard. He becomes friends with Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson). It doesn't take long for Potter to learn about his past as well as what's expected of him in the future.

I'm going to be really honest and admit that I've never read a single line of any of the novels and in all honesty I never really paid too much attention to what they were even about. I'm watching this first film on March 15, 2016 so that's nearly fifteen years since this was released so obviously you can't say I'm a fan of anything involving the characters. I really wasn't sure what to expect going into the movie but by the time the end credits started there's no doubt that I was left entertained.

I thought for the most part this was a pretty entertaining film and I think everyone got it right in regards to the casting. I mean the three leads are all extremely good for their roles and I thought all of them managed to help carry the film. Radcliffe was certainly believable in the role of this master wizard and I thought both Grint and Watson added a lot of charm. Then you've got the likes of John Cleese, Alan Rickman, John Hurt, Maggie Smith and Richard Harris.

I'm not normally a fan of CGI heavy movies but I thought it was perfectly used here and never really took away from the story. Instead of taking away from the story it actually did a very good job at adding to this alternative universe and the various magic that is to be found in it. Technically speaking the film was certainly well made with a ripping score, great effects as well as fine editing and cinematography. If I had to say anything negative about the picture it would be the incredibly long running time.