Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
1,585 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
...Welcome to magic world
BiiivAL5 June 2018
The breeze stirred the neatly cut bushes of Tisovaya Street, silently lying under the ink-black sky. Of all the streets in the world, this street was the least suitable for amazing events. Harry Potter turned in his sleep. A small hand groped for it and squeezed the envelope. The boy was asleep ... "(c)

June 30, 1997 in the light came the debut of the writer Joan Kathleen Rowling. Literally such words began to become great, a series about a small wizard, with a scar on his forehead. The story that absorbed the minds of adolescents around the world, as it was said in the press "... a book that can tear boys and girls away from TVs and computers, return it to the house from the street ..."

Just imagine...

"A dull, dank, dark night. In the street a storm. The little boy lies on the floor of his "room", in a small shack and draws a finger in the sand with an inscription, "Happy Birthday, Harry!". The cry of the soul, he knows that no one will congratulate him, no one will affably caress the top of his head. In a minute he will be eleven. Ten seconds ... Nine ... You can wake Dudley - just for laughing ... Three ... Two ... One ... A loud knock at the door, there's no knock, just a crash. There was someone behind the door, and he was obviously going to come in. "

I think anyone will guess what happened next. Good-natured giant Hagrid, told Harry the striking news that he is not just a boy with a scar on his forehead, but a real magician.

A short word about the actors.

Harry

What to say, there would not be Harry James Potter, there would not be the book itself. Whatever happens in the books, I was always entirely for his character. In the first part, he's just small, you can even tell a confused boy. All situations, difficult fights, intricate situations, are still ahead. Now he just scooped up this great knowledge - magic. The first real home, first friends, first classes, the first meeting with this evil, he is experiencing all this in the first part. Hermione

Hermione Jane Granger is my favorite female character in the book and film. In it, I see a part of myself. Hermione loves to learn and she pays a lot of time. Sometimes she is too arrogant and excessively proud of her success in her studies. Born of a muggle, so often heard the offensive word "Mudblood" in her address. Hermione is just a smart girl, how many times she has yet to pull friends out of difficult situations.

Ron

Ronald Bilius Weasley. Redhead. Already this word can give some characteristic. Ron is the sixth child in a wealthy family of hereditary magicians. Always the elders took on everything superior to Ron, be it study, sport, or female attention. Arriving at Hogwarts, gets to know Harry, the same situation is repeated as with the brothers, but he reconciles with his second plan. Whatever it is, he remains the best friend of Harry and Hermione.

I wanted to say that the whole trio was exactly the same as it was represented by millions of readers in the world. Actors took absolutely unknown, but this film made them real little stars.

The movie has good enough, more famous actors, the same Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, Robbie Coltrane, Julie Walters and the inimitable Richard Harris. His death was just a blow to all the fans, his Dumbledore seemed to come off the pages of the book, the same wise look from under the half-glasses, gray hair and beard, hooked nose. He inspired a kind of majestic calmness, every appearance on the screen calming. By the way, I do not consider Michael Gambon a good Dumbledore, he turned out to be some kind of crazy, but this is not on this topic. It is quite possible to write now a complete retelling of the book / movie, but you know, absolutely do not want to. Joan Rowling created an amazing, magical world, thanks to her, millions of boys and girls began to look for a scar on their foreheads and with impatience and hope to wait for their 11th birthday. And I'm certainly happy about how Chris Columbus embodied this idea on the screen, the fairy tale turned out to be absolutely childish, very bright, joyful and for some reason the word Christmas comes to mind, although there is not so much Christmas there.

Children's dream came true. Harry found his friends, his family, found loyal defenders, but he does not even suspect what he will have in the future. However, it will not be soon, but now enjoy watching!

