Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

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

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

The beginning to a legendary series that has gained a large number of fans, just like its famous literary source. I have certain reservations about the first one, which still somewhat stays down to earth in many aspects and situations, and sometimes appears overly childish and wannabe comedic, but it successfully plays out a great magical game and the fictional world of Hogwarts is hard not to love. It’s a good start, though far from perfect. (28/07/2006)

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

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