Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

Two decades have passed and the film that started it all hasn't aged a day. It's hard to say whether Chris Columbus knew what enormous phenomenon that was undertaking, but I am incredibly grateful to him for it. Without him, I would have never gotten into movies, but most importantly, I would never have discovered the beloved subject matter of the books. And the nostalgia while watching "our new celebrities" haunted by Severus Snape is truly immeasurable. It may not the best installment, but it is truly the first. (12/18/2011)

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 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)

The beginning to a legendary series that has gained a large number of fans, just like its famous literary source. I have certain reservations about the first one, which still somewhat stays down to earth in many aspects and situations, and sometimes appears overly childish and wannabe comedic, but it successfully plays out a great magical game and the fictional world of Hogwarts is hard not to love. It’s a good start, though far from perfect. (07/29/2006)

At the beginning of the new millennium, the grand journey of one of the greatest cinematic sagas of the 21st century began, and I have a vivid memory of staring in disbelief at what it actually was, as the book version didn't come to me until several years later. Chris Columbus's first (and second) Harry Potter is still a PG-rated tale that exudes the family feel of the director's previous film Home Alone. Even years after the premiere, the unforgettable theme tune from composing titan John Williams still rings in my ears, and while some of the effects are subpar, I was still pleased with the visuals. There are a few clumsily done spots in terms of the script that were due to the adaptation of the source material, but that's something to be expected with most film adaptations. Alan Rickman is already incredibly convincing here, and the mediocre performances of the still-unseasoned trio are balanced by seasoned actors like Maggie Smith and Robbie Coltrane. One of the prime examples of what a family fantasy film should look like, and while it has its flaws, it's perfect for its age group. (06/16/2011)