Dedicated to: all those who are ready to go with Harry to the end.
52 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The Magic Comes To Life!
jhclues21 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.
46 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Wonderful adaptation, but missing the satire of the book
kylopod20 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.
187 out of 245 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
As good an adaption as could ever be expected
nicholas_clarke10 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!
50 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Alohomora - of the magical world...
Avinash Patalay17 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.
71 out of 96 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Valiant, successful attempt to bring the magic to life
Dickoon8 November 2001
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!
114 out of 159 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Pure Magic
seremela-130 November 2004
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.
182 out of 260 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Pure cinematic magic
scmovieguy12 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.
85 out of 117 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
It was brilliant!
DianeLFletch10 November 2001
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!
73 out of 107 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Magically Delicious
ktulu3419 November 2001
I feel, next to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is the best book-to-movie adaptation that I've ever seen. The sets were stunning - the actors were first rate - the effects were breathtaking. The film flowed quite smoothly in it's transition from page to screen, never tripping on the awkward conventions that other books on film have struggled with. The screenplay, by Steven Kloves, stripped away all unnecessary elements to get to the root of the story. Though many events from the book were excluded, the essential ones made it to the film. And it makes for one smooth story and very enjoyable movie-going experience.

Many kudos to Chris Columbus and the rest of the Harry Potter cast/crew for not turning this movie into what it easily could have become: a 2 and a half hour commercial advertisement for action figures and collectibles, kid's meals and fast food tie-ins, soft drinks and snack products, etc. and instead focused on bringing J.K. Rowling's story to life as accurately and as lovingly as it deserves. There has been much speculation on whether Columbus was the correct choice for the first two installments of the series and I say to that, Yes. I feel that he accomplished what most would have failed. He has proven, at least to me, that Diagon Alley truly exists - if only I could find the right brick to tap on. The world of Harry Potter is no longer fantasy to me, but instead a place where any of us mere Muggles could hope to visit, one day.

One of my favorite moments, is what I'm going to refer to as the Adrenaline Sequence. By Adrenaline Sequence, I mean the sequence in a movie that for all intents and purposes, doesn't necessarily propel the story, but gives the audience a huge theatrical payoff, ala the Pod Race sequence in The Phantom Menace. The Adrenaline Sequence for this particular movie is the Quidditch sequence. I was very happy to finally see the 'hockey/soccer hybrid on a broomstick' come to life. The Quidditch Sequence is, by far, my favorite sequence in the whole film. The scene is dizzying in it's violence and it's one breathless moment after another. My hat goes off to Columbus and his team for succeeding in making this scene as memorable as it should be.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is a fantastic movie for children of all ages. Fans and non-fans alike will enjoy this colorful story of good versus evil and the friendships that endure.
60 out of 91 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
It's a true adaptation, but lacks an edge like the novel. *** (out of four)
Movie-1218 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?
49 out of 82 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Expected Magic, Received C**p
Jeff Rickel19 November 2001
I have not read any Harry Potter books. Be that as it may, when the glowing reviews started to come in for this film I decided to take a look at it. I cannot comment on the translation from book to film or the quality of Rowling's books but the film of the very first novel is quite horrible. I tried to like it, but I found it excruciating to watch. It took me no where and, even worse, it really didn't have much of a plot. The thin shreds of plot were introduced 1 hour and 45 minutes into the film. The first part of the film was obviously conceived to give a background to the viewer of the Potter world. Unfortunately there was little to grip me here and I found most of it to be grossly out of place. What the heck does a game of "Quidditch" have to do with the story? It, and many other things, were just eye candy. The characters were stale and seemed like rejects from a Roald Dahl story (see James and the Giant Peach). I'm flabbergasted that such a piece of junk has attracted so many adamant fans. No wonder kids don't know how to read or write very well anymore. No wonder Britney Spears and N'Sync are so possible. The piece of trash that is Harry Potter explains it all - the current generation will cling to anything as long as they don't have to think for themselves. 'Tis a pity.
21 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
An effects-laden excuse of an adaptation
shortfatsteve10 December 2001
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.
15 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Awful
SKYE312522 November 2002
This film is simply awful, the acting is a joke. Being a fan of the book I decided to buy the DVD without seeing at the cinema or renting it before, but I was extremely dissapointed. Daniel Radcliff's acting is terrible, in my honest opinion he was only hired because he looks like the illustrations of Harry Potter and he is definatly what I had pictured in my mind but his acting makes a mockery out of the film and turns it into a spoof of the book, instead of bringing it to life. I definatly won't be rushing to the shops to get the second film too soon.
17 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I you haven't a trace of magic in you, you'll love this...
WeHaveSixFeet8 December 2001
It's a movie made for people who think that magic is cute and fun. If you're a fantasy fan like I am, and believe in magic (in a fictional sense) then you may very well detest this movie, as I did. Magic comes easily to little Harry Potter, who has no personality to speak of except that he is occasionally sad that he never met his mum and dad. Years of abuse and neglect have left not a mark on him, so when he gets invited to Hogwarts Academy of Magic, he has nowhere for his character to go. There he flies around on his broomstick and gets to be a big hero quite by accident without ever confronting any serious obstacles or anything resembling a plot. In all this, the film is an excellent adaptation of the book, which also thought that magic is cutesy wootesy.
17 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A sad excuse for a children's movie.
chadgeri11 January 2002
Lacking any real magic, Harry Potter was a lifeless film, composed of a plotless story and forgettable performances. While watching the Neverending Story last night, a true children's classic, it really hit me how wonderful a movie Harry Potter could have been if only they'd been willing to deviate from the book for a second.

