Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

"Yer a wizard, Harry." –– This is a beautiful tale about a wizard's apprentice that even after several years has not lost its original charm and atmosphere. When I watched it recently, believe me, I had the same wonderful feeling as when I first saw it. While I admit that the main trio does not exactly give Oscar-winning performances, they wonderfully make up for it with their childlike innocence – because, like the audience, they are gradually learning about this world of magic and enchantment, its many wonders, but also its dangers... I do not think I need to elaborate further in my review, because I do not believe anyone has not heard of this movie. (07/14/2008)

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)

I know that as an ordinary muggle I have no say in this, but why on earth didn't the creators conjure up a better lead? Daniel Radcliffe is awfully plankish, even though I can't expect miracles from a rookie. And I would also expect that in a project like this, some of the visual effects wouldn't be so blatantly digital. And while I'm criticising, Williams's music isn't one of the strong points either. I find Williams quite repetitive, and part of the main motif reminds me strikingly of one of the motifs in Schindler's List. On the other hand, the Quidditch scene was good and the the pawns with two swords in the chess game were cool. I also liked John Cleese’s appearances. And one more thing, I’ve made up my mind, sod cars, I’m getting a Nimbus 2000… (06/22/2003)

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)