Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

I read the “Harry Potter" books six years ago - half of them in hospital, the other at home. I liked them, I devoured most of them almost in one breath, but I have - unintentionally - avoided the films to this day. It's hard to say why, actually. At the same time, the film version of The Philosopher's Stone has the same impact on me today as the book did years ago. It's still that sweet, mostly children's story that introduces the magical world, introduces the most important characters, entertains and thrills. If I'm not mistaken, everything important was left in and the filmmakers didn't screw anything up, which is a small miracle. I liked John Williams' music, Columbus' direction didn't offer anything memorable but didn't ruin anything either, the special effects could have been less blatantly digital, but what can you do. The greatest aces of the film are the child actors. Not only did they manage to pick them accurately, but they also know how to act - and how! Especially Emma Watson, who throws great disgusted looks and made me laugh more than once. I don't even need to mention the magnificent adult cast - it's not a plethora of stars, it's a starry sky. (09/06/2015)

Very nice in parts (especially the visuals of Hogwarts and, of course, the iconic central melody) and presented in an effective family package, but too sprawling and chatty, and it doesn't portray the characters (except for the final thirty minutes) or the plot in the way the relatively short book does. I like this film, but it’s pretty weak compared to some of the sequels. (10/14/2012)

You either love Harry Potter or you don't understand why everyone around you loves him so much. I'm one of the former. I think I'm from the generation that enjoyed watching it the most. I was young enough to be enchanted by all the magic and old enough to understand it. I grew up with Harry and the individual installments always fit my age just right. And so, to this day, The Sorcerer's Stone is an all-time favorite of mine, and a story that brings out the little kid in me who firmly believes that Hogwarts exists :) (10/28/2010)

A slavish, unimaginative, and routine adaptation that has the ungrateful task of drowning the whole first half in slavish, unimaginative (what a pity given its magical nature) and merely routine introductions of the characters and their world. There's not much to criticize, but it's also completely without invention ideas of its own. Which is true of most of Columbus' movies. There is not one originally filmed scene, not a single interesting camera angle; simply nothing. It's as if a robot made the movie, page by page. And the extended version is worse because the extra scenes are not only completely unnecessary, but are as mundane as everything else. The casting of the child actors is quite successful but the acting is not great; yet it is slowly getting better with each episode. The adult “back-up" cast is invariably great. (11/21/2010)

Ummm… I was forced by circumstance to see it. Yes, it's visually perfect, but for God's sake, I don't understand what that the guy with glasses was doing. It was too serious for a fairy tale, too infantile for fantasy, not funny enough for a comedy, and not adventurous enough for an adventure film. Columbus reminds me of a craftsman who didn't want (couldn't) smuggle any of his own ideas into the story. A perfectly done commercial product, nothing more. The fault is probably in me, Harry Potter made me very bored even after I read a few pages. We were not meant for each other, and Rowling is never going to be poor... And neither am I, so why worry? (01/25/2004)