I give this long, convoluted mess 1 out of 10.
12 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Utter rubbish
TomParr29 November 2002
This film was to put it simply rubbish. The child actors couldn't act, as can be seen by Harry's supposed surprise on learning he's a wizard. "I'm a wizard!" is said with such indifference you'd think he's not surprised at all. I've never read the books and this film did nothing to make me want to read them. The only spell this cast over me was one to get me out of the room as quickly as possible every time I have seen this on after my first viewing of it in the cinema. If you want to see a decent book made film watch Lord of the Rings or possibly the sequel to this which I thought was actually good. 1/10
17 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
~*-The Magical Journey Begins-*~
Aura V2 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
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.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Not all it could have been
ginger1989031026 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
What i really do not get is why so many people like this film? Having read the book first i truly fund it awful. I completely understand that bits have to be cut for time but why add in scenes that add nothing (why was there no peeves?). Also Daniel Radcliffes acting is just awful. The scene where he is told that he is a wizard makes me want to cry. Also the character of run could have had some more insightful lines than "bloody hell". I really was expecting this to be great knowing how good the book was but the film let me underwhlemed. Some character also completely miss the mark. Draco malfoy is way over done, instead of being snidely nasty but in this comes across as pantomime bad. The only upshot of the film is Alan Rickman's Snape is spot on, Robbie coltrane just about makes a reasonable Hagrid but Emma Watson's Hermione is surprisingly good and upstages the other two so much that it makes some timid scenes almost seem watchable.

In summary the book could have made a great Oscar wining film but Chris Columbus has failed and has succeeded in making a timid adventure movie with poor acting
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Utter Mince!
Stuart Faulds6 December 2001
So, £85 million well spent? I guess since they've already made more than double that back, then from a financial point of view - Yes! But as a film....

Frankly I would rather remove one of my own limbs with a blunt hacksaw, then eat it raw before I watched this again. 2.5 hours of some of the most boring drivel, bad acting, weak special effects and irritating children you could hope to come across. The sooner these "Child Stars" descend into a drug and sodomy filled adolescence the better for all concerned.

Yes I have read the books, and yes, I enjoyed them, but this is still one of the dullest films I've ever encountered. Sticking to the original story is one thing, but when the audience are left praying for the last 5 chapters to be cut, something's gone wrong.

Back to my original point - where did the £85 million go? The Quidditch match was about on a par with King Kong for realism, and using Fungus the Bogeyman for the Troll was a masterpiece of imagination-free modelling. Perhaps all the money went on getting the magic tricks to look right? Or maybe not. How much effort does it take to have some brat wave his wand, the camera cuts away, comedy explosion sound effect, then camera cuts back to child with spiky hair and blackened face? Pure genius! They really have pushed back the boundaries of comedy here.

