User reviews

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!

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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

Many viewers of this film applaud its faithfulness to the book, however they miss that while the film includes much of the book in it (more than is necessary in fact), it lacks the central story. That is: the story of a young boy who has suddenly had his wildest dream come true, and who now must deal with his newfound celebrity, his amazing magical heritage, and most of all, day to day life at Hogwarts with his friends (and enemies). The movie is more preoccupied with populating Hogwarts with ghosts and moving staircases than it is with characters of any depth. Everyone from the book, Harry included, suffers from a serious lack of on-screen development, and as a consequence the story lurches ponderously from event to event without the throughline that stong character development would bring. I, for one, am not easily impressed by effects, no matter how impressive, especially when they are a duplicitous substitute for the real strength of a story such as this: character.

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.

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.

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

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!

I watched all Harry Potter movies when I was 7 years old. After five years I watched the movies again at 12 years old and I feel this saga a classic, well, it is a classic. I started reading the first book like one day ago. Which my mom gave to me when I was a little kid. I like Harry Potter a lot and I would watch all the saga again

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

First episode also known as ¨Harry Potter and the philosopher's stone¨ deal with Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe)and friends fighting dark forces in an amazing adventure . In this early installment of JK Rowling saga, our protagonist is freed by Rubeus from the custody of his selfish uncle (Richard Griffiths) and miserable aunt (Fiona Lewis). Harry goes his destiny at Hogwart's school , there meets our friends Ron(Rupert Grint) ,Hermione(Emma Watson) and his enemies Braco Malfoy(Tom Felton), along the dark forces which threatens Hogwart, and finally Lord Voldemor . Besides the professors as Minerva(Maggie Smith), Severus Snape(Alan Rickman), Dumbledore ( Richard Harris), Madame Hooch (Zoe Wanamaker), Quirinus (Ian Hart)and of course Rubeus(Robbie Coltrane). Here some legendary events take place , including a Quiddich match, and Harry Potter competes in confronting in series of dangerous happenings , challenging monsters as unicorn, centaur and horrible creatures and an ending spooky climatic battle .

This episode contains loads of adventures and action and is such deeply riveting and emotional as its followings , furthermore gets lots of bombastic special effects and several images have you on the edge of your seat including an amazing array of technical bizarre creatures, a breathtaking ogre ,a three-head animal , and Potter fighting creepy , scary monsters and an exciting final taking on between Harry and the Dark Lord and his henchmen . The picture displays stimulating action set pieces illuminating the full-blown adventures , blending wizardry, witchcraft, horror, humor and is extremely amusing and pretty enjoyable. Darkest even that subsequent chapters is thrilling, dramatic, touching and very exciting. Provide enough amusement to keep the chat rooms humming until the epic ending comes out . In spite of overlong runtime, it suffers from over-length, and the difficult of adapting, the film still managing to keep a quick enough pace for those unfamiliar with the literary and highly detailed work by J. K. Rowling. The motion picture is splendidly filmed with sensational production design and colorful cinematography by John Seale . Phenomenal and spectacular music by master John Williams. The movie is magnificently directed by Chris Colombus . The film is for Harry Potter saga lovers as well as neophyte who have never read J. K. Rowling novels. The follow-up titled ¨Harry Potter and the goblet of fire¨ verse pretty much the same at the first one .

I have, in all my life as a lover of both literature and the cinema, hardly ever come upon a piece of work more unimaginative, more ugly, more uninteresting, more lacking in suspense, more lacking in charm, more greedy, more incoherent... Okay, okay. I'll stop with the superlative negatives. Surely there have been worse, and, yes, off the top of my head, I can think of many that are worse. However, for a book that over 125 million people have read, and for a movie that cemented the record for the biggest opening weekend in history, and also for a book that has had not only kids but critics singing its praises, and also for a movie which one particularly fat-headed critic called the Wizard of Oz of its generation, I am more than severely disappointed. I know that, had it not been so overhyped, it would have been just as bad. Now, however, my anger for it is completely hardened and it's going to be a passionate battle for me for years to come.

I go into an in depth criticism, but it would be impossible for me to keep to 1000 words. There is hardly a piece of it that I liked. As a film, it was poorly edited, poorly acted (by most), poorly filmed. The only really memorable scene is the troll in the bathroom, although the payoff to it makes no sense whatsoever. The Quidditch game, which has been hyped to all heaven, is completely boring and poorly created. It looks like the FX guys created it with photoshop. When the chess game looked like it was about to be the most exciting sequence in the film, Christopher Columbus, who, I must say, lives up to his reputation completely, begins to edit furiously. I heard afterwards that this was done to avoid a PG-13. My immediate thought is that the filmmakers didn't trust their young audience to enjoy watching a chess game, no matter how exciting it might have been. I'm still not sure which story to buy.

But the person I really want to tear into is J.K. Rowling. What a hack. Never has the word "hack" been more fitting. A former waitress, her idea of imagination is to call things by weird names. Only in the mind of a psychopath (or idiot) could the name Draco Malfoy or a Cerberus clone named Fluffy be considered clever. Writing children's literature is not difficult, but this is simply awful. She's clearly ripping off Raoul Dahl like there's no tomorrow, especially in the exposition. The game of Quidditch, which seems to be a drawing point of some sort, is absolutely nonsensical. As a preteen, I invented much more interesting games with much less interesting playing pieces. Quidditch is a game where people score ten points at a time, unless someone catches a special type of ball, which ends the game immediately. So theoretically, the game could end in thirty seconds. And all the other forms of scoring matter not at all. And let's talk about the surprise climax. Really, anyone could have been standing in front of that mirror at the end. It is tremendously unclever. And the penultimate sequence, where the crown is awarded to the best dorm, is anticlimactic and just rude to the children of Slytherin, We only hate one of them, so why should we be happy that the award at first goes to them, and then is cruelly snatched away. And what about Hogwart, anyways? If you're not supposed to use magic when you're away from Hogwart, why the heck would you want to be a wizard anyways?

Friends, you're well on the path to making your children drooling morons. If they want a great series of books about sorcery and magic creatures, make them read the Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis. This is the most soulless garbage imaginable. And I thought Shrek had taken that title. 3/10