All in all I feel cheated out of 2.5 hours of my life, and I strongly recommend that you don't fall into the same trap. If you have 2.5 hours that you really want rid of, then I'd suggest spending it slowly rubbing sandpaper over your eyeballs - it's cheaper, and more pleasant on the senses.
20 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Cure for Insomnia
Darth Farter19 December 2001
2 1/2 hours of Boredom. Half the audience fell asleep, including most of the kiddies. Beautiful to look at, but that does not make for a interesting film. Rather spend your money on Lord of the Rings.
18 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
corny
pseawrig30 November 2001
This movie was so corny and unimaginative, a real Chris Colombus piece of hack work. The great cast saves the film from being utter dreck, but otherwise this is pretty dim, formulaic movie-making. Compare it to its announced competition, movies like The Wizard of Oz, Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, The Never Ending Story, or even more recent fare like The Secret Garden or Photographing Fairies. C'mon, you've got to admit this flick is mediocre at best. Stop lapping up the hype and buying into every stupid trend they throw at you. Discriminate a little.
18 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone - The worst movie I've ever seen
thmscpl24 January 2008
In 2001, the Harry Potter posters were everywhere in Hong Kong. I decided to go to the movie. However, I was very disappointed. I did not understand what the movie is about until I read the book. I think J. K. Rowling did a good job in writing the story but the movie makes no sense at all. All the plots are not linked up. The characters are bad. Daniel Radcliffe is a very bad actor. Many other better actors could be chosen. I think he was chosen just because he looks like the Harry Potter on the front cover of the book. The costumes are bad. The special effects are bad. The entire movie is not bad but very very very bad.

If you want to learn about the Harry Potter stories, go straight ahead to the book, but definitely not the movie.
14 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
For Kids Only, Unfortunately
skiley27 November 2001
Warning: Spoilers
***SLIGHT SPOILERS*** As an adult, it didn't appeal to me in the least. The effects were poorly done, the giant plot leap in the middle ("lots of strange things are happening-- hey, I know! it's definitely because the creepy teacher guy wants the thing under the trap door under the three-headed dog") threw me completely out of the story. It's really a kids only movie, which disappointed me, because I'd been hearing such good things about it. And then at the end, Harry is sent back to his abusive adoptive parents. So much for changing one's situation.

And I know that they had to cut tremendous amounts of story in order to make it only 2 1/2 hours long (which was still way too long for this movie). After waiting in line outside the theater with tickets bought a week ahead of time, I must say I was truly disappointed. I'm even more saddened by the commercial success and the lunacy of die hard Harry Potter fans which will keep this sad and poorly-written movie in theaters much longer than it needs to be.

Some books should remain books.
14 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
My Revenge for the Non Fans!!
Stephen17 November 2001
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, as it is called everywhere else besides the US, and I'd like to know why, is no more than a 5th rate failure at best. Now I know I'm probably enraging every single person who has read the novel, however this movie is not the novel. Book and Film are two totally different mediums. Something that works in a novel, wont decessarily work on the big screen. Harry Potter is the greatest example of that.

Colombus decided to change very, very little in his adaptation of the novel, which is the movie's greatest fault. An author has the luxury to spend pages and pages describing a certain image in a story; a film does not have that kind of luxury. The movie was terribly boring due to the fact that Colombus tried to pace the movie the same way as the book. That is an impossible feat. The movie is not meant to be some companion to the novel. If that was the truth, then the 7 billion people who havent read the novel wouldnt even bother showing up to watch. A movie is supposed to have a broad audience in order to make money, if Colombus feels that he is only making the movie to please Potter fans, then AOL Time Warner will have a huge failure on their hands. I've never read the book, and some may say that that is the reason why I didnt enjoy the movie. But again, I went to see a movie, not read a book. The Godfather is not a classic because it stayed true to Puzo's novel. It is a classic because Coppola knew what elements would need to be changed in order to make the book filmable. Colombus doesnt have a clue.

The only thing good about Harry Potter was the cinematography. Most of the film looked brilliant, especially Hogwarts itself. Yet, a visually pleasing film does not make the film suddenly good. It doesnt even come close. The effects are just a testament to the fact that Colombus got his priorities way wrong when he filmed this boring, plodding paced movie. I voted it a one, I was feeling generous.
14 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed